Why Evolution is True

[createdtoworship]

You have no idea what you are talking about. Common ancestry is determined using the very same methods that are accepted in court to determine human ancestry. Are you ready to throw those out?

ok give me your evidence for these methods? or are you just hopefull? layout your argument.

 

[CabVet]

at least I through out lucy as a possibility
to date you have given no links, no sources, no observations, and no conclusive evidence. should I proceed?

Why should she? For you to ignore? What evidence would make you change your mind?

 

[PsychoSarah]

ok give me your evidence for these methods? or are you just hopefull? layout your argument.

DNA analysis

 

[CabVet]

ok give me your evidence for these methods? or are you just hopefull? layout your argument.

It's called DNA. Same methods used in paternity tests. Good summary here, but feel free to ignore.

 

[Dizredux]

Dizredux

No you are wrong. Macroevolution is *at* or above speciation. If you have speciation, you have macroevolution.

Grady

I believe you are in fact the one mistaken here:

as the generic sites usually will say "at or above the level of species," but the more technical sites like UC Berkley say "above the level of species".

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosit...finition.shtml "Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level" (link works half the time)

You are trying to quote mine. The actual quote is

Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level. So instead of focusing on an individual beetle species, a macroevolutionary lens might require that we zoom out on the tree of life, to assess the diversity of the entire beetle clade and its position on the tree.

Here macroevolution is not referring to an individual species but broader (above species level).

Now back to the Berkley site I quoted:

Microevolution happens on a small scale (within a single population), while macroevolution happens on a scale that transcends the boundaries of a single species.

That means that once you go past a single population (species) you are into macroevolution. Evolution at different scales: micro to macro

You chose to ignore this.

Again I repeat the Wiki article

Macroevolution is evolution on a scale of separated gene pools. Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution, which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population. Contrary to claims by creationists, macro and microevolution describe fundamentally identical processes on different time scales.

Macroevolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You also chose to ignore this one.

You then presented

also indiana university:

http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/pap.macroevolution.pdf

From that site:

Macroevolution : Change above the species level NABT 2006 Evolution Symposium

Introduction

The basic concept of evolution "change over time“ can be examined in two different time frames. The first, which considers the time period covering a few generations for a population, is microevolution.

As most can see microevolution is referring to a single population.

Next you went to this:

national evolution sythesis center:

https://www.nescent.org/media/NABT/

From the site:

2006 Annual Meeting of the National Association of Biology Teachers -- Albuquerque, NM This year's theme: "Macroevolution: Evolution above the Species Level"

If you read the page you would see that this just does not discuss macro or micro evolution at but was just an announcement of a symposium titled Macroevolution: Evolution above the species level" with no discussion of the topic.

What all this says is that microevolution concerns the changes in a population (species) and macroevolution concerns evolution above the level of a single species. In other words, once you have speciation you have more than one population and therefore have macroevolution.

want more?

More? I would like to see even one supporting your stance. So far you have not presented any.

I said that I was not going to respond to you for a while but this was just a bit too blatant.


Dizredux

 

[createdtoworship]

Dizredux

Grady You are trying to quote mine. The actual quote is Here macroevolution is not referring to an individual species but broader (above species level).

Now back to the Berkley site I quoted: That means that once you go past a single population (species) you are into macroevolution. Evolution at different scales: micro to macro

You chose to ignore this.

Again I repeat the Wiki article Macroevolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You also chose to ignore this one.

You then presented From that site: As most can see microevolution is referring to a single population.

Next you went to this:From the site: If you read the page you would see that this just does not discuss macro or micro evolution at but was just an announcement of a symposium titled Macroevolution: Evolution above the species level" with no discussion of the topic.

What all this says is that microevolution concerns the changes in a population (species) and macroevolution concerns evolution above the level of a single species. In other words, once you have speciation you have more than one population and therefore have macroevolution.


More? I would like to see even one supporting your stance. So far you have not presented any.

I said that I was not going to respond to you for a while but this was just a bit too blatant.


Dizredux

honestly I believe everything you just stated supports my view and not yours. However I assume you mean macroevolution to be not on the genus level, is that what you are stating. I only had time to look at berkleys site, but from the two quotes you submitted it definitely supports the fact that "level" in my definition refers to taxa. (but again I couldn't see all the berkley sites in my browser). I will look at the rest of your post later.

it is later:

I found this etymology of macroevolution that supports the "level as taxa" theory that I hold.

"The term macroevolution was introduced by Iurii Filipchenko, a Russian geneticist and developmental biologist and mentor of Theodosius Dobzhansky. Filipchenko distinguished between Mendelian inheritance within species and non-Mendelian, cytoplasmic inheritance responsible for the formation of taxa above the species level."

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1525-142x.2000.00045.x/full

now I didn't read the whole thing but with the introduction of non taxa related heirarchies I adhere to the original definition of macroevolution. Again, you can argue your case but you would have to prove not that macro evolution is speciation, but that macro evolution excludes evolution out of or into another genus from a separate one.

secondly, punctuated equilibrium suggests that speciation occured very rapidly, and as such one group of mammal would thus become another group of mammal. Ape to human, whale to doglike creature, or bird to dinasaur. You would have to encorporate your definition to include all these higher taxa units.

 

[stevevw]

How much of the human and chimp genome is made up of genes from nematodes? You are talking about a tiny, tiny fraction of the genome, and they are easily detected. This is no different than E RV's which can easily be used to CONFIRM the tree-like pattern.

I am not a geneticist but I dont think its just about nematodes. Besides aren't they a worm type thing and humans share 75% of their DNA with them.
But I found this article which claims that ERV's may not have been inserted bt retroviruses.
In summary, a very strong case can be made pointing to the view that ERVs were not inserted by retroviruses. They have function, should have been ridden by apoptosis, are different than their ancestral genomes, and it is incredible that the organisms did not die after being infected with so many viral genes. With so many problems, how can evolutionists continue to use ERVs as evidence for evolution?
Do Endogenous Retroviral Sequences (ERVs) Prove Evolution? | EvolutionDismantled.com

Exchange with the nearest branches is not a tangled tree.

Well what it may suggest is that some creatures cross bred in the past and had the ability to produce more fertile off springs. So if this is the case then it suggests that this was another mechanism for creating other species besides mutated genes. By mating with another different animal a new species could be produced. Over time they can become more isolated and lose the ability to cross breed and become an independent species. But crossing breed can be another method of transferring genetics that make creatures look like they come from each other besides evolution.

I don't like the answers because they are lies from creationist sites.

You have focused on the one site that had some religios connections. The 99% of the other which said the same thing were science sites like nature.com. pnas, geneticliteracyproject, ifsblog which is not a religious site and made by an anthropologist, io9 - We come from the future. is not a religious site.

Please use real scientific sources.

I do you just dont acknowledge them and pick out the one site that has some religious connection and say its invalid. The problem with that is you are throwing the baby out with the bath water. Some sites with a religious connect are not creationists sites and have valid info which can be substantiated on non religious sites. Normally when I include a religious site I am very aware that evolutions will jump on even a sniff of any connection to religion so I also include non religious and science sites to back that up. The other problem is that some science sites can also be biased and paint a misleading picture but because they have the science connection evolutionists will be more readily accepting of these without really questioning their validity.

Why isn't that same species a transitional species?

Because they are the same species. What other species did they come from if they are the same species. You need two different species to show transitions dont you. This will allow you to show the similar features which connect them together to show transitions. But as I said before there are a number of other reasons this could be like HGT or they just look similar in the way they were made and are totally unrelated ie shark and dolphin. But also with genetics now it is also showing some connection with animals that dont look like they are related and are not according to Darwin's tree of life.
So this suggests other mechanisms for transferring genetics like HGT.

Since there is variation within the dog species, does that mean they are human also?

I dont understand what you mean.

Why does variation amongst individuals in the species H. erectus prevent them from being transitional? Are you saying that there will be zero variation in a transitional species? If so, explain why.

No I am saying because there is so much variation its hard to tell what is variation and what may be transitional if any. Evolutionists use to use various skulls as examples of different ape man species to show how the features gradually changed which was suppose to show the transitions into humans. But with the discovery of the skulls at Georgia for example this showed several of those shaped skulls together. This then brought into question that they were separate species and thus transitionals. So suddenly they lost several transitionals they had made. This also suggested that there were fewer species around which to some pointed to a lack of evolution.

So why don't Australopithecines and early Homo species fit this description?

Well they could if it was proven. But thats the problem its not completely. Plus when it gets to the homo species there is a lot of patchy evidence. Because of the discoveries of more variation within the same species it takes away there being as many transitions which leaves more gaps. It also suggests that there was only one or two species anyway. The Australopithecines look so ape like and there is dispute about whether they are fully ape or a transitional. So its up for debate and nothing is definite and we need to do more research to see. But in the mean time how can evolutionists say that it is fact.

Chimps, humans, Australopithecines, and our common ancestor were all primates. It is primates evolving into primates. So why do you have a problem with it since they are still the same type of animal? We are all just variations of primates.

It is suppose to show transitions from an ape to a human. How do we know that all the Australopithecines are just variations of apes and all the homos are just variations of humans with a few questionable ones in between because of other reasons like deformities or just have very strong features. How do we know that some of the so called species didn't come from HGT and thus didn't evolve from a previous one but were the result of cross breeding two different species to produce a new one. That would mean that that particular new species didn't evolve through natural selection which takes away evolution.

Why does variation within a transitional species prevent it from being transitional?

There can be variations if transitions are true between species. Not everyone looks the same and we have many different variations. But there is a difference between variations of the same species and different features gradually stepping towards changing into a new species. Because the changing features will gradually show the additions of the new type of creature its turning into. Variation within a creature will never show this completely. It will stop at a point and not go any further. So if a Dino is changing into a bird the prominent feature that will make it a transition will be the wings. But variations with a Dino species may also show feathers and some wing like features and it is still a dino and may have never been going to change into a bird. That is the problem its hard to definitely tell.

Thats exactly what we see with Australopithecines and other Homo species.

Well we see some similar features but we dont know if thats just because of the way they were made. There are similar features between a dolphin and a shark but one is a mammal and they are not closely related. So similar features alone doesn't make them transitional. Plus some animals that are closely related dont look like each other through genetics. Common features does not only mean common decent. It can also mean common design.


I will finish the rest later today, I have to pop out for a while.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

. . . .But I found this article which claims that ERV's may not have been inserted bt retroviruses. In summary, a very strong case can be made pointing to the view that ERVs were not inserted by retroviruses.

No, a very strong case can NOT be made that ERV's were not inserted by retroviruses. It is a case of creationist denial, where words are substituted for reason and logic.

They have function,

SOME retroviral inserts have been around in the genomes so long that their sequences have become incorporated into functioning genes, due to evolution. This is NOT an argument against their being, originally, genuine retroviral inserts.

should have been ridden by apoptosis,

Well, presumably a lot of individuals infected by retroviruses DID die, and their genes are no longer with us. Only a very few survived the infections and lived on, but those are the ones that left their genes with us.

are different than their ancestral genomes,

Well, an ERV insert in a virus that failed is basically just junk DNA that doesn't really hurt the organism that has it, so this is not really an objection. A bit of extra junk DNA is a difference, of course, but nothing you'd notice in the person that had it.

and it is incredible that the organisms did not die after being infected with so many viral genes.

See, this is the kind of nonsense you creationists utter that makes us realize you have no idea about what science has really uncovered. The retroviral inserts come into the species only one insert at a time. They accumulate in hundreds of thousands not because one individual got a hundreds of thousands of infections, and was therefore deathly sick, but because the inserts, one at a time, happened over a very long time and accumulated. No single individual ever had to endure more than one such infection in order to get the each insert started.

With so many problems, how can evolutionists continue to use ERVs as evidence for evolution?
Do Endogenous Retroviral Sequences (ERVs) Prove Evolution? | EvolutionDismantled.com

Your objections are like those of defense attorneys stuck with defending clearly guilty clients, and we the jury can easily see through such transparently bogus arguments.

 

[stevevw]

No, a very strong case can NOT be made that ERV's were not inserted by retroviruses. It is a case of creationist denial, where words are substituted for reason and logic.



SOME retroviral inserts have been around in the genomes so long that their sequences have become incorporated into functioning genes, due to evolution. This is NOT an argument against their being, originally, genuine retroviral inserts.



Well, presumably a lot of individuals infected by retroviruses DID die, and their genes are no longer with us. Only a very few survived the infections and lived on, but those are the ones that left their genes with us.



Well, an ERV insert in a virus that failed is basically just junk DNA that doesn't really hurt the organism that has it, so this is not really an objection. A bit of extra junk DNA is a difference, of course, but nothing you'd notice in the person that had it.



See, this is the kind of nonsense you creationists utter that makes us realize you have no idea about what science has really uncovered. The retroviral inserts come into the species only one insert at a time. They accumulate in hundreds of thousands not because one individual got a hundreds of thousands of infections, and was therefore deathly sick, but because the inserts, one at a time, happened over a very long time and accumulated. No single individual ever had to endure more than one such infection in order to get the each insert started.



Your objections are like those of defense attorneys stuck with defending clearly guilty clients, and we the jury can easily see through such transparently bogus arguments.

Well I'm not a creationists for starters so you have already made presumptions that are wrong. As I have already admitted I am not a geneticist so I am not fully qualified to speak on these matters with any great knowledge. I try to research as best I can and get some understanding. The link I provided as far as I know was not a creationist site.

I am wondering if you have any qualifications on genetics. Don't they say that the so called junk DNA isn't junk and they are finding more and more function for it all the time. I would say a person would have to be very trained in genetics to comment on this subject themselves without any backup. Even then it would be good to have some support. To be able to make rebuttals from your own say so with as much confidence as you are doing seems to be a little over confident.

The other point is if you are a christian and believe in evolution then what level of evolution do you believe. Are you saying that there was no Adam and eve which seems to be the line that had all the great men of the bible like Noah and Abraham and lead to Jesus Himself. I can never understand how a Christian can believe in both the Darwinian evolution and that God is somehow responsible for making this world and universe. If it all happened through naturalistic process and was self creating where does that leave God. In that sense you may as well not believe in God in the first place as he doesn't seem to be doing much at all and is just a token symbol in the whole event.

What about this site. To be honest I dont really understand ERV's completely and will have to do a lot more reading.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004268221100479X

 

[biggles53]

Steve, as long as you confine your reading to the sites of liars and charlatans, you will continue to see exactly what you want to see....ie, statements which oppose evolutionary theory....!

And, before you respond with another tu quoque fallacy, remember that those who genuinely research biology are continually revising their view on various aspects of it, as new evidence comes in.......because those people are not afraid of having to admit they were wrong...!

 

[biggles53]

The other point is if you are a christian and believe in evolution then what level of evolution do you believe. Are you saying that there was no Adam and eve which seems to be the line that had all the great men of the bible like Noah and Abraham and lead to Jesus Himself. I can never understand how a Christian can believe in both the Darwinian evolution and that God is somehow responsible for making this world and universe. If it all happened through naturalistic process and was self creating where does that leave God. In that sense you may as well not believe in God in the first place as he doesn't seem to be doing much at all and is just a token symbol in the whole event.

At last....something upon which we would agree...! I too find it difficult to see how one can simultaneously hold the idea that there was an 'original pair' from whom all humanity descended and from whom we all 'inherit' this idea of a 'fallen nature', while at the same time holding an acceptance that humankind evolved from other species...

Something about wanting cake and eating it....

 

[createdtoworship]

Well I'm not a creationists for starters so you have already made presumptions that are wrong. As I have already admitted I am not a geneticist so I am not fully qualified to speak on these matters with any great knowledge. I try to research as best I can and get some understanding. The link I provided as far as I know was not a creationist site.

I am wondering if you have any qualifications on genetics. Don't they say that the so called junk DNA isn't junk and they are finding more and more function for it all the time. I would say a person would have to be very trained in genetics to comment on this subject themselves without any backup. Even then it would be good to have some support. To be able to make rebuttals from your own say so with as much confidence as you are doing seems to be a little over confident.

The other point is if you are a christian and believe in evolution then what level of evolution do you believe. Are you saying that there was no Adam and eve which seems to be the line that had all the great men of the bible like Noah and Abraham and lead to Jesus Himself. I can never understand how a Christian can believe in both the Darwinian evolution and that God is somehow responsible for making this world and universe. If it all happened through naturalistic process and was self creating where does that leave God. In that sense you may as well not believe in God in the first place as he doesn't seem to be doing much at all and is just a token symbol in the whole event.

What about this site. To be honest I dont really understand ERV's completely and will have to do a lot more reading.
Identification and classification of endogenous retroviruses in the canine genome using degenerative PCR and in-silico data analysis

are you ID? They are not the same as Biblical Creationists. I sometimes use the words interchangeably for ease of use, but they are entirely separate fields.

 

[createdtoworship]

DNA analysis

of what? How? and to what extent? Layout your argument. Until then it's just opinion.

 

[CabVet]

of what? How? and to what extent? Layout your argument. Until then it's just opinion.

I already answered that question here:

It's called DNA. Same methods used in paternity tests. Good summary here, but feel free to ignore.

And just as I said, you ignored the answer.

 

[PsychoSarah]

of what? How? and to what extent? Layout your argument. Until then it's just opinion.

How redundant would it have been for me to give the details someone else just has?

 

[stevevw]

are you ID? They are not the same as Biblical Creationists. I sometimes use the words interchangeably for ease of use, but they are entirely separate fields.

No I dont identify with any group. Up until coming on this site I hadn't really heard of the terms. I am just an average person who is asking the questions. I try to keep an open mind and look at both sides. Of course I am going to believe that living things didn't create themselves or that life came from nothing. I believe in a form of evolution but not one that can create new animals out of existing ones. Creatures have a limited ability to evolve within their gene pool so they can adapt to their environment such as in size and colour and shape. But like Darwin's finches their beaks changed shape and size so they could adapt to the changing environment for finding food. But they remained finches and didn't turn into rabbits or lizards.

Evolutionists will see things from their point of view which will be more focused on all the evidence for evolution. Just like they accuse people who believe in God that they are seeing things in their way. Humans will do this and if you go for a footy team you will always think that yours is the best and is always hard done by. The ref will always be at fault and you wont see things for what they are. We all do this and the main thing is to look past this.

Despite evolutionists saying that they only look at the evidence and that truth is on their side there is still an element of bias. Many aspects of evolution are not definitely proven and some can make it fact when its not. Creationists may take it to another level of extreme but I believe some of the things they say are true for a Christian. ID's are the same but each is a certain group that people can identify with. I dont like to restrict myself into any particular group and like to look at all sides to get a better picture of things. But at the end of the day I certainly believe in a God and his hand in the scheme of things. There is more to life than what we see and the naturalistic and materialistic side of life.

 

[CabVet]

I believe in a form of evolution but not one that can create new animals out of existing ones.

Why not?

Many aspects of evolution are not definitely proven and some can make it fact when its not.

Here are some aspects of evolution: mutation, natural selection, genetic drift, gene flow. Which ones of those are not supported by evidence?

 

[stevevw]

At last....something upon which we would agree...! I too find it difficult to see how one can simultaneously hold the idea that there was an 'original pair' from whom all humanity descended and from whom we all 'inherit' this idea of a 'fallen nature', while at the same time holding an acceptance that humankind evolved from other species...

Something about wanting cake and eating it....

From what I understand those who believe in God and darwinian evolution believe that God started the process of evolution and thats how we get life from no life. But how Adam and Eve come into I am not sure. The fall of man is being seen today. Some say sinse then our genetics has deteriorated and will continue until we are susceptible to all sorts of things. Its like a de evolution rather than evolution.

It seems to be going that way with all the new diseases that are coming out like HIV, swine and bird flu and all the other infections we are getting. Anti biotics dont work as well anymore and there is talk of super bugs eventually making an epidemic.

But our societies are also breaking down and we are always in some sort of conflict. Many go hungry and terrorism and war is on our door steps. Some say this has got to do with the fall of man and sin entering the world. Things break down and deteriorate. The planet is suffering and we are using up resources fast. How long will it last and how long before something big happens that is going to cause a lot of suffering. If we dont do something we are going to destroy this planet and make it very hard in the meantime for many.

Maybe this is what the bible says about how mankind destroys his world and rejects God. It will get to a point where things will get to much and thats when Jesus will return. I just wonder what those who believe in evolution and God think of this. Because if they believe in evolution then we should be getting better adapted to our environment. The survival of the fittest means that those in our species of humans who dont adapt and keep up will just die out and thats just to bad for them because they couldn't change and adapt to whats happening.

 

[Only Me]

From what I understand those who believe in God and darwinian evolution believe that God started the process of evolution and thats how we get life from no life.

Let's look at this, you still don't know how life came about because you don't know what a God is or how a God came to be, if you replaced the word "God" with any other name you can think of the result would be exactly the same, you would still not know where life came from and you would be no closer to finding the answer.
It's reminds me of another non-answer story,
how did that big rock get up on top of that mountain? the big Wingwang put it there, what's the big Wingwang? I don't know but it put that big rock up on top of that mountain.
That is the kind of thinking required to be religious, I have heard it called non-thinking acceptance.

 

[stevevw]

Let's look at this, you still don't know how life came about because you don't know what a God is or how a God came to be, if you replaced the word "God" with any other name you can think of the result would be exactly the same, you would still not know where life came from and you would be no closer to finding the answer.
It's reminds me of another non-answer story,
how did that big rock get up on top of that mountain? the big Wingwang put it there, what's the big Wingwang? I don't know but it put that big rock up on top of that mountain.
That is the kind of thinking required to be religious, I have heard it called non-thinking acceptance.

I was asking a question as to how a person who believes in evolution and God thinks. Not how I think. I know what I believe and think and I'm not a non thinker. But there also comes a time when thinking and maths and science and all the brain power in the world wont give you the answer and you have to know when that is. Thats called faith, Hebrews 11:1. Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.

This is how a scientist or someone who is highly trained in critical thought can also have a faith in God. Because they know that we can work things out up to a point but then God goes beyond that. Just like quantum mechanics and how the universe began. All the maths adds up to a certain point but then it starts to not make sense. Not because you havnt found the answer yet but because the answer is beyond that. The answer is beyond the comprehension of man.