|
Post by Elizabeth on Apr 27, 2018 11:36:03 GMT
I'm ok with saying the Galapagos Islands contain different animals or vary slightly more different in appearance compared to the rest of the animals on the planet. Shrug
So mutations or genetic differences can be present but they don't change you from a bird to a snake for example. So not a big change like that.
|
|
|
Post by DKTrav88 on Aug 7, 2018 0:13:24 GMT
I agree. Scientific theories belong in science class. Its up to the parents to tell their children that evolution's wrong. If evolution is wrong, then why do we have upside-down retinas, inefficient DNA sorting, chances of failed fixing in DNA and a horribly designed heart? The mechanisms of evolution make systems work, not perfect. If god did exist, then why did he design the human body this weirdly? I thought evolution was more about evolving into something better, not devolving shrug
|
|
Clovis Merovingian
Prestige/VIP
Elder
Posts: 2,673
Likes: 1,757
Meta-Ethnicity: Anglo-American
Ethnicity: Deep Southerner
Country: My State and my Region are my country
Region: The Deep South
Location: South Carolina
Ancestry: Gaelic (patrilineal), English, Ulster Scots/Scots Irish, Scottish, German, Swiss German, Swedish, Manx, Finnish, Norman French/Quebecois (distantly), Dutch (distantly)
Taxonomy: Borreby/Alpine/ Nordid mix
Y-DNA: R-S660/R-DF109
mtDNA: T1a1
Politics: Conservative
Religion: Christian
Hero: Andrew Jackson, Thomas Jefferson, James K. Polk
Age: 30
Philosophy: I try to find out what is true as best I can.
|
Post by Clovis Merovingian on Aug 7, 2018 0:27:58 GMT
If evolution is wrong, then why do we have upside-down retinas, inefficient DNA sorting, chances of failed fixing in DNA and a horribly designed heart? The mechanisms of evolution make systems work, not perfect. If god did exist, then why did he design the human body this weirdly? I thought evolution was more about evolving into something better, not devolving That's a bit of a misunderstanding of the theory. Evolution isn't a straight line of "worse to better". Your genes don't know what "better" is because your genes aren't a sentient thing. Evolution is about adaptation to a certain environment, and an animal is only successful in that it is adapted to a certain environment and survives. And ALL that matters is that it survives, it doesn't matter if it has upside down eyelids, inefficient DNA sorting, a badly designed heart etc. If it survives with imperfections, it survives and has done its job. I'm not defending evolution here, I'm just telling you how the theory works.
|
|
|
Post by DKTrav88 on Aug 7, 2018 0:54:01 GMT
I thought evolution was more about evolving into something better, not devolving That's a bit of a misunderstanding of the theory. Evolution isn't a straight line of "worse to better". Your genes don't know what "better" is because your genes aren't a sentient thing. Evolution is about adaptation to a certain environment, and an animal is only successful in that it is adapted to a certain environment and survives. And ALL that matters is that it survives, it doesn't matter if it has upside down eyelids, inefficient DNA sorting, a badly designed heart etc. If it survives with imperfections, it survives and has done its job. I'm not defending evolution here, I'm just telling you how the theory works. So if I moved from where I live now where it’s over 100 degrees everyday in the summer to somewhere where the hottest it gets is 75 degrees in the summer but in the winter it gets well below freezing.. and I survive, according to the theory of evolution, I’ve successfully evolved? Forgive me please if I am still misunderstanding.
|
|
Clovis Merovingian
Prestige/VIP
Elder
Posts: 2,673
Likes: 1,757
Meta-Ethnicity: Anglo-American
Ethnicity: Deep Southerner
Country: My State and my Region are my country
Region: The Deep South
Location: South Carolina
Ancestry: Gaelic (patrilineal), English, Ulster Scots/Scots Irish, Scottish, German, Swiss German, Swedish, Manx, Finnish, Norman French/Quebecois (distantly), Dutch (distantly)
Taxonomy: Borreby/Alpine/ Nordid mix
Y-DNA: R-S660/R-DF109
mtDNA: T1a1
Politics: Conservative
Religion: Christian
Hero: Andrew Jackson, Thomas Jefferson, James K. Polk
Age: 30
Philosophy: I try to find out what is true as best I can.
|
Post by Clovis Merovingian on Aug 7, 2018 1:28:24 GMT
That's a bit of a misunderstanding of the theory. Evolution isn't a straight line of "worse to better". Your genes don't know what "better" is because your genes aren't a sentient thing. Evolution is about adaptation to a certain environment, and an animal is only successful in that it is adapted to a certain environment and survives. And ALL that matters is that it survives, it doesn't matter if it has upside down eyelids, inefficient DNA sorting, a badly designed heart etc. If it survives with imperfections, it survives and has done its job. I'm not defending evolution here, I'm just telling you how the theory works. So if I moved from where I live now where it’s over 100 degrees everyday in the summer to somewhere where the hottest it gets is 75 degrees in the summer but in the winter it gets well below freezing.. and I survive, according to the theory of evolution, I’ve successfully evolved? Forgive me please if I am still misunderstanding. <iframe width="33.38000000000011" height="7.9599999999999795" style="position: absolute; width: 33.38000000000011px; height: 7.9599999999999795px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none;left: 15px; top: -5px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_72333805" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="33.38000000000011" height="7.9599999999999795" style="position: absolute; width: 33.38px; height: 7.96px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 1599px; top: -5px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_29933028" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="33.38000000000011" height="7.9599999999999795" style="position: absolute; width: 33.38px; height: 7.96px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 15px; top: 335px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_28117065" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="33.38000000000011" height="7.9599999999999795" style="position: absolute; width: 33.38px; height: 7.96px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 1599px; top: 335px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_66966348" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="33.38000000000011" height="7.9599999999999795" style="position: absolute; width: 33.38000000000011px; height: 7.9599999999999795px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none;left: 15px; top: -5px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_38410629" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="33.38000000000011" height="7.9599999999999795" style="position: absolute; width: 33.38px; height: 7.96px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 1599px; top: -5px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_91349126" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="33.38000000000011" height="7.9599999999999795" style="position: absolute; width: 33.38px; height: 7.96px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 15px; top: 335px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_7526832" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="33.38000000000011" height="7.9599999999999795" style="position: absolute; width: 33.38px; height: 7.96px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 1599px; top: 335px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_1924921" scrolling="no"></iframe> No, it works like this. An elephant population that is adapted to the 100 degrees summer moves into the winter below freezing place. Now obviously most of them die during the winter, but the ones that survive are the ones who are genetically suited to better take it because of certain traits (maybe smaller ears, more hair, more blubber, better tolerance to cold.) They breed with the other survivors who are genetically better suited to take it and pass on those genes. This process basically happens for many generations as genes that are better able to survive freezing temperatures are selected for (because those that don't have it die) and the next thing you know you have a species of elephant with thick woolly fur, small ears, more blubber, and better heat resistance. According to evolutionists you take that kind of process over millions of years of changing environments and many mutations you may get a totally new species. An elephant could become something else entirely. I don't agree with it but that's what evolution is, descent with modification, the modifications are traits passed down to adapt to different environments. Obviously I believe in animals adapting to their environment, but I don't believe that they become something entirely different.
|
|
|
Post by DKTrav88 on Aug 7, 2018 2:20:29 GMT
So if I moved from where I live now where it’s over 100 degrees everyday in the summer to somewhere where the hottest it gets is 75 degrees in the summer but in the winter it gets well below freezing.. and I survive, according to the theory of evolution, I’ve successfully evolved? Forgive me please if I am still misunderstanding. <iframe width="33.38000000000011" height="7.9599999999999795" style="position: absolute; width: 33.38000000000011px; height: 7.9599999999999795px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none;left: 15px; top: -5px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_72333805" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="33.38000000000011" height="7.9599999999999795" style="position: absolute; width: 33.38px; height: 7.96px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 1599px; top: -5px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_29933028" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="33.38000000000011" height="7.9599999999999795" style="position: absolute; width: 33.38px; height: 7.96px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 15px; top: 335px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_28117065" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="33.38000000000011" height="7.9599999999999795" style="position: absolute; width: 33.38px; height: 7.96px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 1599px; top: 335px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_66966348" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="33.38000000000011" height="7.9599999999999795" style="position: absolute; width: 33.38000000000011px; height: 7.9599999999999795px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none;left: 15px; top: -5px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_38410629" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="33.38000000000011" height="7.9599999999999795" style="position: absolute; width: 33.38px; height: 7.96px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 1599px; top: -5px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_91349126" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="33.38000000000011" height="7.9599999999999795" style="position: absolute; width: 33.38px; height: 7.96px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 15px; top: 335px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_7526832" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="33.38000000000011" height="7.9599999999999795" style="position: absolute; width: 33.38px; height: 7.96px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 1599px; top: 335px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_1924921" scrolling="no"></iframe> No, it works like this. An elephant population that is adapted to the 100 degrees summer moves into the winter below freezing place. Now obviously most of them die during the winter, but the ones that survive are the ones who are genetically suited to better take it because of certain traits (maybe smaller ears, more hair, more blubber, better tolerance to cold.) They breed with the other survivors who are genetically better suited to take it and pass on those genes. This process basically happens for many generations as genes that are better able to survive freezing temperatures are selected for (because those that don't have it die) and the next thing you know you have a species of elephant with thick woolly fur, small ears, more blubber, and better heat resistance. According to evolutionists you take that kind of process over millions of years of changing environments and many mutations you may get a totally new species. An elephant could become something else entirely. I don't agree with it but that's what evolution is, descent with modification, the modifications are traits passed down to adapt to different environments. Obviously I believe in animals adapting to their environment, but I don't believe that they become something entirely different. I see. The theory seems more like a shot in the dark. I wonder, does an elephant, or any other animal for that matter, have that genetic information in their DNA to change into a completely different animal?
|
|
Clovis Merovingian
Prestige/VIP
Elder
Posts: 2,673
Likes: 1,757
Meta-Ethnicity: Anglo-American
Ethnicity: Deep Southerner
Country: My State and my Region are my country
Region: The Deep South
Location: South Carolina
Ancestry: Gaelic (patrilineal), English, Ulster Scots/Scots Irish, Scottish, German, Swiss German, Swedish, Manx, Finnish, Norman French/Quebecois (distantly), Dutch (distantly)
Taxonomy: Borreby/Alpine/ Nordid mix
Y-DNA: R-S660/R-DF109
mtDNA: T1a1
Politics: Conservative
Religion: Christian
Hero: Andrew Jackson, Thomas Jefferson, James K. Polk
Age: 30
Philosophy: I try to find out what is true as best I can.
|
Post by Clovis Merovingian on Aug 7, 2018 5:13:01 GMT
<iframe width="33.38000000000011" height="7.9599999999999795" style="position: absolute; width: 33.38000000000011px; height: 7.9599999999999795px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none;left: 15px; top: -5px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_72333805" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="33.38000000000011" height="7.9599999999999795" style="position: absolute; width: 33.38px; height: 7.96px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 1599px; top: -5px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_29933028" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="33.38000000000011" height="7.9599999999999795" style="position: absolute; width: 33.38px; height: 7.96px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 15px; top: 335px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_28117065" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="33.38000000000011" height="7.9599999999999795" style="position: absolute; width: 33.38px; height: 7.96px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 1599px; top: 335px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_66966348" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="33.38000000000011" height="7.9599999999999795" style="position: absolute; width: 33.38000000000011px; height: 7.9599999999999795px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none;left: 15px; top: -5px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_38410629" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="33.38000000000011" height="7.9599999999999795" style="position: absolute; width: 33.38px; height: 7.96px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 1599px; top: -5px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_91349126" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="33.38000000000011" height="7.9599999999999795" style="position: absolute; width: 33.38px; height: 7.96px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 15px; top: 335px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_7526832" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width "33.38000000000011" height="7.9599999999999795" style="position: absolute; width: 33.38px; height: 7.96px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 1599px; top: 335px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_1924921" scrolling="no"></iframe> No, it works like this. An elephant population that is adapted to the 100 degrees summer moves into the winter below freezing place. Now obviously most of them die during the winter, but the ones that survive are the ones who are genetically suited to better take it because of certain traits (maybe smaller ears, more hair, more blubber, better tolerance to cold.) They breed with the other survivors who are genetically better suited to take it and pass on those genes. This process basically happens for many generations as genes that are better able to survive freezing temperatures are selected for (because those that don't have it die) and the next thing you know you have a species of elephant with thick woolly fur, small ears, more blubber, and better heat resistance. According to evolutionists you take that kind of process over millions of years of changing environments and many mutations you may get a totally new species. An elephant could become something else entirely. I don't agree with it but that's what evolution is, descent with modification, the modifications are traits passed down to adapt to different environments. Obviously I believe in animals adapting to their environment, but I don't believe that they become something entirely different. I see. The theory seems more like a shot in the dark. I wonder, does an elephant, or any other animal for that matter, have that genetic information in their DNA to change into a completely different animal? Yeah, I don't know I think they say that mutations are to blame in that instance. According to them life started out as a single cell and eventually got more complex as the millions of years trodded on becoming the various plants and creatures we have today. When they talk about descent with modification they mean it in the extreme.
|
|
|
Post by DKTrav88 on Aug 7, 2018 7:46:30 GMT
I see. The theory seems more like a shot in the dark. I wonder, does an elephant, or any other animal for that matter, have that genetic information in their DNA to change into a completely different animal? Yeah, I don't know I think they say that mutations are to blame in that instance. According to them life started out as a single cell and eventually got more complex as the millions of years trodded on becoming the various plants and creatures we have today. When they talk about descent with modification they mean it in the extreme. Hmm, you’d think scientists would be able to replicate this in a laboratory or at the very least observe it in a nature environment.
|
|
Clovis Merovingian
Prestige/VIP
Elder
Posts: 2,673
Likes: 1,757
Meta-Ethnicity: Anglo-American
Ethnicity: Deep Southerner
Country: My State and my Region are my country
Region: The Deep South
Location: South Carolina
Ancestry: Gaelic (patrilineal), English, Ulster Scots/Scots Irish, Scottish, German, Swiss German, Swedish, Manx, Finnish, Norman French/Quebecois (distantly), Dutch (distantly)
Taxonomy: Borreby/Alpine/ Nordid mix
Y-DNA: R-S660/R-DF109
mtDNA: T1a1
Politics: Conservative
Religion: Christian
Hero: Andrew Jackson, Thomas Jefferson, James K. Polk
Age: 30
Philosophy: I try to find out what is true as best I can.
|
Post by Clovis Merovingian on Aug 7, 2018 7:48:21 GMT
Yeah, I don't know I think they say that mutations are to blame in that instance. According to them life started out as a single cell and eventually got more complex as the millions of years trodded on becoming the various plants and creatures we have today. When they talk about descent with modification they mean it in the extreme. Hmm, you’d think scientists would be able to replicate this in a laboratory or at the very least observe it in a nature environment. Yeah, I guess but they say it takes millions of years and thus can't be observed in one lifetime. Shrug
|
|
|
Post by DKTrav88 on Aug 7, 2018 7:57:16 GMT
Hmm, you’d think scientists would be able to replicate this in a laboratory or at the very least observe it in a nature environment. Yeah, I guess but they say it takes millions of years and thus can't be observed in one lifetime. Shrug Sounds more like a cop-out.
|
|
Clovis Merovingian
Prestige/VIP
Elder
Posts: 2,673
Likes: 1,757
Meta-Ethnicity: Anglo-American
Ethnicity: Deep Southerner
Country: My State and my Region are my country
Region: The Deep South
Location: South Carolina
Ancestry: Gaelic (patrilineal), English, Ulster Scots/Scots Irish, Scottish, German, Swiss German, Swedish, Manx, Finnish, Norman French/Quebecois (distantly), Dutch (distantly)
Taxonomy: Borreby/Alpine/ Nordid mix
Y-DNA: R-S660/R-DF109
mtDNA: T1a1
Politics: Conservative
Religion: Christian
Hero: Andrew Jackson, Thomas Jefferson, James K. Polk
Age: 30
Philosophy: I try to find out what is true as best I can.
|
Post by Clovis Merovingian on Aug 7, 2018 8:08:20 GMT
Yeah, I guess but they say it takes millions of years and thus can't be observed in one lifetime. Sounds more like a cop-out. Perhaps it is. Shrug
|
|
|
Post by stethacanthus on Aug 7, 2018 16:35:23 GMT
Yeah, I don't know I think they say that mutations are to blame in that instance. According to them life started out as a single cell and eventually got more complex as the millions of years trodded on becoming the various plants and creatures we have today. When they talk about descent with modification they mean it in the extreme. Hmm, you’d think scientists would be able to replicate this in a laboratory or at the very least observe it in a nature environment. We can replicate speciation events in the lab. That’s easy. The hard part is demonstrating that this is how it happened before. For that we rely on current genetic data to make a road map for interdisciplinary research. If you’re asking us to turn a single cell into an elephant and our failure to do so for time is a cop out, then you are setting an impossible standard. At that point you have left science altogether and we are discussing epistemology instead of experimental design.
|
|
|
Post by DKTrav88 on Aug 7, 2018 16:49:16 GMT
Hmm, you’d think scientists would be able to replicate this in a laboratory or at the very least observe it in a nature environment. We can replicate speciation events in the lab. That’s easy. The hard part is demonstrating that this is how it happened before. For that we rely on current genetic data to make a road map for interdisciplinary research. If you’re asking us to turn a single cell into an elephant and our failure to do so for time is a cop out, then you are setting an impossible standard. At that point you have left science altogether and we are discussing epistemology instead of experimental design. Define “speciation events” “If you’re asking us to turn a single cell into an elephant and our failure to do so for time is a cop out, then you are setting an impossible standard.” No, the cop out is saying we need millions of years to accomplish this. It’s a belief at that point because you can never observe it. Evolution may as well be a religion of sorts.
|
|
|
Post by stethacanthus on Aug 7, 2018 18:16:44 GMT
We can replicate speciation events in the lab. That’s easy. The hard part is demonstrating that this is how it happened before. For that we rely on current genetic data to make a road map for interdisciplinary research. If you’re asking us to turn a single cell into an elephant and our failure to do so for time is a cop out, then you are setting an impossible standard. At that point you have left science altogether and we are discussing epistemology instead of experimental design. Define “speciation events” “If you’re asking us to turn a single cell into an elephant and our failure to do so for time is a cop out, then you are setting an impossible standard.” No, the cop out is saying we need millions of years to accomplish this. It’s a belief at that point because you can never observe it. Evolution may as well be a religion of sorts. A speciation event is when one species gives rise to one or more other distinct species. What that means depends on how we define species, which is based on several factors. In the lab we have induced it dozens of times and recorded it hundreds of times in nature. We won’t need millions of years to do that. Theoretically we could do mutanogenesis on some eukaryotic cells and produce elephant embryonic cells over a human lifetime by simulating selective pressures, but then people would complain that we did it in the lab. The problem is that would be an enormous waste of time and money to repeat what we already know. As for having not seen it: eyewitness is not evidence in science. You can’t just say you saw Bigfoot to prove Bigfoot exists for example, nor would a billion sitings prove anything. The jury almost never witnesses the shooting, but we know how guns work and what happens to people who are shot. We can use our understanding of the nature of the universe to determine events that no one personally witnessed. If we can’t look at prehistoric evolution because we didn’t see it, we can’t convict murderers. Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. If you think the evolutionary record is wrong, prove it with data. Either way, you concluding that the theory of evolution is a religion does not logically follow. Setting aside pedantic definition hawking of the belief in God or gods, you are talking about the epistemology of faith, where you presume a conclusion and build your worldview around that conclusion. The theory of evolution is based in experimental data and mathematics which precede and indicate the conclusions, which violates the epistemology of religion. It is one of the strongest pillars of knowledge we currently have.
|
|
|
Post by DKTrav88 on Aug 7, 2018 18:39:42 GMT
Define “speciation events” “If you’re asking us to turn a single cell into an elephant and our failure to do so for time is a cop out, then you are setting an impossible standard.” No, the cop out is saying we need millions of years to accomplish this. It’s a belief at that point because you can never observe it. Evolution may as well be a religion of sorts. A speciation event is when one species gives rise to one or more other distinct species. What that means depends on how we define species, which is based on several factors. In the lab we have induced it dozens of times and recorded it hundreds of times in nature. We won’t need millions of years to do that. Theoretically we could do mutanogenesis on some eukaryotic cells and produce elephant embryonic cells over a human lifetime by simulating selective pressures, but then people would complain that we did it in the lab. The problem is that would be an enormous waste of time and money to repeat what we already know. As for having not seen it: eyewitness is not evidence in science. You can’t just say you saw Bigfoot to prove Bigfoot exists for example, nor would a billion sitings prove anything. The jury almost never witnesses the shooting, but we know how guns work and what happens to people who are shot. We can use our understanding of the nature of the universe to determine events that no one personally witnessed. If we can’t look at prehistoric evolution because we didn’t see it, we can’t convict murderers. Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. If you think the evolutionary record is wrong, prove it with data. Either way, you concluding that the theory of evolution is a religion does not logically follow. Setting aside pedantic definition hawking of the belief in God or gods, you are talking about the epistemology of faith, where you presume a conclusion and build your worldview around that conclusion. The theory of evolution is based in experimental data and mathematics which precede and indicate the conclusions, which violates the epistemology of religion. It is one of the strongest pillars of knowledge we currently have. Define species, then define “speciation event” with your definition of species. Eyewitness testimony is not what I’m talking about here. I’m talking about what we observe and record in nature and in laboratories. We cannot simulate millions of years, hence you must believe it is true. It’s a faith at that point. “The jury almost never witnesses the shooting, but we know how guns work and what happens to people who are shot. We can use our understanding of the nature of the universe to determine events that no one personally witnessed. If we can’t look at prehistoric evolution because we didn’t see it, we can’t convict murderers.” Juries can be bought or be biased, and we don’t convict murderers even when we have evidence #OJSimpson and people are wrongfully convicted all the time. Do you really think human judgement is perfect? The fact that we did not observe the beginning of time absolutely makes belief in an origins theory just that, a belief, a faith. You are putting your trust in evidence that isn’t sufficient enough to prove the theory; the specific part I’m talking about is the macro evolution part. We can easily observe micro evolution, it doesn’t take millions of years to occur and I wouldn’t even call it micro evolution, but adaptation. Until we can observe an elephant change into a completely different animal via adaptation to natural environments through its genetic code over millions of years, it will be nothing more than a faith, a belief, a trust, much like my faith in the Bible.
|
|
|
Post by stethacanthus on Aug 8, 2018 18:50:57 GMT
A speciation event is when one species gives rise to one or more other distinct species. What that means depends on how we define species, which is based on several factors. In the lab we have induced it dozens of times and recorded it hundreds of times in nature. We won’t need millions of years to do that. Theoretically we could do mutanogenesis on some eukaryotic cells and produce elephant embryonic cells over a human lifetime by simulating selective pressures, but then people would complain that we did it in the lab. The problem is that would be an enormous waste of time and money to repeat what we already know. As for having not seen it: eyewitness is not evidence in science. You can’t just say you saw Bigfoot to prove Bigfoot exists for example, nor would a billion sitings prove anything. The jury almost never witnesses the shooting, but we know how guns work and what happens to people who are shot. We can use our understanding of the nature of the universe to determine events that no one personally witnessed. If we can’t look at prehistoric evolution because we didn’t see it, we can’t convict murderers. Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. If you think the evolutionary record is wrong, prove it with data. Either way, you concluding that the theory of evolution is a religion does not logically follow. Setting aside pedantic definition hawking of the belief in God or gods, you are talking about the epistemology of faith, where you presume a conclusion and build your worldview around that conclusion. The theory of evolution is based in experimental data and mathematics which precede and indicate the conclusions, which violates the epistemology of religion. It is one of the strongest pillars of knowledge we currently have. Define species, then define “speciation event” with your definition of species. Eyewitness testimony is not what I’m talking about here. I’m talking about what we observe and record in nature and in laboratories. We cannot simulate millions of years, hence you must believe it is true. It’s a faith at that point. “The jury almost never witnesses the shooting, but we know how guns work and what happens to people who are shot. We can use our understanding of the nature of the universe to determine events that no one personally witnessed. If we can’t look at prehistoric evolution because we didn’t see it, we can’t convict murderers.” Juries can be bought or be biased, and we don’t convict murderers even when we have evidence #OJSimpson and people are wrongfully convicted all the time. Do you really think human judgement is perfect? The fact that we did not observe the beginning of time absolutely makes belief in an origins theory just that, a belief, a faith. You are putting your trust in evidence that isn’t sufficient enough to prove the theory; the specific part I’m talking about is the macro evolution part. We can easily observe micro evolution, it doesn’t take millions of years to occur and I wouldn’t even call it micro evolution, but adaptation. Until we can observe an elephant change into a completely different animal via adaptation to natural environments through its genetic code over millions of years, it will be nothing more than a faith, a belief, a trust, much like my faith in the Bible. [ You’re trying to manage two different arguments here as though they are the same. Let’s separate this out and pick one. Science: First off, there is no difference between adaptation (as you have used the term), macro, micro evolution. That’s a description of scale. That’s like saying you believe in inches but not feet. As a scientist, there is no reason that we can’t look billions of years in the past, just as we can predict where a satellite will end up when we launch it to Pluto, even though no one has ever been there. You’re presenting an arbitrary limitation on temporal scale. Evolution by definition is any change in heritable traits. If two brunettes have three brunette children and one blonde child, this is a form of evolution. Adaptation can refer to plasticity, which applies to one organism over its lifetime, but usuall refers to advantageous evolutionary traits. Back to species. Let’s jump in the deep end for a second: species have no actual definition because they don’t really exist. As far as we know scientifically, all organisms including humans are different configurations of matter that behave in many ways. Taxonomists identify patterns and assign groups with labels based on these patterns. We can even agree on a definition of life. It’s a model. All models are garbage, but they have utility. The definition of species most people use for vertebrates (which is usually what this debate ends up being about) is called the biological species concept. A species is then defined as a meta population (population of all populations) that can produce reproductively viable offspring within itself, but not with organisms outside of that metapopulation. We have seen speciation events for all species concepts, including this one. We have seen stickleback fish become different fish with different life cycles and don’t interbreed with their parent meta population. This happens all of the time. If you are demanding to see an elephant population turn into a population of birds as we know them, it’s possible but that’s not the claim of any aspect of evolutionary biology. Heritable traits and mutations are cumulative and can be divergent. We know that for a fact. Given the scale that we can make accurate predictions of, evolution is the best model. Philosophy: Let’s get to your real argument now. You are trying to say that because a person wasn’t around to measure every step of natural history, the conclusions of our data cannot be treated as observations. This is a basic misunderstanding of epistemology and logic. We need to make 3 assumptions to have any discussion about the world outside of ourselves: the universe we inhabit is real, we perceive the universe accurately, the nature of the universe is constant. We agree on the first, since we agree that your Bible is real. We agree that when you look at its pages you see the words that are there and not “Hats. People aren’t wearing enough of them.” We also agree on the third since when you close or stop looking at that Bible, we assume the words don’t rearrange to some hidden true meaning. You cannot prove any of these assumptions. Those assumptions don’t just apply to your Bible though, they apply to all of the known universe across time or to nothing at all. To limit the extant of these assumptions to human history is special pleading. By believing you can know what’s in your Bible, you concede all of the base assumptions I need for my experiments and models. This a common argument I see and it is absurd.
|
|