Why I do not accept evolution part two.

[Kenny'sID]

In this case, the problem is not lacking knowledge, it's having the wrong knowledge.

Wrong knowledge is lacking real knowledge, end of story. Such comments won't help you to defend against what I just said.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How are these things evolution? The light moths did not evolve into dark moths because of predation! The light and dark colored moths already coexisted. Predators reduced the population of light moths is all that happened!

Moth are the worst example to try and prove "these things *ARE* evolution". Moths if anything have exhibited (stasis) staying recognizably the same throughout their history of existence! To quote from a phys.org article "researchers in the Netherlands have discovered Lepidoptera [moth, butterfly] fossils that are older than any previously found, proving these (familiar insects) have been around for at least 200m years." my emphasis! If you're suggesting this so called experiment proves moths will change into no-moths in the future...that is pure imagination not back up by the historical paleontological facts!

Your post implies that like most creationists you think that there is such a thing as "kinds". If creationism is true we should be able to develop a working definition of "kinds". No creationist appears to be able to do that. For a model of "kinds" to work one would need a reasonable ability to decide whether any two populations are the same "kind" or not. Evolution on the other hand predicts that the concept of "species" will be fuzzy. Due to the fact that life is the product of evolution there is no hard and fast definition of species.

The reason I posted that is that you seem to think that evolution is relies upon a "change of kind". There is no change of kind in evolution. A study of cladistics would make that clear. People and chimps share a common ancestor. That ancestor as in the tribe Hominini. We are Hominini and so are chimps. There was no change in kind. That common ancestor shared a common ancestor with modern gorillas. That ancestor was in the subfamily Homininae, guess what? We are still homininae. As we go back in time the ancestors that we share with others form larger and larger groups and we still belong to all of those groups. It is similar to tracing your ancestry backwards. As you go back to older and older ancestors the number of people that you are related to gets larger and larger. There was no "change in kind" from those ancient human ancestors just as there is no "change in kind" as we trace our species evolution back through time.

 

[Strathos]

If you think evolution means that a moth will turn into an ant, then it's no wonder you don't accept it. No one else accepts that version of evolution either.

 

[Subduction Zone]

By which definition, Genesis describes evolution also
But change alone ≠ evolutionary progress

Yes a population of dark and light moths can lose a percentage of light colored ones
a large rock can wipe out dinosaurs and leave mammals
anti-bacterial agents can destroy many varieties of bacteria, leaving resistant ones to multiply

i.e. Natural selection is a filtration process, taking a larger set of variants and reducing to a smaller set. And nobody here debates that destruction, entropy, decay is a viable, observable process

But you see the problem here: This is taking us in exactly the opposite direction from the evolutionary 'tree of life' which depicts starting with a single simple organism and exploding into many more sophisticated ones.

You are focusing on only one "force" of evolution. There are several factors in play, though the easiest to understand are natural selection and variation. Variation adds traits. Natural selection filters them. Together those two forces largely drive evolution. Your argument is as invalid as claiming "variation only adds degradation of the genome". That is looking at variation without the filter of natural selection.

To refute evolution you would need to show that evolution cannot happen with the two working together.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I doubt if @Aussie Pete would take up anyone on that offer. Creationists do not even understand the basics of science. They do not understand scientific evidence, and most do not understand the scientific method. To date no one has taken me up on my offer to go over either concept without even bringing evolution into the discussion. Do you think he will be able to have a serious discussion about biology itself?

Fine, then explain it to us.

You seem to have missed my whole point. Please read it again and take me up on the offer instead of making false/unproven accusations. I mean that way we can see for certian if it's a matter of understanding or a matter of evolution is simply a joke.

You game?

 

[DaveISBA]

It's an example of the change in allele frequencies in a population over time (via natural selection).

Which is your basic textbook definition of the process of evolution.

Which is your basic textbook definition of the process of so called microevolution or really just variations within already established life forms! Example light moths, dark moths...still moths!

In light of their 200 million year history, there is no evidence that change in allele frequencies in a population over time would lead to moths becoming something other than moths! As with the moth, abrupt appearance then stasis leading to extinction or to life forms presently in existence is the order of the day! It is observed in most, some argue, all life forms

 

[Subduction Zone]

Fine, then explain it to us.

You seem to have missed my whole point. Please read it again and take me up on the offer instead of making false/unproven accusations. I mean that way we can see for certian if it's a matter of understanding or a matter of evolution is simply a joke.

You game?

I made no false accusations. And explaining it to you would be rather pointless if you do not understand the concept of scientific evidence. You cannot challenge me until you demonstrate that you understand the basics.

Are you game? If you can understand the scientific method and scientific evidence then we can move on to an explanation. But you will have to read and comment on or at the very least accept valid sources.

Here is a simple quiz for you, pass it and you can skip the lesson:

Is there scientific evidence for evolution? If not why not? And if there is why can that claim be made?

The same questions apply to creationism. Is there scientific evidence for creationism? If not why not? If there is how would you justify that claim?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Which is your basic textbook definition of the process of so called microevolution or really just variations within already established life forms! Example light moths, dark moths...still moths!

In light of their 200 million year history, there is no evidence that change in allele frequencies in a population over time would lead to moths becoming something other than moths! As with the moth, abrupt appearance then stasis leading to extinction or to life forms presently in existence is the order of the day! It is observed in most, some argue, all life forms

The terms microevolution and macroevolution are not used much anymore since they are both evolution. In fact there is no hard line between the two. We can walk to the drug store, and given enough time walk across the U.S.A.

And the descendants of moths will always be moths. Just as we are still apes, we are still primates, we are still mammals, we are still tetrapods, we are still vertebrates, and we are still eukaryotes. No change of kind.

Change of kind is a creationist strawman.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You are focusing on only one "force" of evolution. There are several factors in play, though the easiest to understand are natural selection and variation. Variation adds traits. Natural selection filters them. Together those two forces largely drive evolution. Your argument is as invalid as claiming "variation only adds degradation of the genome". That is looking at variation without the filter of natural selection.

To refute evolution you would need to show that evolution cannot happen with the two working together.

"On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"

So I think we agree this title is a bit of a misnomer- naturally selecting, preserving, can create exactly nothing- it can only choose from a menu of pre-existing options- not 'originating' anything- quite the opposite

My answer focused on this because selecting within bacteria or moths is often given as a great example of evolution in action. So I agree with you I think- it's not.

i.e. I'm not trying to refute all evolution in that observation- just those examples

 

[Subduction Zone]

"On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"

So I think we agree this title is a bit of a misnomer- naturally selecting, preserving, can create exactly nothing- it can only choose from a menu of pre-existing options- not 'originating' anything- quiet the opposite

My answer focused on this because selecting within bacteria or moths is often given as a great example of evolution in action. So I agree with you I think- it's not.

i.e. I'm not trying to refute all evolution in that observation- just those examples

Nothing misleading about it. It shows how new species arise. Your classification system is faulty. That is the problem. Once again, you want a "change of kind" evolution does not predict that.

Do you understand how your lineage can be traced all the way back to single celled eukaryotes without a a "change of kind"?

One more point. We are not limited to an existing menu. Variation is how new traits arise. Natural selection filters those changes.

 

[Speedwell]

By which definition, Genesis describes evolution also
But change alone ≠ evolutionary progress

Yes a population of dark and light moths can lose a percentage of light colored ones
a large rock can wipe out dinosaurs and leave mammals
anti-bacterial agents can destroy many varieties of bacteria, leaving resistant ones to multiply

i.e. Natural selection is a filtration process, taking a larger set of variants and reducing to a smaller set. And nobody here debates that destruction, entropy, decay is a viable, observable process

But you see the problem here: This is taking us in exactly the opposite direction from the evolutionary 'tree of life' which depicts starting with a single simple organism and exploding into many more sophisticated ones.

And new variant are being produced constantly. Every generation of a species contains variants for natural selection to act on.

 

[Speedwell]

Wrong knowledge is lacking real knowledge, end of story. Such comments won't help you to defend against what I just said.

Until you know what the theory of evolution actually claims, you won't be able to evaluate the evidence offered in support of those claims.

 

[Hans Blaster]

And new variant are being produced constantly. Every generation of a species contains variants for natural selection to act on.

I'm thinking of starting my own species (still be apes though), I've grown rather tired of this one.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I made no false accusations. And explaining it to you would be rather pointless if you do not understand the concept of scientific evidence. You cannot challenge me until you demonstrate that you understand the basics.

Explain it all then, the concept isn't rocket science. Explain to us all you think we don't know...period. And yes, I've been game for quite some time now. As to the false accusation/s that will come out in the wash, if you should choose to do it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

New traits arise quite often when existing structures are repurposed. The concept of a vestigial organ is one that most creationists do not understand. For example the bones of the inner ear are arguably vestigial. A vestigial organ is simply an organ that does not function as it used to in the past. Inner ear evolution is a classic example of that. It is also well understood. The evolution of early mammals is largely based upon the evolution of the inner ear where a multi-boned jaw had some of those bones lose their original use and pick up a new one. It is an example of a fuzzy boundary and there have been strong arguments on what was the "first mammal". There is no clear line. Here is one of many articles on that process that you can read:

Error - Cookies Turned Off

EDIT: The link works even though the site changed the title of it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Explain it all then, the concept isn't rocket science. Explain to us all you think we don't know...period. And yes, I've been game for quite some time now. As to the false accusation/s that will come out in the wash, if you should choose to do it.

I am not going to "explain". I will discuss. You did not take the quiz yet. I need to know where your level of understanding is to have a proper discussion with you. I will not lecture into the air. Creationists only tend to ignore people when they explain in that manner.

You will have to participate. Your first step is to answer these questions:

Is there scientific evidence for evolution? If not why not? And if there is why can that claim be made?

The same questions apply to creationism. Is there scientific evidence for creationism? If not why not? If there is how would you justify that claim?

By the way, editing out key parts of a post, and those questions were very important, is not a proper way to debate. Doing so is often an admission that one is wrong.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Until you know what the theory of evolution actually claims, you won't be able to evaluate the evidence offered in support of those claims.

And that disagrees with my point, how?

Explain your theory.

What part of "explain" are you all not understanding?

 

[Subduction Zone]

And that disagrees with my point, how?

Explain your theory.

What part of "explain" are you all not understanding?

Aren't you the one that says he does not read links?

 

[Kenny'sID]

I am not going to "explain".

Of course you aren't. Do you really think I expected anyone here to take away their argument of "No, it's you, YOU don't understand how it works so YOU have no right to disagree with evolution"?

c'mon now.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course you aren't. Do you really think I expected anyone here to take away their argument of "No, it's you, YOU don't understand how it works so YOU have no right to disagree with evolution"?

c'mon now.

You claimed to be "game". You need to qualify. So far you have run away like most creationists. You also admitted that you were wrong by repeating the error of editing my post in your reply even after it was explained to you how that is improper. Doing it a second time after being corrected crossed over into being dishonest.


You will have to participate. Your first step is to answer these questions:

Is there scientific evidence for evolution? If not why not? And if there is why can that claim be made?

The same questions apply to creationism. Is there scientific evidence for creationism? If not why not? If there is how would you justify that claim?