Looks like it's time for another evolution thread

[moonbogg]

No, and scientists will regularly use the word faith when describing something. You will hear a scientist say that they have faith in a methodology for example. But we try not to use the word faith in conversations about how science and religion overlap because often the two sides are using a different definition of the word faith and it just needlessly confuses the issue.

Are you a scientist? I'm just wondering who the "we" represents in your post.

 

[Caravaggio]

If someone wants to believe in God, then their belief must evolve to include the facts currently known about the world. Evolution is known. Rejecting evolution means your concept of God is wrong. Do you want to believe in another fake God?

Except that people don't actually think like that. They rarely act as though they are formal logical syllogistic 'machines'. They don't surrender cherished beliefs in the face of counter evidence. It took 200 years for the Catholic Church to apologise to Galileo and they have only recently accepted Darwin as 'gospel'.
There are plenty of Christians who still reject Darwin as do most Muslims and Orthodox Jews.

You are over-estimating human intelligence and consistency. Read 'When Prophecy Fails' by Leon Festinger. (1956). It is the study of a UFO cult which believed the world would soon be wiped out on a particular date. The date passed, the world did not end. Did they give up on their mistaken, disproved faith?

Not at a bit of it. They declared that their prayer and faith had averted disaster and saved the world. They started to recruit new members.

People who reject evolution are wrong, of course, but they are not worried about the absurdity of whatever 'intelligent design' or 'creationist' nonsense they believe is true.

 

[elitejp]

We do, every species is in an intermediate state. You don't even understand the basics of evolution and you really don't seem to be interested in learning.
.

No, what ive done is ask a question and so far the answer im getting over and over again is there is tons of evidence. Ok thats great, however where are you seeing these changes? Where do we see countless examples of half fish and half birds? Why dont we see these half fish birds now?

 

[elitejp]

Charles Darwin wrote "As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of being, as we see them, well defined species?" — H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation, (1966), p. 139.
I guess me and Charles think alike.

 

[alzan]

Well, make the context clear. Religious people who reject evolution in many cases use the world "evolve" when speaking about something that undergoes a change (i,.e my understanding of the Bible has 'evolved' - not referring to biological evolution).

No one owns words or how they're used. We can use them how we want to.

But they should be used accurately. In your example the word evolve can certainly be used but I wouldn't call it accurate since depending upon who you're speaking to it evokes a different meaning. No one is perfect, least of all myself but I do try to pick the most accurate word(s) for the meaning I'm attempting to convey.

No one, and that's his point. Whenever something predates written history (Prehistoric), it takes a level of faith to believe X happened the way its hypothesized to have happened, because no one was there. On the flip side, it takes faith to believe that theory X will hold up for the foreseeable future.

Religious people have no problem with faith, since what they believe is all about faith anyway. Scientists are more reluctant to admit that faith plays a role in what they do, especially when has to deal with theorizing what happened X Millions of years ago before humans were around to write about it.

We'll have to agree to disagree. After re-reading schmuckley's post that I quoted I do think that his point of posting (paraphrase) "Who was around to observe evolution over millions of years? No one!" was to say that since no one observed it it can't possibly be true; which elicited my response that since no one saw G-d create the universe and everything in it over a period of six days approx. 6000 years it couldn't possibly be true. Just turning the table on him.

That being said, I'm no scientist but I do know and understand enough that I think that the scientific theory of evolution is our best explanation of how life evolved to it's present state; it's not necessary to have faith in it. As to how it started, that's abiogenesis and a completely different discussion.

 

[alzan]

Charles Darwin wrote "As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of being, as we see them, well defined species?" — H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation, (1966), p. 139.
I guess me and Charles think alike.

After you've done more thorough research into the scientific theory of evolution you should also read up on fossils and what conditions are necessary for them to happen; you should also realize that currently and possibly for a long time in the future mankind does not/will not have access to large percentages of the Earth in which fossils may exist.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Are you a scientist? I'm just wondering who the "we" represents in your post.

Yes, I am. I have the fancy degrees on my wall and spent more than a decade of my life doing research at two different universities until I quit academics to pursue more lucrative other ventures.

But in this case I was merely referring to people making the science side of the argument, since you don't have to have a degree in a science to make sound arguments on scientific theory.

 

[DrPizza]

I thought it was the law of gravity. Oh well, it doesnt really matter to me. Evolution just doesnt have enough proof for me to agree with it, and many others think the same way. Its not fact, its guesswork. And science works that way until enough evidence is found.

I'm guessing that you haven't really explored how much evidence there is, since it also appears that you don't really have a grasp of the basics. As far as your "half bird, half fish" suggestion, why do you suppose that would be advantageous? In the water, I would think that "all fish, not half bird" would have an advantage in competing for food, shelter, etc. And, above the surface, "pure bird" would likely have an advantage over half bird.

Furthermore, evolution isn't determined by "what would be best" - it's determined by "which traits result in a better chance - and sometimes only a tiny bit better - at reproducing and carrying on the species."

Anyway, rough estimate: the amount of evidence in favor of evolution at the present time would take you a lifetime to view and read all of it.

Fascinating and eloquent though this slightly circular thread is, what I really wanted to ask about is your link to the myotonic 'fainting' goats.
Do you know much about them?
Since the thread is about evolution I wondered why anyone would want to breed-in a type of goat 'disability'? Goats that have to be encouraged to clean their kids are not going to make it for long in the big Goat World beyond the fence.
I have heard that some deaf parents want to breed deafness into their offspring. Because they refuse to regard their condition as a 'problem'. Is that analogous?

I know very much about them. I was the 100th registered breeder in the United States, and at one point, when there were fewer than a couple thousand registered myotonic goats, I had a lot. I currently have about 50; expecting roughly 40-50 kids to be born in about 6 weeks.

I'm not sure what you mean by encouraging goats to clean their kids - out of the hundreds upon hundreds of births, we've only had one goat experience any problems with childbirth (breech birth, lost the kid, but I saved the mother) - a lower rate than with other breeds of goats.

Myotonic goats are a meat goat. Their "disability" results in greater muscle mass - a positive trait for meat goats. Further, the tend to be far more mild mannered than most other breeds of goats, making them better as pets. Due to their condition, they really don't run and jump like most other breeds - a 2 foot fence keeps them contained, whereas a 4 foot fence won't contain many other breeds.

And, some people like them as sort of a "novelty" type of animal to raise. Thus, while you may see myotonia congenita as a condition that's bad for the goats, that very condition has actually been a positive for the goats as it's resulted in more and more people specializing in raising that breed. As a percentage of all goats, they are increasing fairly rapidly. From being the 100th breeder less than 10 years ago, there are now thousands of breeders. From a population of around 2000 goats, I don't even have a clue how many 10's or 100's of thousands there are now.

Likewise, there are plenty of other traits that someone might say aren't good - sickle cell anemia is one that's often pointed out in evolutionary studies. It confers a natural ability to not have a problem with malaria - this results in the "victim" having a higher probability of surviving to the age of reproduction - it's evolutionarily advantageous. Nature/evolution doesn't care about the lifespan of creatures - just whether they survive long enough to reproduce.

 

[moonbogg]

Except that people don't actually think like that. They rarely act as though they are formal logical syllogistic 'machines'. They don't surrender cherished beliefs in the face of counter evidence. It took 200 years for the Catholic Church to apologise to Galileo and they have only recently accepted Darwin as 'gospel'.
There are plenty of Christians who still reject Darwin as do most Muslims and Orthodox Jews.

You are over-estimating human intelligence and consistency. Read 'When Prophecy Fails' by Leon Festinger. (1956). It is the study of a UFO cult which believed the world would soon be wiped out on a particular date. The date passed, the world did not end. Did they give up on their mistaken, disproved faith?

Not at a bit of it. They declared that their prayer and faith had averted disaster and saved the world. They started to recruit new members.

People who reject evolution are wrong, of course, but they are not worried about the absurdity of whatever 'intelligent design' or 'creationist' nonsense they believe is true.

All I can say about people like that anymore is it sucks to be them. I'm glad I don't think like that. I happen to care about the truth and if there actually is some sort of God, I'd like to know something about it. You can't do that if you hold onto bullshit. I don't know what kinds of things these religious people pretend to care about, but the truth isn't one of them. That's clear to me so I stopped arguing with them.

Yes, I am. I have the fancy degrees on my wall and spent more than a decade of my life doing research at two different universities until I quit academics to pursue more lucrative other ventures.

But in this case I was merely referring to people making the science side of the argument, since you don't have to have a degree in a science to make sound arguments on scientific theory.

Impressive. A lot of people pretend they are in company with the authority figures they often quote and refer to, but you are the real deal then. Nice.

 

[Caravaggio]

Firstly, thanks for taking the time to offer that full explanation.

I'm not sure what you mean by encouraging goats to clean their kids - out of the hundreds upon hundreds of births, we've only had one goat experience any problems with childbirth (breech birth, lost the kid, but I saved the mother) - a lower rate than with other breeds of goats.

Myotonic goats are a meat goat. Their "disability" results in greater muscle mass - a positive trait for meat goats.

The bit about having to encourage some aspects of maternal behaviour came from the Wiki article on your type of goat. I know a little about miniature goats as my neighbour has a few. They are are extremely cute and I can see why they make good pets. His goats are obsessive climbers, clearly not myotonic.

I made the comment because I wondered whether myotonia was a form of muscular dystrophy? I know that condition can be distressing for human sufferers and wondered whether myotonic goats are 'happy goats'?.. Presumably they go rigid and fall over quite often? Neuro transmitter problems seem to be involved so I guessed it might be painful?

Likewise, there are plenty of other traits that someone might say aren't good - sickle cell anemia is one that's often pointed out in evolutionary studies. It confers a natural ability to not have a problem with malaria - this results in the "victim" having a higher probability of surviving to the age of reproduction - it's evolutionarily advantageous. Nature/evolution doesn't care about the lifespan of creatures - just whether they survive long enough to reproduce.

All true. I knew about the evolutionary benefits of having sickle cell but the costs are high. OK, you are less likely to get malaria as SC confers some protection but it can also be(always is?) painful and disabling if both parents carry the gene.

That's why I asked the question. If your goats have quality of life that's fine with me. I don't have a problem with eating goat meat. In many parts of the world it is a staple protein source.

Anyway, thanks for your time. I'm guessing the link is to your own goats, then?

 

[Screech]

No, what ive done is ask a question and so far the answer im getting over and over again is there is tons of evidence. Ok thats great, however where are you seeing these changes? Where do we see countless examples of half fish and half birds? Why dont we see these half fish birds now?

The correct answer to the point you are trying to make is a cladogram (phylogenetic tree). Namely, that the common ancestor which such animals share would look nothing like a half fish half bird.

But a more entertaining answer is exocoetidae. I look forward to the next moving of the goalposts.

 

[elitejp]

After you've done more thorough research into the scientific theory of evolution you should also read up on fossils and what conditions are necessary for them to happen; you should also realize that currently and possibly for a long time in the future mankind does not/will not have access to large percentages of the Earth in which fossils may exist.

Then fossil evidence is incomplete and will be for a very long time. Until then we can only make educated guesses, but not state complete facts. So fossil evidence isnt complete support evolution. We do know their were species that were here a long time before us but them changing from one kind to another still isnt supported.

 

[sandorski]

Then fossil evidence is incomplete and will be for a very long time. Until then we can only make educated guesses, but not state complete facts. So fossil evidence isnt complete support evolution. We do know their were species that were here a long time before us but them changing from one kind to another still isnt supported.

Completely False. We do have that evidence, tons of it. The problem you have is simply refusing to see what is easily available.

 

[elitejp]

I'm guessing that you haven't really explored how much evidence there is, since it also appears that you don't really have a grasp of the basics. As far as your "half bird, half fish" suggestion, why do you suppose that would be advantageous? In the water, I would think that "all fish, not half bird" would have an advantage in competing for food, shelter, etc. And, above the surface, "pure bird" would likely have an advantage over half bird.

Furthermore, evolution isn't determined by "what would be best" - it's determined by "which traits result in a better chance - and sometimes only a tiny bit better - at reproducing and carrying on the species."

Anyway, rough estimate: the amount of evidence in favor of evolution at the present time would take you a lifetime to view and read all of it.



I know very much about them. I was the 100th registered breeder in the United States, and at one point, when there were fewer than a couple thousand registered myotonic goats, I had a lot. I currently have about 50; expecting roughly 40-50 kids to be born in about 6 weeks.

.

Actually thats a great point about half birds half fish not being advantages. Thats why I would agree with you that the fish would remain a fish and wouldnt have any advantage to morph into a new species. Yet evolution says this happens. I would think if anything a fish would inherit better fish traits seeing as they are in water and would be better served by enhancing traits for water. Birds would do a better time enhancing traits for on land and flying so they would be better served staying as a bird.


Im sure I could spend a lifetime studying the science backing evolution, im just as sure that I could spend a lifetime studying the evidence against evolution. Both sides have alot to say on the subject.

Just a question but since you breed goats what are you expecting to see as offspring? Chickens? Fish? Monkeys? Im just messing with you. I know that you of course are expecting goats, not some other species! I know! I know! there just isnt enough time, there never is enough time.

 

[elitejp]

Completely False. We do have that evidence, tons of it. The problem you have is simply refusing to see what is easily available.

You can say this as many times as you want but show me a species where we have the proof that we can see it changing into another. Just saying there is tons of proof isnt going to convince anyone to agree to your side. I can say that im a billionaire but sooner or later someones gonna want to see the money.

 

[elitejp]

"Not one change of species into another is on record . . we cannot prove that a single species has been changed." –*Charles Darwin, My Life and Letters.

 

[sandorski]

You can say this as many times as you want but show me a species where we have the proof that we can see it changing into another. Just saying there is tons of proof isnt going to convince anyone to agree to your side. I can say that im a billionaire but sooner or later someones gonna want to see the money.

Knock yourself out.

 

[sandorski]

"Not one change of species into another is on record . . we cannot prove that a single species has been changed." –*Charles Darwin, My Life and Letters.

Gonna keep quote mining Darwin?

 

[Caravaggio]

Then fossil evidence is incomplete and will be for a very long time. Until then we can only make educated guesses, but not state complete facts. So fossil evidence isnt complete support evolution.

The evidence supporting evolution is orders of magnitude greater than the evidence for resurrection, transubstantiation or 'the life everlasting'.

Yet I sense that you are probably willing to accept one or more of those completely unevidenced beliefs.

"Whereof we cannot speak, we must remain silent".

 

[elitejp]

The evidence supporting evolution is orders of magnitude greater than the evidence for resurrection, transubstantiation or 'the life everlasting'.

Yet I sense that you are probably willing to accept one or more of those completely unevidenced beliefs.

"Whereof we cannot speak, we must remain silent".

Glad you can sense things but I havent made a single reference to religion or God in any of my postings. So lets stay on topic.

 

[JD50]

No, and scientists will regularly use the word faith when describing something. You will hear a scientist say that they have faith in a methodology for example. But we try not to use the word faith in conversations about how science and religion overlap because often the two sides are using a different definition of the word faith and it just needlessly confuses the issue.

Exactly my point, thank you. We aren't "afraid" to use the word faith, we just know that theists will twist our words and play a game of gotcha.

 

[JD50]

You can say this as many times as you want but show me a species where we have the proof that we can see it changing into another. Just saying there is tons of proof isnt going to convince anyone to agree to your side. I can say that im a billionaire but sooner or later someones gonna want to see the money.

You need to spend some of your own time reading up on evolution. You're essentially walking into a calculus class and asking the student next to you how to perform basic arithmetic.

 

[alzan]

Then fossil evidence is incomplete and will be for a very long time. Until then we can only make educated guesses, but not state complete facts. So fossil evidence isnt complete support evolution. We do know their were species that were here a long time before us but them changing from one kind to another still isnt supported.

As soon as you're done viewing all the evidence we do have, you're welcome to start going under the oceans and digging/drilling through the strata and looking for these fossils of a half fish-half bird. Once you've completed your exhaustive search of the ocean strata, you'll need to start climbing mountains and checking for fossils there.

You're going to be a busy little bee for quite a while.

 

[SMOGZINN]

As soon as you're done viewing all the evidence we do have, you're welcome to start going under the oceans and digging/drilling through the strata and looking for these fossils of a half fish-half bird. Once you've completed your exhaustive search of the ocean strata, you'll need to start climbing mountains and checking for fossils there.

You're going to be a busy little bee for quite a while.

 

[Caravaggio]

I havent made a single reference to religion or God in any of my postings. So lets stay on topic.

Well I can't be arsed to go back and check all your posts for theological musings but two things are obvious from your work here.

1) Your objections to Darwin are standard ID objections and every Intelligent Design acolyte has a little bit of God hidden in his attic.

2) you don't understand Darwin at all. Your response to Dr. Pizza in post 214 here is full of teleological nonsense about birds spending more time being birds and not fish.

Evolution does not have a 'purpose' it is not a mechanism with a 'secret plan' of self-betterment.

The full title of Darwin's best known work is :
"On the Origin of Species by Means of NATURAL Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life".

The evidence there and that from the Beagle records, shows that Darwin believes that randon or chance variations might sometimes allow an animal to exploit a habitat more effectively than other similar species in the same habitat.
The majority of randon changes due, we now know to genetic mutation, are probably deleterious. Once in a while a Galapagos Finch with a distorted beak might be able to exploit a seed source that others cannot reach. Bent beaks now confer an advantage, gradually offspring of bent-beak parents, some of whom will have inherited bent beak 'deformity' start to prosper and out breed rivals.
If the food source dries up the 'bent beakers' might fail to adapt and thus die out.
No purpose, no aim, just a mutation which helped in the struggle for survival. Fish with fins which became big enough to be effective wings did not 'decide' to grow them. They conferred an advantage, probably by escaping predators more rapidly.
Most changes fail, the new animal dies without viable offspring or cannot compete.

You say that you have not mentioned 'God'. Maybe, but your standard ID argument has God running all through it like a stick of Blackpool rock.

Finally, two questions:

a) do you believe in a creator God?

b) do you believe that evolution (in the Darwinian sense) happens?