World Population

[Job 33:6]

If you honestly think that Lenski's experiments, as they stand on their own, are the best possible experiments demonstrating long-term evolution over millions of years...

Then it's no wonder that you do not believe in macro-evolution over hundreds of millions of years, because the paper isnt about long term evolution over millions of years, nor is it about transitional fossils. Its about small scale evolution observed in a laboratory in a mere 30 years.

But i will note that your statement was also made with respect to the fossil record, in which I am still awaiting your responses.

 

[RC Tent]

If you honestly think that Lenski's experiments, as they stand on their own, are the best possible experiments demonstrating long-term evolution over millions of years...

Okay, so what is your idea of the best evidence for demonstrating long term evolution, over millions of years?

 

[NobleMouse]

This statement is just ludicrous. As if a 30 year experiment involving e.coli in laboratory beakers, would provide the best possible evidence for the likelihood of macro-evolution occurring over hundreds of millions of years.

Brilliant. You just keep digging that hole.

The paper really has nothing to do with large scale transitions. Why in the world would anyone interpret a research paper that has nothing to do with multi-million year evolution, as the best possible evidence for it?

Just keep digging.

Your statement was also made in conjunction with transitional fossils, for which the paper has nothing to do with.

Okay, so I guess you want to keep chopping... I again never said it was the intent of the experiment, I said it was the best case (this is just my opinion, but if you have a different experiment you want to share that you feel better demonstrates evolution does happen, I am willing to take a look--seems like an easy solution to your problem) - but until I see otherwise, I believe that if any experiment could demonstrate evolution, this is the one that was the best case (has the best chance) do it--though it does not.

You are the one standing on no tangible evidence for your position yet trying to attack me (where's your lol's now?), I'd give you the benefit of the doubt if there was something tangible to connect to the hypothesis of evolution; in fact I was the one looking for any possible shred of evidence where maybe, just somehow, even if obscure, that some experiment could have demonstrated evolution were possible. You called it a strawman argument and me a liar then made assertions for your position that are based on things you cannot tangibly prove or have observed, which are then built on other things you cannot tangibly prove or have observed.

If you want the central theme of something to argue about, what is really the thrust of what I wrote, it is that many well-credentialed, well-respected scientists, in unrelated camps (creationists, intelligent design, and even some atheists) all have issue with the hypothesis that evolution is capable of producing all the life seen today. This is my central argument and what I have written the most about/provided the most links/references. I believe God's word is ultimately true (this is tier 1) but I know that bears little weight for you, then we have what I just wrote here as the "central theme" as a tier 2, then the fact that evolution has not been observed in nature, not at the standards defined by the scientific method, and not repeated by any experiment (that I know of) as a tier 3.

To illustrate for you for why I don't accept evolution:
Tier 1: God's word contradicts evolution over
Tier 2: Diverse groups of scientists (growing in number) are rejecting
Tier 3: Lack of observation / not studied by way of scientific method / no demonstrated by experiment

If you are trying to build a case for why evolution should be accepted, you are wasting your time (and mine) trying to build it off of your misunderstanding of something I didn't actually write, but something you inferred in what I would consider the lowest tier of evidences against evolution. You are majoring in the minors and that will get you nowhere.

In order to support the hypothesis of evolution, we'll have to tear apart God's word as just simply not being true and that we've got these different groups of highly intelligent , unrelated scientists (some who don't even believe in a god) all working in conspiracy against a belief that nobody can provide any evidence for... I think that sums it up.

 

[Job 33:6]

Okay, so what is your idea of the best evidence for demonstrating long term evolution, over millions of years?

The understanding of evolution over millions of years, comes from a collective summation of corroborating evidence from multiple lines of research.

One example, being what we have been discussing, the fossil succession and how it directly corroborates findings of geneticists.

I mentioned a few posts ago that, we have transitional fossils that were discovered, only at the hands of the predictive power of the fossil succession as a product of common descent. Which is to say that, the only reason tiktaalik was discovered, is because people made a prediction. The prediction being, if tetrapods evolved from fish, and fish are in early devonian rock and tetrapods are in late devonian rock, then fish-tetrapod hybrids should be in the middle.

This is a prediction that...should exist not only in the fossil succession, but it should exist with respect to genetics as well. Fish ought to genetically be more similar (with fewer mutational differences) to tetrapods, than say...reptiles, mammals or birds.

And if evolution is true, it should follow that the fossil succession corroborates genetics.

And it does.

Noble Mouse has suggested that there are alternative explanations for how tiktaalik was predicted and discovered. I asked him, if not common descent, then what is that explanation? Or was it pure luck?

And now we wait.

 

[RC Tent]

Now, if the inference here is, what if God is doing this and is deliberate, then I would say defer to the Bible.

I am not inferring that God is doing anything in my post. I was just trying to find out if there was an experiment which you envisaged which could demonstrate evolution as described.

there are many reasons why evolution (in many small steps) cannot achieve what it claims it can.

I find the concept totally inadequate myself. Given an infinite universe, then there would be time, but that is not part of the current paradigm.

In a similar fashion, those here who believe evolution is true follow a similar approach of trying to attack the character of those who disagree with them

Yes, there does seem to be some character criticism happening, I don't think it is very scientific.

Thanks for the long response.

 

[RC Tent]

The understanding of evolution over millions of years, comes from a collective summation of corroborating evidence from multiple lines of research.

This is the question I am asking.

What is your idea of the best evidence?

Now do you have an answer?

 

[The Barbarian]

Does he mean more belief in a supernatural creation among scientists, or actual scientific evidence indicating a supernatural creation?

I don't see how the latter could ever happen by definition.

Apparently, he believes the latter. (Barbarian checks)

Given the developmental nature of the fields upon which palaeontology must be based, creationist palaeontology as a field does not currently exist in anything like a coherent state. As a result, there is no sense in which creationist palaeontology at this point is capable of addressing the traditional transitional forms issue issue in any rigorous sense.
...
Even at this early stage of development and with such significant challenges as the early whale series, the creation model appears to have potential for developing a creationist explanation of stratomorphic intermediates which is superior to that of evolutionary theory.
Kurt Wise, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

 

[NobleMouse]

The understanding of evolution over millions of years, comes from a collective summation of corroborating evidence from multiple lines of research.

One example, being what we have been discussing, the fossil succession and how it directly corroborates findings of geneticists.

Please cite corroborating evidence since it has been established you have no direct or tangible evidence but only inferences. Also since genetic material does not last very long, there could be no direct connections between genetics and evolution (especially because you insist hundreds of millions of years have passed and most researchers indicate that genetic material would not be reliable beyond 1.5 million years), so again only inferences. How is that an application of the scientific method? By corroborating multiple lines of inferences, none of which were observed?

I mentioned a few posts ago that, we have transitional fossils that were discovered, only at the hands of the predictive power of the fossil succession as a product of common descent. Which is to say that, the only reason tiktaalik was discovered, is because people made a prediction. The prediction being, if tetrapods evolved from fish, and fish are in early devonian rock and tetrapods are in late devonian rock, then fish-tetrapod hybrids should be in the middle.

This is a prediction that...should exist not only in the fossil succession, but it should exist with respect to genetics as well. Fish ought to genetically be more similar (with fewer mutational differences) to tetrapods, than say...reptiles, mammals or birds.

And if evolution is true, it should follow that the fossil succession corroborates genetics.

And it does.

Noble Mouse has suggested that there are alternative explanations for how tiktaalik was predicted and discovered. I asked him, if not common descent, then what is that explanation? Or was it pure luck?

And now we wait.

As to the "confirmed prediction" of Tiktaalik:
https://evolutionnews.org/2010/01/tiktaalik_blown_out_of_the_wat/

Also, Stephen Meyer's assessment of the fossil record:

Meyer does not directly address Tiktaalik, what he says in the above video precludes the suggestion that this fossil is a "transition" of any kind. Meyer and creationists will agree that the concept of evolution does a good job of explaining the minor variations in life (ie. the Galapagos finches), but not the major changes suggested like fish > tetrapod > reptile > bird... or repitle > mamal > primate > man.

This longer video discusses at more length the more overarching issues with evolution:

 

[Job 33:6]

This is the question I am asking.

What is your idea of the best evidence?

Now do you have an answer?

In my opinion, as a geologist, I am fond of the fossil successions corroboration of genetics, as the best piece of evidence.

So, i could subjectively say that i think the existence of transitional fossils that match genetics, is the best evidence. Others might disagree, but this is what I tend to be fond of.

And as we can see, no real alternative explanation for the fossil succession is being provided by the opposition.

 

[Job 33:6]

"Meyer does not directly address Tiktaalik, what he says in the above video precludes the suggestion that this fossil is a "transition" of any kind. Meyer and creationists will agree that the concept of evolution does a good job of explaining the minor variations in life (ie. the Galapagos finches), but not the major changes suggested like fish > tetrapod > reptile > bird... or repitle > mamal > primate > man."

This doesn't really address me, Noble Mouse.

This response is empty.

As we have seen, the predictive power of the theory of evolution resulted in the discovery of tiktaalik.

If you do not think this is the case, and you think that our discoveries are just blind...luck. Then, I would say, no offense, but anyone who says this, is probably crazy.

The planet is vast. Sedimentary rock runs deep. To suggest that someone could hop on a helicopter, fly to some random location and find a particular fossil that was predicted to exist, purely based on luck...

I mean such a claim just sounds absurd.

Are you suggesting that tiktaaliks discovery was pure luck?

 

[Job 33:6]

"https://evolutionnews.org/2010/01/tiktaalik_blown_out_of_the_wat/" ~Noble Mouse

And regarding this link here, we have already talked about this as well.

The polish tracks are also stratigraphically post fish domination of the early devonian, and pre tetrapod domination of the late devonian.

These tracks also might have been formed by something similar to tiktaalik.

In which case, nothing is being blown out of the water, rather further corroboration is being made.

If the tracks were in the mesozoic, or the cenozoic or the cambrian, ordovician, silurian, carboniferous, permian etc. etc.

If the tracks were anywhere else, you might have a legitimate response. But saying that other tetrapod tracks were discovered in the mid devonian, prior to the late devonian of tetrapod domination and post the early devonian...

This just corroborates with and confirms evolution. You're essentially looking at the same transition occuring, just in two different localities, one being in a fresh water body and the other more near a depositional basin.

Given that animals are able to migrate and live in multiple regions around the planet, the theory doesn't necessarily preclude the idea that the transition could occur in either or, or both environments around the same time in earth history.

If you do not understand this, or if you have questions about it, feel free to ask. As it stands, this argument doesn't actually refute anything.

At best, one might use this to argue that tiktaalik was just a cousin of early tetrapods from poland. But the polish tracks in and of themselves, really are no different than tiktaalik with respect to where the theory predicts that they ought to be found (because stratigraphically and temporally, theyre in nearly equivalent layers). And I know the article says that they might be 15 million years apart. But, when youre talking about 500 to 600 million years of fossil succession, and a fish to tetrapod transition that spans perhaps 30 to 40 million years, saying that one tetrapod appeared at 385 million years ago, while another appeared at 375 million years ago...this doesnt really change anything.

 

[The Barbarian]

From Mouse's link:

The fossil tetrapod footprints indicate Tiktaalik came over 10 million years after the existence of the first known true tetrapod. Tiktaalik, of course, is not a tetrapod but a fish, and these footprints make it very difficult to presently argue that Tiktaalik is a transitional link between fish and tetrapods. It’s not a “snapshot of fish evolving into land animals,” because if this transition ever took place it seems to have occurred millions of years before Tiktaalik.

This is known as the "if you're alive, your uncle has to be dead" argument. Tiktaalik is a transitional from between fish and tetrapods, just as monotremes are transitional between reptiles and eutherian mammals.
I'm guessing those guys have no idea what "transitional" means in paleontology.

Another one:
Tiktaalik, of course, is not a tetrapod but a fish

It has features of both. Four feet is what "tetrapod" means. Here's a later one:

View attachment 251251

It's a fish. Internal gills, fish tail. lateral line system, but four feet. It's a fish and a tetrapod.

Just a little farther evolved than Tiktaalik. Want to see one a little later?

View attachment 251252
Icthyostega. Now the legs are solidly attached to the spine so it can walk on land.

The lobed-fin fishes had lungs to supplement gills (modern ones still do) but this one now doesn't use gills.

 

[Job 33:6]

Here are actually some good references:

Early tetrapod trackways - Wikipedia

You have discussion of tracks at 385 mya, and 395 mya. You have tiktaalik falling somewhere around 380-385.

So when you pull tiktaalik out at say...380 to 385 mya, and you pull the polish tracks out at 385 and 395.

It isn't a real argument to say, well because these tracks (for which there are no bones in association) are at 385 to 395 mya, the transition didnt occur. That doesn't logically follow. Actually, even earlier tetrapodomorph fish have been found to pre-date the zachelmie tracks as well at somewhere in the 395 to 400 mya range.
Kenichthys - Wikipedia
Emsian - Wikipedia

So really, even arguing that the zachelmie tracks pre-dated tetrapodomorph fish, cannot be done, let alone could someone argue that their presence disproves a transition.

To say that because there are tracks at 395, tiktaalik therefore is not transitional, also does not follow, as tiktaalik holds features of fish which came before it and tetrapods that came after it.

At best, you could argue that the transition began earlier than the appearance of tiktaalik, and perhaps tiktaalik is just a cousin of some sort. But this does not make tiktaalik less of a transitional fossil (it has transitional features between fish and tetrapods), nor does it mean that both tiktaalik and the polish tracks, arent within the brief window of time, in which the transition occurred (400 mya to 380 mya).

Take a T-rex and throw it into the ordovician, and you could blow up the entire fossil succession. But when you take early tetrapod fossils and you throw them into the mid-devonian, this is affirmation.

In case anyone isnt familiar with the geologic column (including you Noble Mouse), above is a diagram. It can help put in perspective where the fossils are superpositionally landing. And it can also help put into perspective, where they are not landing.

 

[RC Tent]

In my opinion, as a geologist, I am fond of the fossil successions
So, i could subjectively say that i think the existence of transitional fossils that match genetics,

So you have an opinion, and involving a subjective preference. Fine, but I don't think it is acceptable grounds for ridiculing a fellow human being for also having an opinion and a subjective preference on the same exact point.

And as we can see, no real alternative explanation for the fossil succession is being provided by the opposition.

This is just a denial that any perspective except your own might be "real", and you have no scientific support to corroborate it. The basis of this claim is philosophical, not geological.

 

[Job 33:6]

So you have an opinion, and involving a subjective preference. Fine, but I don't think it is acceptable grounds for ridiculing a fellow human being for also having an opinion and a subjective preference on the same exact point.



This is just a denial that any perspective except your own might be "real", and you have no scientific support to corroborate it. The basis of this claim is philosophical, not geological.

Well, no other explanation has been provided. I agree that it is in part a philosophical question. But it also deals with...evidence.

Our explanation logically makes sense. Here we have someone who denies it, but doesn't actually have any evidence against it, nor any alternative suggestion.

Also, the fossil succession explicitly deals with ancient life, especially when taken in corroboration with genetics. The lenski experiments do not deal with ancient life and exclude the fossil succession as well. So for someone to suggest that the lenski experiments are the best case evidence for macro evolution, is absurd.

If you read lenskis research, it is about current, small scale evolution in bacteria. It really has nothing to do with large scale, multi-million year evolution, at all. So why would anyone turn to it, suggesting that lenskis experiments failed to demonstrate large scale evolution, when that was never its purpose of the research to begin with?

Alternatively, this is explicitly what the fossil record is all about, especially with respect to genetic phylogeny. By the nature of fossils, they are ancient and record macro evolutionary changes.

If someone showed that reptiles pre-dated mammals in evolution via the fossil record, it would absolutely destroy the theory of evolution.

But for someone to say that lenskis experiments didn't produce macro evolutionary change, therefore the best research supporting such change has failed...this is more of a deceptive strawman.

So while it is true that it is subjective, what the best piece of evidence for macro evolutionary change is, at least the fossil succession actually directly deals with macro evolutionary change. Whereas the lenski experiments do not.

Someone could argue that research on...skin care, fails to support macro evolutionary change, therefore macro evolutionary change is wrong. However, just as with lenskis experiments, it isnt the purpose of skin care research to demonstrate macro evolution. Therefore, while it is a subjective preference that the fossil succession (in corroboration with genetics) is better evidence for macro evolution than skin care research, it is objectively more applicable to the topic.

 

[Job 33:6]

"Also since genetic material does not last very long, there could be no direct connections between genetics and evolution"

hahaha. Oh gosh, this is too much. This is just comical.

" (especially because you insist hundreds of millions of years have passed and most researchers indicate that genetic material would not be reliable beyond 1.5 million years)"

Nobody suggests that fossils need to have DNA in them to be corroborated with genetic phylogeny.

Genetics have been used to predict the locality of fossils (such as in the case with tiktaalik). Which is something that you have yet to offer an explanation for. All you are doing now is blindly suggesting that there is no link.

Again I ask, are you suggesting that the discovery of tiktaalik was just...pure blind luck? Or do you have an explanation for why the fossil succession and genetics produce identical phylogenetic trees?

 

[Job 33:6]

"if you have a different experiment you want to share that you feel better demonstrates evolution does happen, I am willing to take a look--seems like an easy solution to your problem" Noble Mouse

Here it is:

Aside from just pure blind luck, how do you think it is, that the location of tiktaalik was predicted? If not for the reality that the fossil succession is corroborated by genetic phylogeny?


Posting random youtube videos about abiogenesis and the cambrian explosion are not adequate responses.

the only applicable response that you have provided, was with respect to the polish trackways, which are also found where evolution would predict them to be (in the mid devonian between fish and tetrapods). the existence of the polish tracks do not contradict the theory, rather they open doors to how evolution has occurred.

In another post you mentioned punctuation of the fossil succession. As we know, the father of PE, Stephen J Gould, attributed the fossil succession common descent and evolution, and even supported the idea of allotropic speciation as a plausible explanation for it. Punctuated equilibrium does not contradict the thoery, rather it is an idea of how evolution occurs.

These are not arguments against evolution, they are just thoughts on particular details of how it has unfolded. And by suggesting that there are multiple ways in which evolution can occur (such as PE or gradualism), this is not equivalent to saying that evolution did not occur.

 

[RC Tent]

I agree that it is in part a philosophical question. But it also deals with...evidence.

Then you agree that Luke 6:31 requires you not to ridicule someone else for their philosophy - even when that philosophy differs from yours and influences their perspective on science.

Our explanation logically makes sense. Here we have someone who denies it, but doesn't actually have any evidence against it, nor any alternative suggestion.

Well for starters that is not true. We are in a philosophical discussion, not a science seminar, and the relevant philosophical position has been honestly stated, it is

"To illustrate for you for why I don't accept evolution:
Tier 1: God's word contradicts evolution over
Tier 2: Diverse groups of scientists (growing in number) are rejecting
Tier 3: Lack of observation / not studied by way of scientific method / no demonstrated by experiment"

That is in NobleMouse's post, number 83.

Now, if we take it that "God's word" means "the Bible" - (NobleMouse please correct me if that is incorrect) that is a philosophical statement, very clearly presented in the post. As an honestly expressed philosophical position, it does not require scientific evidence to support it - no start point in philosophy does.

Your continued efforts to respond to someone who has made such a post by pretending this discussion is a science debate looks to me like a huge philosophical failure. You are avoiding dealing with the philosophical basis of the argument.

If you read lenskis research, it is about current, small scale evolution in bacteria. It really has nothing to do with large scale, multi-million year evolution, at all.

Yes, that is exactly why so many of us don't regard large scale macro-evolution to be scientifically sound though, and again NobleMouse has bothered to spell out the relevant position on scientific method, "Please review the scientific method - you'll note a key element is close observation and this method is described as an 'empirical' method (definition of empirical -> "based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic." [emphasis added])" - post 83. As I understood NobleMouse's point, it was not to assume that Lenski was deliberately trying to prove large scale evolution, but to point out that it was a good opportunity to prove it was possible The E. Coli is a best case / optimal scenario to demonstrate this as the rate of reproducing a new generation is so short. - post 53.

If someone showed that reptiles pre-dated mammals in evolution via the fossil record, it would absolutely destroy the theory of evolution.

In the meantime, no one actually has to believe it anyway.

So while it is true that it is subjective, what the best piece of evidence for macro evolutionary change is, at least the fossil succession actually directly deals with macro evolutionary change.

On the other hand, anyone who does not accept macro-evolutionary change will not see the fossil record as you do, and despite your strange attempts to invalidate the alternative opinions by simply declaring them "not real" and thus ending up stating that they have not even been posted, they indeed have been presented right here in this thread. They are all based on Biblical truth as a framework for their position, but that is philosophically sound considering NobleMouse's stated position (as above, post 83 cited).

 

[RC Tent]

hahaha. Oh gosh, this is too much. This is just comical.

Just my opinion here, but this is not very polite - it certainly is not good science or philosophy.

 

[Job 33:6]

Then you agree that Luke 6:31 requires you not to ridicule someone else for their philosophy - even when that philosophy differs from yours and influences their perspective on science.



Well for starters that is not true. We are in a philosophical discussion, not a science seminar, and the relevant philosophical position has been honestly stated, it is

"To illustrate for you for why I don't accept evolution:
Tier 1: God's word contradicts evolution over
Tier 2: Diverse groups of scientists (growing in number) are rejecting
Tier 3: Lack of observation / not studied by way of scientific method / no demonstrated by experiment"

What is physically real, isnt really dependent upon anyones interpretation of scripture.

A transitional fossil is what it is, if it has features of multiple forms of life. Nothing can really change that. Even if someone was under the impression that scripture contradicted evolution, it would not change what simply is.

And thats what the theory of evolution is all about. It is a scientific theory, therefore, we must defer to science to judge it. If we ignore science all together, then really Noble Mouse has no room to even talk about transitional fossils and all that other stuff, because scientific evidence clearly is not important to him.

If someone wants to...ignore physical reality, then sure. I think it is fair to lay an interpretation of scripture on the table. But, we are scientists, so typically speaking, we arent simply going to ignore science.

But you know, Ive told Noble Mouse before that, I dont mind his arguments that he makes purely from interpretations of scripture. I actually enjoy reading them. But he often dabbles in science, he draws science into the discussion essentially calling for responses. An example being of him randomly bringing up the lenski experiments, which are of scientific research.

Tier 2: I mean, what should anyone say about this? 99% of natural scientists accept evolution, whether by darwinian means or some fashion of a modern synthesis. I dont view "Tier 2" as a...particularly useful response. If something like maybe 25% of scientists? rejected evolution, then sure, we might have a case to talk about. But after hundreds of years, we are nowhere near such a number.

And Tier 3: I think this is a fundamentally broken response. Noble Mouse and I have talked about this plenty of times.

You know, nobody in todays time...viewed the eruption of a volcano 10,000 years ago. But that doesnt mean that our lack of observation of that explicit event (at that time), automatically makes it non existent.
Timeline of volcanism on Earth - Wikipedia
Timeline of volcanism on Earth - Wikipedia

Obviously we have volcanoes that have layers and leave layers of lava on the ground when they erupt. so that we can see volcanoes that have erupted hundreds of times in earth history. As a matter of fact, we have evidence of regular, everyday volcanic, throughout the entire geologic column. And we go through the discussion on relative dating, and young earthers get blown out of the water every single time.

A lot of young earthers even deny things like, Chinese history, dating back 10,000 years. Simply on the basis that nobody here was there to see it. And of course it was before written records, so nobody wrote about it. But that doesnt just make it "not exist", just because someone in todays time didnt explicitly get into a time machine to observe it.

List of Neolithic cultures of China - Wikipedia