|
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 9, 2018 1:24:38 GMT
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. "First off, there is no difference between adaptation (as you have used the term), macro, micro evolution." But there is a difference, the difference is TIME. And what I am saying is that we cannot observe macroevolution no matter how much you think we can; science hasn't been around long enough to see it happen(if it even happens). "That’s like saying you believe in inches but not feet." Not at all. I'll put it in perspective for you; I cannot see what's happening 200 miles away, that's 1056000 feet or 12672000 inches, because it's TOO FAR AWAY. I definitely believe in inches, feet, and miles. I don't believe I can see any distance ahead or behind myself because I don't have direct visual contact with it; I can guess someone is taking a dump in a toilet at the AM/PM in San Francisco(while I'm in Los Angeles) because of the likelihood of it being so, but I cannot prove it because I cannot see it, if I can see it I can record it. Does that make sense? It's really simple stuff. "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." Those are some pretty nifty magical powers there. The only way we can look into the past is by looking at recorded history and even then it can be biased. "You’re presenting an arbitrary limitation on temporal scale." Well, duh. We live in the present, we aren't outside of time, we are living in time. "species have no actual definition because they don’t really exist." Sure they do. Seems like you don't want to define it. Here's the definition, Species - a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding. "We have seen stickleback fish become different fish with different life cycles and don’t interbreed with their parent meta population." Fish become different fish. They're still fish. "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." But that is what macroevolution is; the evolution of whole taxonomic groups over long periods of time(millions of years). Evolutionary theory claims that chimps, gorillas, humans, orangutans, etc. all evolved from a common ancestor based only on how similar all of the mentioned DNA is to each other. Human beings share approximately 60% of their DNA with the banana plant, does that mean somewhere along the line we have a common ancestor with the banana plant? "the conclusions of our data cannot be treated as observations." You can treat data any way you want, I have no jurisdiction over what you believe or how you wish to interpret anything. What you're doing now is attacking a strawman, because what I said was that the evidence(data) for macroevolution isn't enough to prove it as a fact(absolute certainty).
|
|
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 9, 2018 2:50:48 GMT
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. Since I have explained to DKTrav88 his misunderstandings on evolution. I will explain to you the position onto the opposing side. I've heard evolutionists make the point that you have in the bold. "There is no difference between macro evolution, micro evolution, and adaptation." This is a ridiculous argument and a pointless one because you know exactly what DKTrav is talking about. The position of Christians is that an elephant will not evolve into something that is different from an elephant. An elephant will not become a bird, a horse, a fish or any other type of creature than some version of an elephant such as a mammoth. An animal adapting to different environment and gaining minimally different traits is not proof of evolution in it of itself. If God made animals where they couldn't adapt to their environment than they would die off immediately if the environment changes in the slightest. To prove the evolutionary version of history you have to show that one type of animal can become something completely different. You have to prove that a single cell's descendants can become a fish, then an amphibian, then a small rodent like mammal, then an ape, then a human being (just one of these will do). You'll have to do more than showing a fish turning into another version of a fish because that fits perfectly within the worldview of creationists.
|
|
|
Post by just10sp on Aug 22, 2018 17:02:40 GMT
Given all the roads today in built up areas, I expect to see rats and chipmunks with built in wheels very soon!
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Aug 22, 2018 22:44:52 GMT
Darwin had many unaswered questions as well. Just saying. Since he didn't really find all answers. Shrug
|
|
|
Post by stethacanthus on Aug 27, 2018 21:19:33 GMT
[ 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. "First off, there is no difference between adaptation (as you have used the term), macro, micro evolution." But there is a difference, the difference is TIME. And what I am saying is that we cannot observe macroevolution no matter how much you think we can; science hasn't been around long enough to see it happen(if it even happens). "That’s like saying you believe in inches but not feet." Not at all. I'll put it in perspective for you; I cannot see what's happening 200 miles away, that's 1056000 feet or 12672000 inches, because it's TOO FAR AWAY. I definitely believe in inches, feet, and miles. I don't believe I can see any distance ahead or behind myself because I don't have direct visual contact with it; I can guess someone is taking a dump in a toilet at the AM/PM in San Francisco(while I'm in Los Angeles) because of the likelihood of it being so, but I cannot prove it because I cannot see it, if I can see it I can record it. Does that make sense? It's really simple stuff. "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." Those are some pretty nifty magical powers there. The only way we can look into the past is by looking at recorded history and even then it can be biased. "You’re presenting an arbitrary limitation on temporal scale." Well, duh. We live in the present, we aren't outside of time, we are living in time. "species have no actual definition because they don’t really exist." Sure they do. Seems like you don't want to define it. Here's the definition, Species - a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding. "We have seen stickleback fish become different fish with different life cycles and don’t interbreed with their parent meta population." Fish become different fish. They're still fish. "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." But that is what macroevolution is; the evolution of whole taxonomic groups over long periods of time(millions of years). Evolutionary theory claims that chimps, gorillas, humans, orangutans, etc. all evolved from a common ancestor based only on how similar all of the mentioned DNA is to each other. Human beings share approximately 60% of their DNA with the banana plant, does that mean somewhere along the line we have a common ancestor with the banana plant? "the conclusions of our data cannot be treated as observations." You can treat data any way you want, I have no jurisdiction over what you believe or how you wish to interpret anything. What you're doing now is attacking a strawman, because what I said was that the evidence(data) for macroevolution isn't enough to prove it as a fact(absolute certainty). Sorry I've been away. I was at a conference. Clovis I can appreciate your feedback by the way. We have demonstrated all of the mechanisms you have requested, but that explanation was more than I was willing to type out on the phone. At the end I will give a more complete explanation as to why I disagree with your feedback. Regarding micro/macro and elephants: the "elephants don't change into birds" is a straw man, as this is not representative of what we mean when we use those words. We do not claim that changes between distantly related taxa like an elephant to bird have occurred. We are describing a history of divergent evolution. What we can show is that all of our current data point to universal common ancestry without exception, and all mechanisms why this can occur are demonstrated. We have proven it all possible and found enough evidence that it happened this way to argue it is the best model available to scientists. If you are interested in any specific mechanism of interest I can explain it, but my time is limited to where I cannot go into a complete explanation of genetics and genomics background to explain selection. As such, my answers will be diluted. To answer in short, all taxa are a product of cumulative and divergent micro-evolution as you would define it. Regarding time and distance: Here is what my point is, because arguably through my fault it was missed. You are limiting the scope of science to human senses, which exactly what scientists try to remove from observation. I trust my instruments and calculations more than I trust my own eyes because those don't have the bias of prior experience and don't want to see anything. This is a prerequisite for being a scientist. Your example regarding California is a good example. You cannot see a person going to the toilet in California, but you can determine how much solid matter can be consumed before excreting solid waste and how much solid matter needs to be consumed for a person to remain alive. You now have a maximum time window, but we can do better. We can examine people who used to live in California without asking them a thing. We can determine without any witnesses that some Californians do not starve before leaving California. We can measure their weight when they emigrate, volume, age, and feeding and excretion behaviors without asking them a thing (tooth wear and composition, contents of the digestive system). Heck they don't even have to be alive. With a high enough sample size, we can predict the probability that a given Californian is leaving a #2 at any given time. Contemporary organisms are our emigrated Californians. Fossils are like photos of Californians in California that can help us test those predictions. On recorded history: Here is where I said you're making an argument of epistemology, not of any scientific process. Your argument is special pleading. Let's turn this around: you don't know what happened a moment ago because you have a faulty memory that includes how to read the human record of history. You live in the present, and when you read a history book you are detecting light that reflected or emitted from a surface before the present. Therefor all reading of history is itself a prehistoric event in which we cannot prove your presence. This is the failure of pure empiricism, which is why science incorporates pragmatic and skeptical assumptions. You cannot keep your Bible and throw out prehistoric data because prehistory is arbitrarily defined. On your definition of species: That doesn't work for asexual organisms because they do not interbreed and many do not exchange genes. You are also going to be shot down by ring species, where populations are all interbreeding except the original population cannot interbreed with the last sympatric species on the ring. On fish to fish: Yep, also humans and chimpanzees are both still apes. Whales and hippos are still mammals. Birds and alligators are still both chordates. You are drawing an arbitrary line defined by what you think we have seen. On shared ancestry with a banana plant: Yes. Those are largely shared housekeeping genes by the way. On absolute certainty and data: No experiment or observation that any scientist has ever documented is known with absolute certainty besides the existence of the self "I think therefor I am". Only logicians and mathematicians get to have that because all observation requires assumptions. As for treating data however you want, yes but you need to justify your experimental design as a scientist. More detail for Clovis: Again I appreciate the feedback. I know exactly what they are saying, but the representation of macro/micro evolution that holds any clout in science are not the definitions being used in this discussion. I can prove that the can, but that would miss DKTrav88's argument. It's not about if it can happen, but if it did happen. Even if I documented a human emerging from a stock of single celled organisms, the argument would be "You can't prove that happened in the past". As far as I am concerned, the macro/micro argument is a red herring.
|
|
flow3
Full Member
Posts: 147
Likes: 82
|
Post by flow3 on Sept 3, 2018 14:47:47 GMT
So essentially Darwin theory has some wrong assumptions concerning human beings, but in general many things fall into place:
|
|