Looks like it's time for another evolution thread

[JD50]

elitejp, have you been to the Smithsonian Natural History Museum in DC? They have a great exhibit on evolution and they have fossils that you can look at and examine for yourself.

 

[JD50]

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?

This is a great explanation, unfortunately it will be hand waved away as "micro evolution."

 

[Retro Rob]

This is a great explanation, unfortunately it will be hand waved away as "micro evolution."

Fwiw, you saying this is a "great explanation" doesn't mean much at all seeing you already agreed with it before he even posted it.

Technically, he can put God into it seeing evolution doesn't at all address a Supernatural being -- that would be a different field of study (like Abiogensis is).

I wouldn't, though.

 

[alzan]

I think you're well aware that there are bad explanations; your own experiences in school when you were told (or you interpreted what you were told) that evolution was a fact and not a scientific theory.

People can and should recognize and even praise good explanations and conversely constructively criticize bad explanations.

Putting G-d into a discussion of evolution is muddying the waters.

As you said if we're discussing abiogenesis than certainly G-d can be put into that discussion.

 

[JD50]

Fwiw, you saying this is a "great explanation" doesn't mean much at all seeing you already agreed with it before he even posted it.

Technically, he can put God into it seeing evolution doesn't at all address a Supernatural being -- that would be a different field of study (like Abiogensis is).

I wouldn't, though.

What? I was saying that he did a good job of explaining evolution to someone that obviously doesn't even understand the basics, of course I agree with it.

 

[elitejp]

Ok ive been silent for a little while as there definitely much to read on both sides of the argument. I stated earlier as some people indicate that im stupid for not agreeing with evolution because among other things many studies prove evolution to be true I replied that there is also quite a few studies that contradict evolution. I quote Darwin not because I agree with his premise of species evolving to completely new and seperate forms of life but to show that Darwin also realized that evidence isnt complete.

"He stated in his book, The Origin of the Species, 'The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find intermediate varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory.' [Quoting from the sixth (1901) edition of Darwin's book, pages 341-342.1

"We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information." *David Raup, Conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology, Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Vol. 50, No. 1, 1979, pp. 22-29.


Now I fully trust that we can get quotes from supporters of evolution that will say the opposite. And thats why I will openly say im a little hesitant just taking any scientist at there word seeing as they could easily be trying to promote an agenda. You ever read political reports given by researches in that field? They can have very polar analysis's of the topic.


So when I say I just dont see it, it shouldnt be a great surprise. Quite a few scientist are saying the same thing.

 

[Paul98]

Ok ive been silent for a little while as there definitely much to read on both sides of the argument. I stated earlier as some people indicate that im stupid for not agreeing with evolution because among other things many studies prove evolution to be true I replied that there is also quite a few studies that contradict evolution. I quote Darwin not because I agree with his premise of species evolving to completely new and seperate forms of life but to show that Darwin also realized that evidence isnt complete.

"He stated in his book, The Origin of the Species, 'The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find intermediate varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory.' [Quoting from the sixth (1901) edition of Darwin's book, pages 341-342.1

"We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information." *David Raup, Conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology, Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Vol. 50, No. 1, 1979, pp. 22-29.


Now I fully trust that we can get quotes from supporters of evolution that will say the opposite. And thats why I will openly say im a little hesitant just taking any scientist at there word seeing as they could easily be trying to promote an agenda. You ever read political reports given by researches in that field? They can have very polar analysis's of the topic.


So when I say I just dont see it, it shouldnt be a great surprise. Quite a few scientist are saying the same thing.

Evolution is a fact, we know it happens and see it happening all the time.

There is no discussion to be had about this, if you want to learn about evolution there are plenty of good places to go and do that.

There is a discussion in the scientific community about specific parts of evolution that aren't fully understood. But to be able to take part on that discussion you first need to spend the time to learn about what you don't know and get an understanding about it. If you don't know why something is the way it is, and don't understand how something would end up the way it does through evolution you need to research till you figure out how it happened.

Until you get a real understanding about evolution, you should assume any thing you think would disprove evolution is wrong. If someone gives you an answer to something and it doesn't satisfy you, do more research on the answer given, and your question till you understand the answer to the question you had. Any question you might have has been thought of by millions of people before you.

 

[elitejp]

Evolution is a fact, we know it happens and see it happening all the time.

There is no discussion to be had about this, if you want to learn about evolution there are plenty of good places to go and do that.

Sorry but evolution cant at this time be determined as fact. There isnt enough evidence and ive provided a serious flaw in the matter. I can totally agree with you that you arent willing to have a discussion about this but would rather just say everyone is wrong if they dont believe the way you do. I do NOT see evolution happening all around us. I do NOT see countless forms of intermediate species but do see very segregated types of species. And fossil records also show this.
Im not a scientist in the matter but there are plenty and you have just as many scientists disagreeing with evolution as you do agreeing with it. So this isnt about who is smarter than who its about evidence isnt complete.

 

[sandorski]

Sorry but evolution cant at this time be determined as fact. There isnt enough evidence and ive provided a serious flaw in the matter. I can totally agree with you that you arent willing to have a discussion about this but would rather just say everyone is wrong if they dont believe the way you do. I do NOT see evolution happening all around us. I do NOT see countless forms of intermediate species but do see very segregated types of species. And fossil records also show this.
Im not a scientist in the matter but there are plenty and you have just as many scientists disagreeing with evolution as you do agreeing with it. So this isnt about who is smarter than who its about evidence isnt complete.

It can be determined to be fact and has been determined to be. Whether you can "see" it or not doesn't matter. It is a gradual process and the only way to see it happening within one's lifetime is to study specific life forms with short life spans.

No, there's not as many disagreeing with it as agreeing with it, it isn't even close to being true. Whoever told you that crap was lying to you or was lied to by someone else.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Sorry but evolution cant at this time be determined as fact. There isnt enough evidence and ive provided a serious flaw in the matter. I can totally agree with you that you arent willing to have a discussion about this but would rather just say everyone is wrong if they dont believe the way you do. I do NOT see evolution happening all around us. I do NOT see countless forms of intermediate species but do see very segregated types of species. And fossil records also show this.
Im not a scientist in the matter but there are plenty and you have just as many scientists disagreeing with evolution as you do agreeing with it. So this isnt about who is smarter than who its about evidence isnt complete.

And another tool of the ID people. False claims of widespread doubt among the scientific community.

http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-5-evolution-climate-change-and-other-issues/

 

[Paul98]

Sorry but evolution cant at this time be determined as fact. There isnt enough evidence and ive provided a serious flaw in the matter. I can totally agree with you that you arent willing to have a discussion about this but would rather just say everyone is wrong if they dont believe the way you do. I do NOT see evolution happening all around us. I do NOT see countless forms of intermediate species but do see very segregated types of species. And fossil records also show this.
Im not a scientist in the matter but there are plenty and you have just as many scientists disagreeing with evolution as you do agreeing with it. So this isnt about who is smarter than who its about evidence isnt complete.

What you say continues to show a total lack of knowledge about the basics of evolution. So I will say it again, you need to start from the beginning and learn about evolution and how it works. Not how you think it should work, and not how you currently understand it to work. You need to throw away how you think it works, and assume you are wrong. If you get a real understanding and have the smarts to apply what you learn and are able to come to the correct conclusions. Then you can have an actual discussion about it and make sense.



https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/learn-about-evolution-evolution-introduction.543950/

 

[elitejp]

This guy had a discussion about it at Harvard, maybe he knows something:hmm:



"I have dealt with biologists over the last twenty years now. I have found that, in a way, they are hampered by having too much education. They have been steeped from their childhood in the Darwinian views, and, as a result, it has taken possession of their minds to such an extent that they are almost unable to see many facts that are not in harmony with Darwinism. These facts simply aren't there for them often, and other ones are sort of suppressed or distorted. I'll give you some examples.​

"First, and perhaps most important, is the first appearance of fossils. This occurs at a time called the "Cambrian," 600 million years ago by the fossil reckoning. The fossils appear at that time in a pretty highly developed form. They don't start very low and evolve bit by bit over long periods of time. In the lowest fossil-bearing strata of all [the Cambrian], they are already there, and are pretty complicated in more-or-less modern form.​

"One example of this is the little animal called the trilobite. There are a great many fossils of the trilobite right there at the beginning with no buildup to it [no evolution of life forms leading to it]. And, if you examine them closely, you will find that they are not simple animals. They are small, but they have an eye that has been discussed a great deal in recent years, an eye that is simply incredible.​

"It is made up of dozens of little tubes which are all at slightly different angles so that it covers the entire field of vision, with a different tube pointing at each spot on the horizon. But these tubes are all more complicated than that, by far. They have a lens on them that is optically arranged in a very complicated way, and it is bound into another layer that has to be just exactly right for them to see anything . . But the more complicated it is, the less likely it issimply to have grown up out of nothing.​

"And this situation has troubled everybody from the beginning--to have everything at the very opening of the drama. The curtain goes up [life forms first appear in the Cambrian strata] and you have the players on the stage already, entirely in modern costumes." *Norman Macbeth, Speech at Harvard University, September 24, 1983, quoted in L. D. Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma (1988), p. 150.​

 

[JD50]

This guy had a discussion about it at Harvard, maybe he knows something:hmm:



"I have dealt with biologists over the last twenty years now. I have found that, in a way, they are hampered by having too much education. They have been steeped from their childhood in the Darwinian views, and, as a result, it has taken possession of their minds to such an extent that they are almost unable to see many facts that are not in harmony with Darwinism. These facts simply aren't there for them often, and other ones are sort of suppressed or distorted. I'll give you some examples.​

"First, and perhaps most important, is the first appearance of fossils. This occurs at a time called the "Cambrian," 600 million years ago by the fossil reckoning. The fossils appear at that time in a pretty highly developed form. They don't start very low and evolve bit by bit over long periods of time. In the lowest fossil-bearing strata of all [the Cambrian], they are already there, and are pretty complicated in more-or-less modern form.​

"One example of this is the little animal called the trilobite. There are a great many fossils of the trilobite right there at the beginning with no buildup to it [no evolution of life forms leading to it]. And, if you examine them closely, you will find that they are not simple animals. They are small, but they have an eye that has been discussed a great deal in recent years, an eye that is simply incredible.​

"It is made up of dozens of little tubes which are all at slightly different angles so that it covers the entire field of vision, with a different tube pointing at each spot on the horizon. But these tubes are all more complicated than that, by far. They have a lens on them that is optically arranged in a very complicated way, and it is bound into another layer that has to be just exactly right for them to see anything . . But the more complicated it is, the less likely it issimply to have grown up out of nothing.​

"And this situation has troubled everybody from the beginning--to have everything at the very opening of the drama. The curtain goes up [life forms first appear in the Cambrian strata] and you have the players on the stage already, entirely in modern costumes." *Norman Macbeth, Speech at Harvard University, September 24, 1983, quoted in L. D. Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma (1988), p. 150.​

You could have just googled Cambrian explosion.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html

Edit - I generally don't like just dropping links (or copy pasta from somewhere else), but that's basically what you're doing and you're bringing up basic things that have been explained over and over again.

 

[Retro Rob]

And another tool of the ID people. False claims of widespread doubt among the scientific community.

http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-5-evolution-climate-change-and-other-issues/

I think that's an interesting chart. However, for the sake of this discussion, it matters to say this:

Three percent of scientists disagreeing is no small number in an of itself, but its small relative to the total number. For instance, (I just googled this so my numbers probably aren't truly refective) if there are 5.8 Million scientists in the world, that means 3 percent of that is 174,000.

Eight percent who believe God is involved would be 464,000. Small compared to the whole, yes...but not small numbers themselves.

Thought that was interesting to point out!

 

[SMOGZINN]

This guy had a discussion about it at Harvard, maybe he knows something:hmm:



"I have dealt with biologists over the last twenty years now. I have found that, in a way, they are hampered by having too much education. They have been steeped from their childhood in the Darwinian views, and, as a result, it has taken possession of their minds to such an extent that they are almost unable to see many facts that are not in harmony with Darwinism. These facts simply aren't there for them often, and other ones are sort of suppressed or distorted. I'll give you some examples.​

"First, and perhaps most important, is the first appearance of fossils. This occurs at a time called the "Cambrian," 600 million years ago by the fossil reckoning. The fossils appear at that time in a pretty highly developed form. They don't start very low and evolve bit by bit over long periods of time. In the lowest fossil-bearing strata of all [the Cambrian], they are already there, and are pretty complicated in more-or-less modern form.​

"One example of this is the little animal called the trilobite. There are a great many fossils of the trilobite right there at the beginning with no buildup to it [no evolution of life forms leading to it]. And, if you examine them closely, you will find that they are not simple animals. They are small, but they have an eye that has been discussed a great deal in recent years, an eye that is simply incredible.​

"It is made up of dozens of little tubes which are all at slightly different angles so that it covers the entire field of vision, with a different tube pointing at each spot on the horizon. But these tubes are all more complicated than that, by far. They have a lens on them that is optically arranged in a very complicated way, and it is bound into another layer that has to be just exactly right for them to see anything . . But the more complicated it is, the less likely it issimply to have grown up out of nothing.​

"And this situation has troubled everybody from the beginning--to have everything at the very opening of the drama. The curtain goes up [life forms first appear in the Cambrian strata] and you have the players on the stage already, entirely in modern costumes." *Norman Macbeth, Speech at Harvard University, September 24, 1983, quoted in L. D. Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma (1988), p. 150.​

This guy does not know what he is talking about. We have fossils of Collenia that date back at least 3.5 billion years. There are 17000 known species of trilobite fossils, and an entire classification of trilobitomorphs which are (probably) pre-trilobite ancestors from the Ediacaran and Precambrian era. The trilobite eyes are complex, but unlike what the author of that essay was trying to say we have a fairly full record of them evolving.

 

[piasabird]

To me evolution simply does not matter. It does seem like a long shot. Usually if we see evidence of some animal that lived in the past, that just means it is extinct. All I know for sure is that I am here now and I have to deal with living in this world.

 

[piasabird]

On the other hand I pretty much agree with the concept of natural selection. The animals best equipped to survive will. Similarly, if you do not adapt to your environment, you will probably become extinct. Sometimes it is not the largest and strongest that survive. It is often those with the superior reasoning or an ability to store food for later use that survive.

 

[piasabird]

There was an article a while back about evolution and migration concerning the Camel. The Camel seems to be a recent addition to the animals that live in the Middle east. There was an argument about whether the Camel actually existed at the time of Christ and when exactly the camel started to show up in Israel or Africa. I found reports that the use of the Camel slowly spread from up around China down through Persia and then into the middle east (Land of UR) and into the Holy Land.

However, After looking at a couple of sources it is speculated that the Camel made its way or was transported into Asia from South America and may be somewhat related to what we call the Llama in Peru.

I find this interesting because this all started from a story about an archaeology dig in the middle east concerning the existence of remains of camels. Once I heard about it I just had to do a little research.

 

[IronWing]

Yep, the camel evolved in North America.

 

[witeken]

This debate really is kind of boring. Been there, done that.

The problem is that people still think that the validity of evolution is still open for debate. For starters, non-biologists shouldn't even doubt scientific truth in the first place. And secondly, evolution is unambiguously accepted as true by professionals.

That's the whole beauty of science: when something is, after going through the whole rigorous scientific process, found to be true, everyone will accept it, and then new people can learn from the acquired facts, and expand our knowledge at the very edge of science. Instead, what you see with religious people is that they're still stuck in the Dark Ages. So there might still be things left to investigate at the boundaries of the known, but evolution stands as a fact. For example, there were discussions about whether evolution works through group selection, gene selection, etc.

Science really is one whole upside down pyramid: if your most basic knowledge turns out to be false, everything else breaks down. So the plain fact that the whole jigsaw puzzle doesn't collapse (with astonishing precision of many decimal places), implies that it just works. This is not really a big surprise (at least not for a natural universe), since in science there's no such thing as an assumption: everything is empirical. This means scientist can go on to investigate more interesting stuff, building further on top of the old knowledge, without having to worry about the details of the how and what of old findings (this is also how people learn things like science and math).

So instead of engaging in this meaningless discussion, one should accept evolution without doubt (it isn't faith because it's a fact) and instead go one with more fruitful discussions, so learning can continue.

 

[witeken]

well i'll be all my textbooks said it was a law. Anyways, you can say there is tons of proof that species came from nothing into something and then for necessary reasons evolved into a completely different species but Im not sure where the mountains of proof is. On the same note why dont we see these intermediate changes between species now? Im talking today. Take a human and we can see the changes from conception to death. We have constant visual proof. Now this is just a very short time but its still time. Why dont we see half fish half birds. To me that would be such a more beneficial evolutionary change. Now before this gets sidetracked i trust the example is understood clearly enough to answer my question.

FYI, measurable changes to organisms due to selection pressure can be measured any day in the lab (just make sure you take a species with a small time between generations). It doesn't matter where you put the pressure (height, food, color,...). In the real world organisms get selected on every single feature, resulting in big changes over time across the entire population.

 

[witeken]

To me evolution simply does not matter. It does seem like a long shot. Usually if we see evidence of some animal that lived in the past, that just means it is extinct. All I know for sure is that I am here now and I have to deal with living in this world.

Here is something to consider:

Your brains (aka "you"), which have written this comment, have been "designed" by evolution. Because there's no such thing as an imaginary soul, evolution should matter to you since it determines how you act, etc.

To give an example: aggression. If you rationally ask yourself the question about what's the point of aggression (and war etc.), you should come to the conclusion that is does not make sense. This insight can help to suppress any action resulting from anger; instead choosing a rational alternative. So being aware of these things can improve your life, although you can obviously see them more as psychological things from a high-level.

 

[Caravaggio]

This guy had a discussion about it at Harvard, maybe he knows something?

You are selecting quotes from a thirty year old lecture given by Sunderland at Harvard. His lecture draws on refuted pseudo-science of the 1960's. This in turn is borrowed from shoddy unevidenced religious arguments against Darwin which were doing the rounds in England in1870.

L.D. Sunderland is very popular with the "Intelligent Design" Brigade and is often quoted in books such as Roger Gallup's "Darwin's deception" and Dave Hunt's. "The Non Negotiable Gospel". Likewise websites such CreationDesign.org..
You are quoting prepared slabs of text from them. You show no evidence of even understanding the mistaken arguments of those you cite.

In my post here, 225, I asked you if you believed in a creator God. You ran away for a while and did not answer. I said that your attack on Darwin was standard ID course 101. You did not get back...

So, do you believe in a creator God? Or are you just being obdurate and disingenuous because you like the attention?

___________________________________________
"By the time the cock crows you will have denied me thrice"

 

[kage69]

To me evolution simply does not matter. It does seem like a long shot. Usually if we see evidence of some animal that lived in the past, that just means it is extinct. All I know for sure is that I am here now and I have to deal with living in this world.

On the other hand I pretty much agree with the concept of natural selection. The animals best equipped to survive will. Similarly, if you do not adapt to your environment, you will probably become extinct.

"I understand that 2+2=4, it's just that 4 is irrelevant due to it's huge size and incalculable scope."

Wow. Self induced keyhole vision strikes again. Like a many an evolution denier, you seem pretty proud to disqualify yourself from being taken seriously stating contradictory bull regarding pretty basic concepts.

This is as short and sweet as I can put it: natural selection is the mechanism by which evolution operates. You affirm the process then immediately deny it's output? Weird.

Sometimes it is not the largest and strongest that survive. It is often those with the superior reasoning or an ability to store food for later use that survive.

I hate to break this to you, but your attempt to draw lines between categories in which species may have evolutionary advantages (or disadvantages) is pretty lame.

 

[hercolator]

This guy does not know what he is talking about. We have fossils of Collenia that date back at least 3.5 billion years. There are 17000 known species of trilobite fossils, and an entire classification of trilobitomorphs which are (probably) pre-trilobite ancestors from the Ediacaran and Precambrian era. The trilobite eyes are complex, but unlike what the author of that essay was trying to say we have a fairly full record of them evolving.

You guys can believe that some scientist has declared something to be 3.5 BILLION years old, when the best tools rarely reflect anything over 10,000 years... You guys are amazing, and I bet you believe this number to be 'fact' with zero need to use the word 'faith' to accept this arbitrary age of 3.5 (Ba).. LOL

That you can think, type, respond, retain information that does NOT have a thing to do with survival, shows intelligent design. And you can never dispute that life itself, has design all over the place, including the tools used to decide how old a fossil is, or isn't.