Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Evolution & Evidence

tahir.imanov
Posts: 272
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2013 4:31:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
What evidence do you need to believe in evolution?
or
What evidence would you offer as prove for evolution?
This is red.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2013 11:13:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/22/2013 4:31:00 AM, tahir.imanov wrote:
What evidence do you need to believe in evolution?
or
What evidence would you offer as prove for evolution?

I do not believe in evolution; nor do I think evolution has been proven.

I simply think that the balance of evidence is overwhelmingly in support of evolution as an explanation of the biodiversity of life from a universal common ancestor.

For that, there is far too much evidence to simply list here, so I can provide the following links:

These all provide summaries of all the evidence

http://en.wikipedia.org...
- This is mainly just a summary of the evidence.

http://www.talkorigins.org...
- This is both a summary of the evidence, with a list of the proven predictions and a more detailed description of why the evidence is relevant and overwhelmingly in support of evolution

http://evolution.berkeley.edu...
- This provides a more top level overview of the evidence, their application and why it is compelling accessible in conjunction with the first two link in a slightly more accessible way.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2013 4:48:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/22/2013 4:31:00 AM, tahir.imanov wrote:
What evidence do you need to believe in evolution?
or
What evidence would you offer as prove for evolution?

I think that at the present time it should be specified whether one is speaking of a purely naturalistic evolution (mindless), or one with at least some external direction (intelligent). There is no reason why someone who believes in the existence of a higher being should be shackled by the claims of ancient writing with no chance to avail themselves of any of the learning accumulated since.
chui
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2013 3:52:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/22/2013 4:48:03 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 12/22/2013 4:31:00 AM, tahir.imanov wrote:
What evidence do you need to believe in evolution?
or
What evidence would you offer as prove for evolution?

I think that at the present time it should be specified whether one is speaking of a purely naturalistic evolution (mindless), or one with at least some external direction (intelligent). There is no reason why someone who believes in the existence of a higher being should be shackled by the claims of ancient writing with no chance to avail themselves of any of the learning accumulated since.

My problem with this type of thinking is that it is largely without foundation. You have opened the door for supernatural explanations but without any knowledge of what is or is not permissible. What do you use to guide you to a conclusion? There is an unlimited number of ways to explain the development of life using supernatural reasoning. How do you decide which explanation to go with? The supernatural cannot be researched or observed.

With evolution, an attempt has been made to explain the development of life by natural means. This is open to debate and examination as many threads here testify to. But no alternative explanation using supernatural thinking can be scrutinised, because any flaw found can be 'explained' using more supernatural thinking.

In other words, while it is interesting to postulate that there might be a external intelligence at work here, we can only speculate about it.
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2013 4:01:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/23/2013 3:52:43 AM, chui wrote:
At 12/22/2013 4:48:03 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 12/22/2013 4:31:00 AM, tahir.imanov wrote:
What evidence do you need to believe in evolution?
or
What evidence would you offer as prove for evolution?

I think that at the present time it should be specified whether one is speaking of a purely naturalistic evolution (mindless), or one with at least some external direction (intelligent). There is no reason why someone who believes in the existence of a higher being should be shackled by the claims of ancient writing with no chance to avail themselves of any of the learning accumulated since.

My problem with this type of thinking is that it is largely without foundation. You have opened the door for supernatural explanations but without any knowledge of what is or is not permissible. What do you use to guide you to a conclusion? There is an unlimited number of ways to explain the development of life using supernatural reasoning. How do you decide which explanation to go with? The supernatural cannot be researched or observed.

With evolution, an attempt has been made to explain the development of life by natural means. This is open to debate and examination as many threads here testify to. But no alternative explanation using supernatural thinking can be scrutinised, because any flaw found can be 'explained' using more supernatural thinking.

In other words, while it is interesting to postulate that there might be a external intelligence at work here, we can only speculate about it.

Michael Behe provides numerous examples of design in bacterium which can be empirically tested for.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2013 12:48:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/22/2013 4:31:00 AM, tahir.imanov wrote:
What evidence do you need to believe in evolution?

I was convinced just looking at all the transitional fossils, and their dates. It fits with evolution too well for evolution to be false.

or
What evidence would you offer as prove for evolution?

Speciation has been observed in labs. Also, Chrosomosome #2 shows common ancestry with regards to us and the other apes.

There is no question; evolution occurred, and does occur.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2013 12:50:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/24/2013 4:01:49 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 12/23/2013 3:52:43 AM, chui wrote:
At 12/22/2013 4:48:03 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 12/22/2013 4:31:00 AM, tahir.imanov wrote:
What evidence do you need to believe in evolution?
or
What evidence would you offer as prove for evolution?

I think that at the present time it should be specified whether one is speaking of a purely naturalistic evolution (mindless), or one with at least some external direction (intelligent). There is no reason why someone who believes in the existence of a higher being should be shackled by the claims of ancient writing with no chance to avail themselves of any of the learning accumulated since.

My problem with this type of thinking is that it is largely without foundation. You have opened the door for supernatural explanations but without any knowledge of what is or is not permissible. What do you use to guide you to a conclusion? There is an unlimited number of ways to explain the development of life using supernatural reasoning. How do you decide which explanation to go with? The supernatural cannot be researched or observed.

With evolution, an attempt has been made to explain the development of life by natural means. This is open to debate and examination as many threads here testify to. But no alternative explanation using supernatural thinking can be scrutinised, because any flaw found can be 'explained' using more supernatural thinking.

In other words, while it is interesting to postulate that there might be a external intelligence at work here, we can only speculate about it.

Michael Behe provides numerous examples of design in bacterium which can be empirically tested for.

Not really.

Irreducible Complexity and Michael Behe: Do Biochemical Machines Show Intelligent Design?

http://www.talkorigins.org...
tahir.imanov
Posts: 272
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2013 2:08:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/25/2013 12:48:48 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/22/2013 4:31:00 AM, tahir.imanov wrote:
What evidence do you need to believe in evolution?

I was convinced just looking at all the transitional fossils, and their dates. It fits with evolution too well for evolution to be false.

or
What evidence would you offer as prove for evolution?

Speciation has been observed in labs. Also, Chrosomosome #2 shows common ancestry with regards to us and the other apes.

There is no question; evolution occurred, and does occur.

Could you post the links for transitional fossils you spoke of.
This is red.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2013 7:16:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/26/2013 2:08:46 PM, tahir.imanov wrote:
At 12/25/2013 12:48:48 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/22/2013 4:31:00 AM, tahir.imanov wrote:
What evidence do you need to believe in evolution?

I was convinced just looking at all the transitional fossils, and their dates. It fits with evolution too well for evolution to be false.

or
What evidence would you offer as prove for evolution?

Speciation has been observed in labs. Also, Chrosomosome #2 shows common ancestry with regards to us and the other apes.

There is no question; evolution occurred, and does occur.

Could you post the links for transitional fossils you spoke of.

Curiously, I simply typed the words:

"List of Transitional Fossils" into google; it is surprising what those google guys can come up with:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

I counted 175.
desertdawg
Posts: 73
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2013 7:34:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/22/2013 4:31:00 AM, tahir.imanov wrote:
What evidence do you need to believe in evolution?
or
What evidence would you offer as prove for evolution?

I would actually have to see a monkey change into a human to believe in evolution.
When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace. -Jimi Hendrix-
nummi
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2013 7:55:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/27/2013 7:34:10 PM, desertdawg wrote:
At 12/22/2013 4:31:00 AM, tahir.imanov wrote:
What evidence do you need to believe in evolution?
or
What evidence would you offer as prove for evolution?

I would actually have to see a monkey change into a human to believe in evolution.
A monkey changing into a human is not evolution. That would be transformation, shape changing, you know, like werewolves and such. Fantasy. Evolution is something entirely different.
tahir.imanov
Posts: 272
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2013 2:30:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I would actually have to see a monkey change into a human to believe in evolution.
A monkey changing into a human is not evolution. That would be transformation, shape changing, you know, like werewolves and such. Fantasy. Evolution is something entirely different.

Actually monkey transforming into human and vice versa is called weremonk'ey. :)
And that can only happen in somewhere which does not exist, like Wonderland, and in some kind of Fantasy land, like Norway.
This is red.
desertdawg
Posts: 73
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2013 6:50:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/27/2013 7:55:52 PM, nummi wrote:
At 12/27/2013 7:34:10 PM, desertdawg wrote:
At 12/22/2013 4:31:00 AM, tahir.imanov wrote:
What evidence do you need to believe in evolution?
or
What evidence would you offer as prove for evolution?

I would actually have to see a monkey change into a human to believe in evolution.
A monkey changing into a human is not evolution. That would be transformation, shape changing, you know, like werewolves and such. Fantasy. Evolution is something entirely different.

Yes I know and it is different depending on who I am talking too because there are so many different evolutionary theories now. I guess the one where we crawled out of the mud and started evolving and the tree of life is not the one you are talking about.
When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace. -Jimi Hendrix-
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2013 6:59:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/28/2013 6:50:12 AM, desertdawg wrote:
At 12/27/2013 7:55:52 PM, nummi wrote:
At 12/27/2013 7:34:10 PM, desertdawg wrote:
At 12/22/2013 4:31:00 AM, tahir.imanov wrote:
What evidence do you need to believe in evolution?
or
What evidence would you offer as prove for evolution?

I would actually have to see a monkey change into a human to believe in evolution.
A monkey changing into a human is not evolution. That would be transformation, shape changing, you know, like werewolves and such. Fantasy. Evolution is something entirely different.

Yes I know and it is different depending on who I am talking too because there are so many different evolutionary theories now. I guess the one where we crawled out of the mud and started evolving and the tree of life is not the one you are talking about.

There is only one theory of evolution. Nothing you have thus far matches it.

The 'theory' you mention here bears no relation to any current scientific theory.
desertdawg
Posts: 73
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2013 4:07:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/28/2013 6:59:29 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/28/2013 6:50:12 AM, desertdawg wrote:
At 12/27/2013 7:55:52 PM, nummi wrote:
At 12/27/2013 7:34:10 PM, desertdawg wrote:
At 12/22/2013 4:31:00 AM, tahir.imanov wrote:
What evidence do you need to believe in evolution?
or
What evidence would you offer as prove for evolution?

I would actually have to see a monkey change into a human to believe in evolution.
A monkey changing into a human is not evolution. That would be transformation, shape changing, you know, like werewolves and such. Fantasy. Evolution is something entirely different.

Yes I know and it is different depending on who I am talking too because there are so many different evolutionary theories now. I guess the one where we crawled out of the mud and started evolving and the tree of life is not the one you are talking about.

There is only one theory of evolution. Nothing you have thus far matches it.

The 'theory' you mention here bears no relation to any current scientific theory.

Wait a minute you are rocking my world here. Evolution doesn"t say we evolved from apes? What about the extra pair of chromosomes apes have and when 9 & 14 ape chromosomes are joined it looks like the #12 human chromosome? Is there no more primordial soup?
When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace. -Jimi Hendrix-
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2013 5:24:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/28/2013 4:07:38 PM, desertdawg wrote:
At 12/28/2013 6:59:29 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/28/2013 6:50:12 AM, desertdawg wrote:
At 12/27/2013 7:55:52 PM, nummi wrote:
At 12/27/2013 7:34:10 PM, desertdawg wrote:
At 12/22/2013 4:31:00 AM, tahir.imanov wrote:
What evidence do you need to believe in evolution?
or
What evidence would you offer as prove for evolution?

I would actually have to see a monkey change into a human to believe in evolution.
A monkey changing into a human is not evolution. That would be transformation, shape changing, you know, like werewolves and such. Fantasy. Evolution is something entirely different.

Yes I know and it is different depending on who I am talking too because there are so many different evolutionary theories now. I guess the one where we crawled out of the mud and started evolving and the tree of life is not the one you are talking about.

There is only one theory of evolution. Nothing you have thus far matches it.

The 'theory' you mention here bears no relation to any current scientific theory.

Wait a minute you are rocking my world here. Evolution doesn"t say we evolved from apes? What about the extra pair of chromosomes apes have and when 9 & 14 ape chromosomes are joined it looks like the #12 human chromosome? Is there no more primordial soup?

Firstly, you said monkeys. Monkeys != apes.

Secondly., Of course we evolved from apes, a good piece of evidence for this is that we are STILL apes, the same way we are still mammals, vertebrates, craniata, tetrapod eukaryotes and Chordata.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2013 5:51:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Transitional fossils:

The problem is: Transitional forms are not the norm in the fossil record. They are not the exception. They are simply non-existent. We can't claim they exist until we do find them.
Fossils remain recognizably the same for the whole time of their existence (which can be hundreds of millions of years). We do not see bone structures, such as limbs or eye sockets, growing or shrinking, neither do we see a structure appearing. So T-Rex fossils had short arms for the three millions of years they existed. Living fossils virtually had no change for millions of years, unlike what ToE predicted (Without ad-hocs). Fossils simply disappear and be replaced by other fossils. Similar to the evolution of automobiles.

Chromosome #2:

Some gibbons have 44 chromosomes, and one Malaysian ape has 50.
House mice has 40 chromosomes, and a population of mice form the Italian Alps have only 22 chromosomes
Red foxes have 34 chromosomes, Bat-eared Fox have 72 chromosomes.
Horses have 64 chromosomes while donkeys have 31. Their offspring are futile.
Hybrids of the wild horse have 66 chromosomes and the domesticated horse have 64 chromosomes. Their offspring are fertile.

Some mutations and chromosome abnormalities can fuse or defuse chromosomes like the Robertson translocation. Yet, those affected are still human.

Here is a study about sheep with up to three different chromosome rearrangements:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Hopefully, the hype about chromosome 2 is down.

Also, read claims that it "fits perfectly", is there evidence for that?

Then there are the logical questions:

-If chromosome fusions causes diseases, then why did natural selection go to the opposite direction?

-Did the chromosome fusion happen to one individual or the entire population?
If it happening to one individual is more likely, then how did the chromosome fusion spread?
If the individual is capable of reproducing with the 48 chromosome humans, then what happened to them? Did a catastrophe happen that caused the 48 chromosome human to vaporize and become extinct, and the genetically ill with 46 chromosome were lucky to survive?

-----

As for the evidence I would accept, basically evidence that the foundations of the ToE is not a fantasy. Evidence of a mechanism capable of creating multicellularity, or a mechanism capable of inventing and assembling organs and biological systems (and spreading them to the population).
desertdawg
Posts: 73
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2013 7:33:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/28/2013 5:24:55 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/28/2013 4:07:38 PM, desertdawg wrote:
At 12/28/2013 6:59:29 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/28/2013 6:50:12 AM, desertdawg wrote:
At 12/27/2013 7:55:52 PM, nummi wrote:
At 12/27/2013 7:34:10 PM, desertdawg wrote:
At 12/22/2013 4:31:00 AM, tahir.imanov wrote:
What evidence do you need to believe in evolution?
or
What evidence would you offer as prove for evolution?

I would actually have to see a monkey change into a human to believe in evolution.
A monkey changing into a human is not evolution. That would be transformation, shape changing, you know, like werewolves and such. Fantasy. Evolution is something entirely different.

Yes I know and it is different depending on who I am talking too because there are so many different evolutionary theories now. I guess the one where we crawled out of the mud and started evolving and the tree of life is not the one you are talking about.

There is only one theory of evolution. Nothing you have thus far matches it.

The 'theory' you mention here bears no relation to any current scientific theory.

Wait a minute you are rocking my world here. Evolution doesn"t say we evolved from apes? What about the extra pair of chromosomes apes have and when 9 & 14 ape chromosomes are joined it looks like the #12 human chromosome? Is there no more primordial soup?

Firstly, you said monkeys. Monkeys != apes.

Secondly., Of course we evolved from apes, a good piece of evidence for this is that we are STILL apes, the same way we are still mammals, vertebrates, craniata, tetrapod eukaryotes and Chordata.

So monkeys and apes are not the same but humans and apes are the same?
When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace. -Jimi Hendrix-
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2013 8:07:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/29/2013 7:33:45 AM, desertdawg wrote:
At 12/28/2013 5:24:55 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/28/2013 4:07:38 PM, desertdawg wrote:
At 12/28/2013 6:59:29 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/28/2013 6:50:12 AM, desertdawg wrote:
At 12/27/2013 7:55:52 PM, nummi wrote:
At 12/27/2013 7:34:10 PM, desertdawg wrote:
At 12/22/2013 4:31:00 AM, tahir.imanov wrote:
What evidence do you need to believe in evolution?
or
What evidence would you offer as prove for evolution?

I would actually have to see a monkey change into a human to believe in evolution.
A monkey changing into a human is not evolution. That would be transformation, shape changing, you know, like werewolves and such. Fantasy. Evolution is something entirely different.

Yes I know and it is different depending on who I am talking too because there are so many different evolutionary theories now. I guess the one where we crawled out of the mud and started evolving and the tree of life is not the one you are talking about.

There is only one theory of evolution. Nothing you have thus far matches it.

The 'theory' you mention here bears no relation to any current scientific theory.

Wait a minute you are rocking my world here. Evolution doesn"t say we evolved from apes? What about the extra pair of chromosomes apes have and when 9 & 14 ape chromosomes are joined it looks like the #12 human chromosome? Is there no more primordial soup?

Firstly, you said monkeys. Monkeys != apes.

Secondly., Of course we evolved from apes, a good piece of evidence for this is that we are STILL apes, the same way we are still mammals, vertebrates, craniata, tetrapod eukaryotes and Chordata.

So monkeys and apes are not the same but humans and apes are the same?

Humans are in the family hominidae, also known as the great apes; humans are apes. Monkeys are not amongst the great apes - they are separate. Together, monkeys and apes form the group known as primates. Here's a pretty picture: [http://www.biomedcentral.com...]
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2013 8:39:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/29/2013 7:33:45 AM, desertdawg wrote:
At 12/28/2013 5:24:55 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/28/2013 4:07:38 PM, desertdawg wrote:
At 12/28/2013 6:59:29 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/28/2013 6:50:12 AM, desertdawg wrote:
At 12/27/2013 7:55:52 PM, nummi wrote:
At 12/27/2013 7:34:10 PM, desertdawg wrote:
At 12/22/2013 4:31:00 AM, tahir.imanov wrote:
What evidence do you need to believe in evolution?
or
What evidence would you offer as prove for evolution?

I would actually have to see a monkey change into a human to believe in evolution.
A monkey changing into a human is not evolution. That would be transformation, shape changing, you know, like werewolves and such. Fantasy. Evolution is something entirely different.

Yes I know and it is different depending on who I am talking too because there are so many different evolutionary theories now. I guess the one where we crawled out of the mud and started evolving and the tree of life is not the one you are talking about.

There is only one theory of evolution. Nothing you have thus far matches it.

The 'theory' you mention here bears no relation to any current scientific theory.

Wait a minute you are rocking my world here. Evolution doesn"t say we evolved from apes? What about the extra pair of chromosomes apes have and when 9 & 14 ape chromosomes are joined it looks like the #12 human chromosome? Is there no more primordial soup?

Firstly, you said monkeys. Monkeys != apes.

Secondly., Of course we evolved from apes, a good piece of evidence for this is that we are STILL apes, the same way we are still mammals, vertebrates, craniata, tetrapod eukaryotes and Chordata.

So monkeys and apes are not the same but humans and apes are the same?

Monkeys are a group of species that share the same traits. Apes are a group of species that share the same traits. Monkeys do not have have the traits that classify them as apes, and apes do not have the traits that classify them as monkeys. They both have similar traits that classify them as the same super group that is defined by a common set of traits which apes and monkeys both have.

Saying humans and apes are the same also makes no sense whatsoever, and is the same as saying that ducks and birds are the same, and dogs and mammals are the same. Or park avenue and New York are the same, or earth and the solar system are the same. Humans are a specialisation of apes, which are a specialisation of hominidae which are a specialisation of mammals.... And the list goes on and on.

This is pretty basic, elementary, beginners Linnaean taxonomic classification 101 and one of the most rudimentary, trivial and fundamental aspects of evolutionary classification that you have gotten grossly, fundamentally wrong here.

If one were more jaded than I, it would be supposed that you haven't done any sort of significant research, googling or review of the facts, elements and fundamentals of the theory you are claiming is so wrong.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2013 10:29:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/28/2013 5:51:14 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
Transitional fossils:

The problem is: Transitional forms are not the norm in the fossil record. They are not the exception. They are simply non-existent. We can't claim they exist until we do find them.
Fossils remain recognizably the same for the whole time of their existence (which can be hundreds of millions of years). We do not see bone structures, such as limbs or eye sockets, growing or shrinking, neither do we see a structure appearing. So T-Rex fossils had short arms for the three millions of years they existed. Living fossils virtually had no change for millions of years, unlike what ToE predicted (Without ad-hocs). Fossils simply disappear and be replaced by other fossils. Similar to the evolution of automobiles.

What shocks me most, is that you seem to have done at least SOME research on the subject and simply attempt to jump to massive conclusions.

Firstly, a simple google search for "list of transitional fossils" gives you a significant list of transitional forms. I have NO clue what you are talking about that none exist.

I am certain you will reject for various reasons: none of which will be that they do not match the scientific definition of "transititional forms". I encourage you to actually provide a definition of what you think a transitional form actually is, and I am sure I can either provide you with hundreds of examples, or demonstrate that your definition is simply wrong.

Moreover, to a certain extent ALL forms are transitional; with progression and differences in species with morphological differences over inferred basal forms of modern animals at a cladistic level appropriate to the given geological time in which they existed (which in itself is a prediction of evolution); with the text book transitional forms being forms that match almost exactly to the same basal forms.

Your statement that Ad-Hocs are used seems based primarily on your naivitiy to believe that Evolution via the experimentally observed mechanisms of evolution should give you the same metronomic consistency of a mathematic equation especially considering that Evolution is driven by the ecology and environment, which consists of innumerable localised shifts and often detailed cataclysmic events.

I would point out that NO ad-hocs invent new processes or mechanisms that have not been experimentally verified, but are simply based on applying the known processes and mechanisms in different situations. For example, an evolutionary or environmental event which means that there are accessible ecological niches that are currently unfilled (due to extinction of species, or new fundamental adaptations that mean an unfilled niche can be selected for) are likely trigger faster radiation of species than if those ecological niches are filled with something that has already best adapted for that niche. This is not to say such evolution cannot happen.

So what you classify as an "ad-hoc" is simply the application of known mechanisms within known ecological scenarios to explain the evidence. It seems what you are doing is no more than a rhetorical technique that is made not because evolution is wrong or dishonest, but because it explains the evidence and you don"t like that it does.

With respect to tyrannosaurus, I find this most hilarious, because if you actually did your research, you would see that there are actually a number of fossil finds that highlight key aspects of tyrannosaurus evolution. Including Eutyrannus, Drytosaurus acquilunguis, dilong that show progressions of size and morphology over time culminating in the relatively large tyrannosaurus Rex. This is not even considering the number of cousins of the Tyrannosaurus and parent clades. So yes, there is much evidence to show the progression of tyrannosauroids; a clear progression but few if any that have truly or solely basal traits that are required to classify as truly transitional.

Chromosome #2:

Some gibbons have 44 chromosomes, and one Malaysian ape has 50.
House mice has 40 chromosomes, and a population of mice form the Italian Alps have only 22 chromosomes
Red foxes have 34 chromosomes, Bat-eared Fox have 72 chromosomes.
Horses have 64 chromosomes while donkeys have 31. Their offspring are futile.
Hybrids of the wild horse have 66 chromosomes and the domesticated horse have 64 chromosomes. Their offspring are fertile.

Correcting some mistakes here. Donkeys have 62 not 31 chromosomes. They are also not fertile (I"m assuming you meant fertile and not futile). There are no recorded cases of fertile mule stallions and only a handful of females that have produced offspring.


Some mutations and chromosome abnormalities can fuse or defuse chromosomes like the Robertson translocation. Yet, those affected are still human.

Here is a study about sheep with up to three different chromosome rearrangements:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Absolutely; chromosome rearrangements are possible, demonstratable and well evidenced. The issue you have (which you seem to neglect) is that Chromosomes themselves on their own do not do anything; it is the genes that cause a creature to be a given type of creature.

It is within the realms of genetic engineering that you could split all the human chromosomes into 100 chromosomes and provided that they all included the same genes, it is unlikely you would be able to tell the difference. This is why genetic differences not chromosomal numbers are the indicator: because we know chromosome change events do occur.

Hopefully, the hype about chromosome 2 is down.

Also, read claims that it "fits perfectly", is there evidence for that?

Yes; the centomere and telomeres are aspects of the chromosome that are used for duplication of that chromosome. Chromosome 2 have deactivated telomeres in the middle (which they shouldn"t have) and two centomeres located in the positions where they exist in the equivalent chimpanzee genome.

Moreover, the genomes encompassed within Chromosome 2 also line up with the equivalents of the chimpanzee chromosomes pretty much exactly. So yes; there is a LOT of comparative genomic evidence for that.

Then there are the logical questions:

-If chromosome fusions causes diseases, then why did natural selection go to the opposite direction?

Most TRISONOMY cause disease; not necessarily fusion or changes. The examples you cite in sheep AND wild horses show they do not always cause diseases. There are many chromosome TRISONOMY events that cause problems, but duplications and fusions do not always cause disease.

For example, humans can be born with a duplicated Y chromosome, which occurs in an estimated 1 in1000 live births and causes no issues.

-Did the chromosome fusion happen to one individual or the entire population?

One individual.

If it happening to one individual is more likely, then how did the chromosome fusion spread?

Genetic drift in small isolated populations.

If the individual is capable of reproducing with the 48 chromosome humans, then what happened to them? Did a catastrophe happen that caused the 48 chromosome human to vaporize and become extinct, and the genetically ill with 46 chromosome were lucky to survive?

Well no. A 48 Chromosome human will pass on 24 chromosomes. With a 46 Chromosome human passing on 23. So progeny of the two will have 47. If they breed, they will have a 50% chance (I believe) of passing on 23 and 50% of 24. If they breed with another 23, then they will yield a child with 46 chromosomes which has 100% chance of passing 23.

So over time, such a mutation can replace the dominant form; occurring quicker in smaller populations.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2013 10:31:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
-----

As for the evidence I would accept, basically evidence that the foundations of the ToE is not a fantasy. Evidence of a mechanism capable of creating multicellularity, or a mechanism capable of inventing and assembling organs and biological systems (and spreading them to the population).

Define multicellularity. I say this because when you say Multicelluarity, I doubt you mean the scientific multicellularity but your own variation therein. Multicellularity has been experimentally induced twice, in both yeast (that did have a multicellular ancestor) and a type of algae that didn"t.

In terms of organ development. A plausible mechanism capable of "inventing" the eye and increasing complexity to the human eye has been demonstrated (and indeed can be seen in the nature of eyes around the animal world). Lungs, are a good example; as Italian wall lizards show, morphology of organs can change; the swim bladder of some fish originated as an outpocket of the gut (and in many cases the vestigial connection is still present), with the swim bladder evolving air permeability in many species of lung fish, with subsequent variation in the internal structure of the swim bladder (together with the connection from the gut adapting further and further up towards the mouth to form modern lungs.

Many differences within hearts in different species, such as evolution from a single tubule heart can be examined and increasing the complexity of the heart such as going from two to three to four chambers can be shown to be related to gene expression (and there was even a man who was born with a three chambered heard and barely noticed!)

The evidence is there if you chose to look for it. The main issue is that you don"t; you simply repeat the same fabrications of other creationists without chosing to go looking for ALL of the contents I have posted in this thread, deciding instead to perpetuate the same cretinous falsehoods that have been spread for a decade by people equally unwilling to actually do their research.

Science hasn"t got all the answers; but is demonstrating and has demonstrated that it is very good at finding them out considering that even 50 years ago we didn"t have molecular biology of any form; and now we are understanding how aspects of cancer and innumerable medical conditions can trace their cause down to specific issues in replication and duplication of genes.

To use the argument that detailed elements of evolution cannot be shown using a science that has only existed for 50 years, with detailed tools and processes existing for an even shorter time as justification to not believe in evolution especially considering the whole wealth of evidence that shows it can, has and does work to explain biodiversity is rather silly.

Even worse, not only do you want to drop an entire theory based on some aspect that is not yet known, dropping the well evidenced, well supported and fantastic explanatory framework that we have to replace it with something that explains nothing and is not matched by any meaningful scientific evidence or experiment is truly shocking. Considering that Creationism fails 1000 times more and 1000 times more severely in any single one of the tests you allege Evolution fails in; it beggars belief that you want to replace a theory that arguably matches almost all of the evidence; and according to you only has a few elements were it doesn"t with something that matches none.

The fact of the matter is that Science doesn"t know everything; and Creation doesn"t know anything.
desertdawg
Posts: 73
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2013 12:24:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/29/2013 8:07:08 AM, Enji wrote:
At 12/29/2013 7:33:45 AM, desertdawg wrote:
At 12/28/2013 5:24:55 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/28/2013 4:07:38 PM, desertdawg wrote:
At 12/28/2013 6:59:29 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/28/2013 6:50:12 AM, desertdawg wrote:
At 12/27/2013 7:55:52 PM, nummi wrote:
At 12/27/2013 7:34:10 PM, desertdawg wrote:
At 12/22/2013 4:31:00 AM, tahir.imanov wrote:
What evidence do you need to believe in evolution?
or
What evidence would you offer as prove for evolution?

I would actually have to see a monkey change into a human to believe in evolution.
A monkey changing into a human is not evolution. That would be transformation, shape changing, you know, like werewolves and such. Fantasy. Evolution is something entirely different.

Yes I know and it is different depending on who I am talking too because there are so many different evolutionary theories now. I guess the one where we crawled out of the mud and started evolving and the tree of life is not the one you are talking about.

There is only one theory of evolution. Nothing you have thus far matches it.

The 'theory' you mention here bears no relation to any current scientific theory.

Wait a minute you are rocking my world here. Evolution doesn"t say we evolved from apes? What about the extra pair of chromosomes apes have and when 9 & 14 ape chromosomes are joined it looks like the #12 human chromosome? Is there no more primordial soup?

Firstly, you said monkeys. Monkeys != apes.

Secondly., Of course we evolved from apes, a good piece of evidence for this is that we are STILL apes, the same way we are still mammals, vertebrates, craniata, tetrapod eukaryotes and Chordata.

So monkeys and apes are not the same but humans and apes are the same?

Humans are in the family hominidae, also known as the great apes; humans are apes. Monkeys are not amongst the great apes - they are separate. Together, monkeys and apes form the group known as primates. Here's a pretty picture: [http://www.biomedcentral.com...]

Here is a prettier picture and it says that monkeys came first then apes then humans. I know we are all different now, different but the same I guess because we are all made out of the same material, but according to evolution monkeys are in our family tree.
http://www.usefulcharts.com...
When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace. -Jimi Hendrix-
yesuke
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2013 12:38:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/29/2013 12:24:51 PM, desertdawg wrote:
At 12/29/2013 8:07:08 AM, Enji wrote:
At 12/29/2013 7:33:45 AM, desertdawg wrote:
At 12/28/2013 5:24:55 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/28/2013 4:07:38 PM, desertdawg wrote:
At 12/28/2013 6:59:29 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/28/2013 6:50:12 AM, desertdawg wrote:
At 12/27/2013 7:55:52 PM, nummi wrote:
At 12/27/2013 7:34:10 PM, desertdawg wrote:
At 12/22/2013 4:31:00 AM, tahir.imanov wrote:
What evidence do you need to believe in evolution?
or
What evidence would you offer as prove for evolution?

I would actually have to see a monkey change into a human to believe in evolution.
A monkey changing into a human is not evolution. That would be transformation, shape changing, you know, like werewolves and such. Fantasy. Evolution is something entirely different.

Yes I know and it is different depending on who I am talking too because there are so many different evolutionary theories now. I guess the one where we crawled out of the mud and started evolving and the tree of life is not the one you are talking about.

There is only one theory of evolution. Nothing you have thus far matches it.

The 'theory' you mention here bears no relation to any current scientific theory.

Wait a minute you are rocking my world here. Evolution doesn"t say we evolved from apes? What about the extra pair of chromosomes apes have and when 9 & 14 ape chromosomes are joined it looks like the #12 human chromosome? Is there no more primordial soup?

Firstly, you said monkeys. Monkeys != apes.

Secondly., Of course we evolved from apes, a good piece of evidence for this is that we are STILL apes, the same way we are still mammals, vertebrates, craniata, tetrapod eukaryotes and Chordata.

So monkeys and apes are not the same but humans and apes are the same?

Humans are in the family hominidae, also known as the great apes; humans are apes. Monkeys are not amongst the great apes - they are separate. Together, monkeys and apes form the group known as primates. Here's a pretty picture: [http://www.biomedcentral.com...]

Here is a prettier picture and it says that monkeys came first then apes then humans. I know we are all different now, different but the same I guess because we are all made out of the same material, but according to evolution monkeys are in our family tree.
http://www.usefulcharts.com...

And so are starfish if you go back in time enough.
So what?
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2013 12:39:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/29/2013 12:24:51 PM, desertdawg wrote:
At 12/29/2013 8:07:08 AM, Enji wrote:
At 12/29/2013 7:33:45 AM, desertdawg wrote:
At 12/28/2013 5:24:55 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/28/2013 4:07:38 PM, desertdawg wrote:
At 12/28/2013 6:59:29 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/28/2013 6:50:12 AM, desertdawg wrote:
At 12/27/2013 7:55:52 PM, nummi wrote:
At 12/27/2013 7:34:10 PM, desertdawg wrote:
At 12/22/2013 4:31:00 AM, tahir.imanov wrote:
What evidence do you need to believe in evolution?
or
What evidence would you offer as prove for evolution?

I would actually have to see a monkey change into a human to believe in evolution.
A monkey changing into a human is not evolution. That would be transformation, shape changing, you know, like werewolves and such. Fantasy. Evolution is something entirely different.

Yes I know and it is different depending on who I am talking too because there are so many different evolutionary theories now. I guess the one where we crawled out of the mud and started evolving and the tree of life is not the one you are talking about.

There is only one theory of evolution. Nothing you have thus far matches it.

The 'theory' you mention here bears no relation to any current scientific theory.

Wait a minute you are rocking my world here. Evolution doesn"t say we evolved from apes? What about the extra pair of chromosomes apes have and when 9 & 14 ape chromosomes are joined it looks like the #12 human chromosome? Is there no more primordial soup?

Firstly, you said monkeys. Monkeys != apes.

Secondly., Of course we evolved from apes, a good piece of evidence for this is that we are STILL apes, the same way we are still mammals, vertebrates, craniata, tetrapod eukaryotes and Chordata.

So monkeys and apes are not the same but humans and apes are the same?

Humans are in the family hominidae, also known as the great apes; humans are apes. Monkeys are not amongst the great apes - they are separate. Together, monkeys and apes form the group known as primates. Here's a pretty picture: [http://www.biomedcentral.com...]

Here is a prettier picture and it says that monkeys came first then apes then humans. I know we are all different now, different but the same I guess because we are all made out of the same material, but according to evolution monkeys are in our family tree.
http://www.usefulcharts.com...

We have the clade Anthropoidea in our direct family tree. To which humans, apes and new and old world monkeys belong. Above that is the Cattarhini clade to which current new world monkeys do not belong but old world monkeys and apes do. Above that is hominoidea to which all apes belong, but old world monkeys do not.

Monkeys, in their extant species are our second/third cousins, with which we share a common ancestor.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2013 1:01:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/29/2013 10:29:54 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
What shocks me most, is that you seem to have done at least SOME research on the subject and simply attempt to jump to massive conclusions.

Logical conclusions. Although I admit that the conclusions done by evolutionists are massive.

Firstly, a simple google search for "list of transitional fossils" gives you a significant list of transitional forms. I have NO clue what you are talking about that none exist.

I am certain you will reject for various reasons: none of which will be that they do not match the scientific definition of "transititional forms". I encourage you to actually provide a definition of what you think a transitional form actually is, and I am sure I can either provide you with hundreds of examples, or demonstrate that your definition is simply wrong.

Already addressed; they look like the evolution of automobiles with no evidence they are related. For the ToE to be correct, there needs to be tremendous change within individual fossils, which is, as I said, non-existent.

Moreover, to a certain extent ALL forms are transitional; with progression and differences in species with morphological differences over inferred basal forms of modern animals at a cladistic level appropriate to the given geological time in which they existed (which in itself is a prediction of evolution); with the text book transitional forms being forms that match almost exactly to the same basal forms.


Your statement that Ad-Hocs are used seems based primarily on your naivitiy to believe that Evolution via the experimentally observed mechanisms of evolution should give you the same metronomic consistency of a mathematic equation especially considering that Evolution is driven by the ecology and environment, which consists of innumerable localised shifts and often detailed cataclysmic events.

Observed? It is effectively a historical hypothesis that offers no real scientific explanation.

I would point out that NO ad-hocs invent new processes or mechanisms that have not been experimentally verified, but are simply based on applying the known processes and mechanisms in different situations. For example, an evolutionary or environmental event which means that there are accessible ecological niches that are currently unfilled (due to extinction of species, or new fundamental adaptations that mean an unfilled niche can be selected for) are likely trigger faster radiation of species than if those ecological niches are filled with something that has already best adapted for that niche. This is not to say such evolution cannot happen.

It have been experimentally verified that mutations are capable of producing the change needed for the invention and assembly of organs, or cause a transition from unicellular into multicellularity?

So what you classify as an "ad-hoc" is simply the application of known mechanisms within known ecological scenarios to explain the evidence. It seems what you are doing is no more than a rhetorical technique that is made not because evolution is wrong or dishonest, but because it explains the evidence and you don"t like that it does.

Any pseudoscience, fairytale, or historical hypothesis can claim to explain the evidence. Heck, creationists claim that the bible supposedly explains the evidence.
I want scientific and physical explanation. Not a historical hypothesis lacking foundations, aka a fairytale.

With respect to tyrannosaurus, I find this most hilarious, because if you actually did your research, you would see that there are actually a number of fossil finds that highlight key aspects of tyrannosaurus evolution. Including Eutyrannus, Drytosaurus acquilunguis, dilong that show progressions of size and morphology over time culminating in the relatively large tyrannosaurus Rex. This is not even considering the number of cousins of the Tyrannosaurus and parent clades. So yes, there is much evidence to show the progression of tyrannosauroids; a clear progression but few if any that have truly or solely basal traits that are required to classify as truly transitional.

You did not answer my question: What is the reason for the lack of changes in tyrannosaurs Rex fossil?
3 millions years is more than it supposedly took hominids to become modern humans.

If you are going to mention size, then a raptor that is older and similar to the T-Rex also have short arms.

http://www.theguardian.com...

If we assume the raptorex is the ancestor to the t-rex, then why didn't mutations and natural selection evolved bigger arm throughout dozens of millions of years?

Correcting some mistakes here. Donkeys have 62 not 31 chromosomes. They are also not fertile (I"m assuming you meant fertile and not futile). There are no recorded cases of fertile mule stallions and only a handful of females that have produced offspring.

Noted. Thanks for the correction.

Absolutely; chromosome rearrangements are possible, demonstratable and well evidenced. The issue you have (which you seem to neglect) is that Chromosomes themselves on their own do not do anything; it is the genes that cause a creature to be a given type of creature.

It is within the realms of genetic engineering that you could split all the human chromosomes into 100 chromosomes and provided that they all included the same genes, it is unlikely you would be able to tell the difference. This is why genetic differences not chromosomal numbers are the indicator: because we know chromosome change events do occur.

Ken Miller gave that impression since chromosome number difference is supposedly an evidence that we share a common ancestor with monkeys. I am countering that point.

Yes; the centomere and telomeres are aspects of the chromosome that are used for duplication of that chromosome. Chromosome 2 have deactivated telomeres in the middle (which they shouldn"t have) and two centomeres located in the positions where they exist in the equivalent chimpanzee genome.

Moreover, the genomes encompassed within Chromosome 2 also line up with the equivalents of the chimpanzee chromosomes pretty much exactly. So yes; there is a LOT of comparative genomic evidence for that.

Can you explain to me the mechanism in which a centomereor or a telomere gets deactivated?
Also, is having telomeres in the middle of the chromosome some exotic observation that is exclusive to humans?

Also, aren't allele matching less than 50% and the supposed fusion site degenerate?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Most TRISONOMY cause disease; not necessarily fusion or changes. The examples you cite in sheep AND wild horses show they do not always cause diseases. There are many chromosome TRISONOMY events that cause problems, but duplications and fusions do not always cause disease.

For example, humans can be born with a duplicated Y chromosome, which occurs in an estimated 1 in1000 live births and causes no issues.

So you are saying: "There is still statistically a less than 1% chance that the fusion would be neutral, that must count for something!"
That is does not go beyond reasonable doubt. Even if it did, a fusion would not add an advantage that justifies a selective sweep.

So are we supposed to identify the most reasonable conclusion based on the evidence or confirm the ToE?

Genetic drift in small isolated populations.

What happened to the larger isolated population? Were the 48 C humans on the brink of extinction and the 46 C human was the messiah that saved most of the specie?

Is there an explanation for how the individual out produced or out survived the 48 chromosomes? If a NS hates certain chromosome numbers, then why don't chromosome fusions get selected and start overtaking some populations?
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2013 10:17:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/29/2013 10:31:46 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
-----

As for the evidence I would accept, basically evidence that the foundations of the ToE is not a fantasy. Evidence of a mechanism capable of creating multicellularity, or a mechanism capable of inventing and assembling organs and biological systems (and spreading them to the population).

Define multicellularity. I say this because when you say Multicelluarity, I doubt you mean the scientific multicellularity but your own variation therein. Multicellularity has been experimentally induced twice, in both yeast (that did have a multicellular ancestor) and a type of algae that didn"t.

An organism is multicellular when there is a regulatory system that forces multiple cells to act as a unit. So the cells will not break off when the circumstances are favorable, like colonial organisms, and the organism recieves damage when the cells are torn apart. There should also be Totipotency and biological immortality in somatic cells to ensure sustainability.

What you are referring to is a cooperative adaptive mechanism which was observed long ago in colonies. You would have an argument if there was evidence that previous generations of the algae or yeast did not have a group adaption mechanism, ie. invented that mechanism in the lab.

In terms of organ development. A plausible mechanism capable of "inventing" the eye and increasing complexity to the human eye has been demonstrated (and indeed can be seen in the nature of eyes around the animal world). Lungs, are a good example; as Italian wall lizards show, morphology of organs can change; the swim bladder of some fish originated as an outpocket of the gut (and in many cases the vestigial connection is still present), with the swim bladder evolving air permeability in many species of lung fish, with subsequent variation in the internal structure of the swim bladder (together with the connection from the gut adapting further and further up towards the mouth to form modern lungs.

Can you please tell me at least 5 steps during the evolution of an organ of your choosing?
Italian wall lizards only demonstrated natural selection like Darwin flinches; the ones with the bigger muscles survived. If they were brought back to hunting insects then I bet the general population will return to what it was.

Many differences within hearts in different species, such as evolution from a single tubule heart can be examined and increasing the complexity of the heart such as going from two to three to four chambers can be shown to be related to gene expression (and there was even a man who was born with a three chambered heard and barely noticed!)

Wow. So if a simpler version of an entity could be found, then that proves that the simpler entity evolved into the more complex one?
Notice that the process from no organ to organ is never addressed since there is no possible explanation evolution can provide. Sorry, but even a single chambered heart is not "simple"; it requires blood, vessels, an oxygenating system, nerves, and a brain to operate.

The evidence is there if you chose to look for it. The main issue is that you don"t; you simply repeat the same fabrications of other creationists without chosing to go looking for ALL of the contents I have posted in this thread, deciding instead to perpetuate the same cretinous falsehoods that have been spread for a decade by people equally unwilling to actually do their research.

Science hasn"t got all the answers; but is demonstrating and has demonstrated that it is very good at finding them out considering that even 50 years ago we didn"t have molecular biology of any form; and now we are understanding how aspects of cancer and innumerable medical conditions can trace their cause down to specific issues in replication and duplication of genes.

To use the argument that detailed elements of evolution cannot be shown using a science that has only existed for 50 years, with detailed tools and processes existing for an even shorter time as justification to not believe in evolution especially considering the whole wealth of evidence that shows it can, has and does work to explain biodiversity is rather silly.

Even worse, not only do you want to drop an entire theory based on some aspect that is not yet known, dropping the well evidenced, well supported and fantastic explanatory framework that we have to replace it with something that explains nothing and is not matched by any meaningful scientific evidence or experiment is truly shocking. Considering that Creationism fails 1000 times more and 1000 times more severely in any single one of the tests you allege Evolution fails in; it beggars belief that you want to replace a theory that arguably matches almost all of the evidence; and according to you only has a few elements were it doesn"t with something that matches none.

The fact of the matter is that Science doesn"t know everything; and Creation doesn"t know anything.

I am not a creationist. I have done my research, is it wrong to have a discussion?
The reasons is because it lacks scientific explanations. If there is no evidence yet, then we simply wait and keep searching, we should not invent a fantasy and call presuppositions science; this is a historical hypothesis.
Any pseudoscience or hypothesis, or even something like creationism, can force observations and purpose explanations to them.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2014 3:45:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/30/2013 1:01:35 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 12/29/2013 10:29:54 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
What shocks me most, is that you seem to have done at least SOME research on the subject and simply attempt to jump to massive conclusions.

Logical conclusions. Although I admit that the conclusions done by evolutionists are massive.

Well, no. What you should be doing is 1.) Thinking of an argument, 2.) Checking it for logical fallacy, 3.) Research to ensure your facts are accurate. 4.) Posting argument. Skipping steps 2 and 3 does not lend your argument any credence.


Firstly, a simple google search for "list of transitional fossils" gives you a significant list of transitional forms. I have NO clue what you are talking about that none exist.

Already addressed; they look like the evolution of automobiles with no evidence they are related. For the ToE to be correct, there needs to be tremendous change within individual fossils, which is, as I said, non-existent.

Already "Dismissed" without actually addressing why transitional fossiles show a clear progression over large periods of time and most assuredly is not static in any way shape or form; which would stand against evolution. Of course saying they don't count is far easier than physically demonstrating that they do not match evolution.

Obviously, your main problem, as pointed out (and you sort of ignore) is that you have a naive impression that evolution should be as metronomic as an unchanging mathematical function. I would like to see your logical justification of why an evolutionary process that is guided mainly by environment; an environment that demonstratably goes through periods of relative statis followed by intermittent cataclysmic events (both global and local) should never ever yeild a pattern that matches the environment that guides it.

Moreover, to a certain extent ALL forms are transitional; with progression and differences in species with morphological differences over inferred basal forms of modern animals at a cladistic level appropriate to the given geological time in which they existed (which in itself is a prediction of evolution); with the text book transitional forms being forms that match almost exactly to the same basal forms.

Your statement that Ad-Hocs are used seems based primarily on your naivitiy to believe that Evolution via the experimentally observed mechanisms of evolution should give you the same metronomic consistency of a mathematic equation especially considering that Evolution is driven by the ecology and environment, which consists of innumerable localised shifts and often detailed cataclysmic events.

Observed? It is effectively a historical hypothesis that offers no real scientific explanation.

Firstly, I would point out that you have ignored the key rebuttal here and focused on semantics. More importantly, you have focused on the semantics and got it wrong. The observed mechanisms are mutations, natural selection, genetic drift and gene flow: ALL observed mechanism.

I see you couldn't resist throwing in another untruth into the non-rebuttal of a key aspect of my argument. As I have consistently pointed out: Asside from explaining the diversity of life, why animals and their related morphology and genetics are the way they are; providing applications into origins of disease, explaining attavisms, vestigiality, the progression of species in the fossil record over almost 4 billion years, explaining all the weird aspects we see in nature (A type of ducks penis that happens to be the length of it's body, the Giraffes laryngeal nerve, and more). Offers dozens of predictions and millions of individual tests in the analysis of evolutionary pathways, not even mentioning genetic markers, cytochrome C and the other wealth of ways in which Evolution is tested.

No. You are just offering a statement of opinion asserted as fact. Even worse, it is demonstrably wrong.

I would point out that NO ad-hocs invent new processes or mechanisms that have not been experimentally verified, but are simply based on applying the known processes and mechanisms in different situations. For example, an evolutionary or environmental event which means that there are accessible ecological niches that are currently unfilled (due to extinction of species, or new fundamental adaptations that mean an unfilled niche can be selected for) are likely trigger faster radiation of species than if those ecological niches are filled with something that has already best adapted for that niche. This is not to say such evolution cannot happen.

It have been experimentally verified that mutations are capable of producing the change needed for the invention and assembly of organs, or cause a transition from unicellular into multicellularity?

Selection has been shown to turn single celled Algae into multi-celled algae. Experimentally verified.

As stated, we have significant evidence in the form of organ studies that break down key steps in the evolution of organs into a series of key mutations; I am pretty sure this will be rejected on a variation of the old "you must see something happen before your eyes in order to be true" or for some other arbitrary reason. The issue is, that with these constant and repeated tests of evolution (that generally all repeatedly come up demonstrating that such processes explains key morphological differences) combined with the significant other key tests and predictions that have all passed with flying colors demonstrates sciences confidence in evolution.

What you are doing, is basically stating that as Science can't explain absolutely everything, then you can ignore every single peice of evidence that conclusively demonstrates evolution is the best explanation of the biodiversity that we see around us to a level of confidence almost unsurpassed in science. And hey, if we knew everything: why would there even be evolutionary biologists?

So what you classify as an "ad-hoc" is simply the application of known mechanisms within known ecological scenarios to explain the evidence. It seems what you are doing is no more than a rhetorical technique that is made not because evolution is wrong or dishonest, but because it explains the evidence and you don"t like that it does.

Any pseudoscience, fairytale, or historical hypothesis can claim to explain the evidence. Heck, creationists claim that the bible supposedly explains the evidence.
I want scientific and physical explanation. Not a historical hypothesis lacking foundations, aka a fairytale.

Creationism can "Claim", but only evolution actually does demonstrate it.

As I have said repeatedly, only to be met with a counter argument of "No it isn't". Evolution is well supported in evidence, predictions, tests. The underlying mechanisms are demonstrated and verifiable: All key requirements that were stated as part of evolution have been demonstrated by tests and most importantly of all, it is falsifiable. It matches a scientific theory in every way it is possible to match, no other theory comes even close to explaining the evidence (Creation doesn't EXPLAIN the evidence, Creationism says essentially "God made things the way they are, so stop investigating", which is not an explanation).

Again, you are simply offering up your opinion and asserting it as fact with no attempt to actually justify the clap-trap you're posting.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2014 3:47:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
With respect to tyrannosaurus, I find this most hilarious, because if you actually did your research, you would see that there are actually a number of fossil finds that highlight key aspects of tyrannosaurus evolution. Including Eutyrannus, Drytosaurus acquilunguis, dilong that show progressions of size and morphology over time culminating in the relatively large tyrannosaurus Rex. This is not even considering the number of cousins of the Tyrannosaurus and parent clades. So yes, there is much evidence to show the progression of tyrannosauroids; a clear progression but few if any that have truly or solely basal traits that are required to classify as truly transitional.

You did not answer my question: What is the reason for the lack of changes in tyrannosaurs Rex fossil?
3 millions years is more than it supposedly took hominids to become modern humans.

Natural Selection is the process by which random mutations that occur accumulate faster than the random chance that created them determines because of their benefit to the organism. What this means, is if a mutation has no benefit, it will not be selected for. So a gradient of survival for any mutations to be "selected for". The alternative process, which can be almost as powerful in some respects, is genetic drift, which is just statistics; any given mutation that is neutral and even weakly detrimental has a chance of fixating through the gene pool by random chance at all.

So, lets take a well established Eco-System that has been present for millions of years. In this case, most of the creatures present have had millions of years to evolve into a particular ecological niche. In this example, Natural Selection isn't as strong as other situations. This can be for physical stabilizing selection (for example Race Horses have long legs because it makes them fast, but also makes them very prone to life threatening injury and such in the wild simply getting an inch longer legs does not confer an evolutionary benefit; or because traits that allow access to different ecological niches aren't as strongly beneficial because of the amount of competition that already exists in that niche. Unfortunatley, the complexity of the eco-system and environment does not make it possible to give a simple answer to such a naive question.

Good examples of this, are invasive species; where a species is introduced where they overlap an existing niche; or where no organism fills a niche. Natural Selection demonstrably works very fast in this regard with significant short timescale morphological changes occuring in these species very quickly because, to them, the environment has changed; and existing species are not suited to compete with the new species (as they have never countered them).

Now, this is not to say that such rapid evolution doesn't occur now in some cases, just that compared to other scenario's, it necessarily will not proceed as fast due to the various issues explained.

The other situations, are major environmental changes, key acquired traits, and mass exinction. If there is a significant change in environment that puts negative pressure on a species (shortages of food, incompatible temperature, salinity, etc), small mutations and boosts can provide a bigger statistical boon to a creature than if the environment is perfect. Even then, with environmental changes in the past, 99% of species that have lived have gone existinct, so arguably only 1% of such species manage to adapt enough to survive in the changed environment; alternatively, the environmental change could be a positive one, a chemical change that provides no negative pressure, but a massive positive pressure (such as changes in sea chemistry that is suitable for the construction of hard-skeletons) where acquiring a trait has a massive positive benefit where it didn't before. This leads into key mutations; sometimes (and not very often) key mutations occur that open up a whole new ecosystem for collonization. Examples would be things such as being able to breath air 100% of the time, or the evolution of differentiated cell types. Such mutation bottle necks prevent such adaptive radiation of species occuring because until that sort of bottle neck is breached, evolutionary paths are simply not accessible.

Your key problem is your naive assumption that in a massive complicated, dynamic and changing biosphere in which we live; a process that relies upon and is driven by such a complex biosphere should yeild metronomic, constant, never changing clock ticks of evolution. Molecular evidence shows that species that look the same have still accumulated large genetic differences. So even this interpretation is actually supported by evidence that can be gathered today.

Obviously, every single point mentioned above is easily googleable and I simply cannot comprehend why you make an incredulous statement without caring to google the answer first.

If you are going to mention size, then a raptor that is older and similar to the T-Rex also have short arms.

http://www.theguardian.com...

If we assume the raptorex is the ancestor to the t-rex, then why didn't mutations and natural selection evolved bigger arm throughout dozens of millions of years?

So we can show a clear progression? But not the kind that you wanted to see?

As above; if there is no selection pressure (because longer arms did not confer a survivability benefit) then they won't get longer.

Absolutely; chromosome rearrangements are possible, demonstratable and well evidenced. The issue you have (which you seem to neglect) is that Chromosomes themselves on their own do not do anything; it is the genes that cause a creature to be a given type of creature.

It is within the realms of genetic engineering that you could split all the human chromosomes into 100 chromosomes and provided that they all included the same genes, it is unlikely you would be able to tell the difference. This is why genetic differences not chromosomal numbers are the indicator: because we know chromosome change events do occur.

Ken Miller gave that impression since chromosome number difference is supposedly an evidence that we share a common ancestor with monkeys. I am countering that point.

It's not countering any point I have seen in ANY scientific paper or explanation. Chromosome count is not necessarily evidence on it's own; Chromosomes are simply gene containers; while having the similar chromosome count can demonstrate relatedness in conjunction with other significant evidence (such as human chromosome 2), it is not on it's own evidence of relatedness; it is the genes and the DNA that is present within those chromosomes that are the key details. If you had actually cared to research any comparative genetics; you would have come to understand it.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2014 3:54:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Yes; the centomere and telomeres are aspects of the chromosome that are used for duplication of that chromosome. Chromosome 2 have deactivated telomeres in the middle (which they shouldn"t have) and two centomeres located in the positions where they exist in the equivalent chimpanzee genome.

Moreover, the genomes encompassed within Chromosome 2 also line up with the equivalents of the chimpanzee chromosomes pretty much exactly. So yes; there is a LOT of comparative genomic evidence for that.

Can you explain to me the mechanism in which a centomereor or a telomere gets deactivated?
Also, is having telomeres in the middle of the chromosome some exotic observation that is exclusive to humans?

Firstly: I'm not sure; but I would assume it is a similar process to how up to 1% of people have various chromosomal fusion and weirdness going on: http://biomedres.info..., http://www.nature.com... . Really, if you were going to sound incredulous about the possibility of such fusions occuring in real life, it is worth while googling it; it has been demonstrated to occur in normal people.

Secondly you are right. Asside example of the house mouse, the italian alp mouse and various other populations, Buffalo, Asian Deer, pack rats, wild horses, cattle, the sheep example that you posted yourself, and others; yes, it's exclusive to humans.

Granted those are only the examples I could find after a very short google search, I am incredibly surprised how you can google some weird Genetic Analysis of Chromosome 2, but not actually care to check the veracity of the arguments you post....

Also, aren't allele matching less than 50% and the supposed fusion site degenerate?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

What?

Most TRISONOMY cause disease; not necessarily fusion or changes. The examples you cite in sheep AND wild horses show they do not always cause diseases. There are many chromosome TRISONOMY events that cause problems, but duplications and fusions do not always cause disease.

For example, humans can be born with a duplicated Y chromosome, which occurs in an estimated 1 in1000 live births and causes no issues.

So you are saying: "There is still statistically a less than 1% chance that the fusion would be neutral, that must count for something!"
That is does not go beyond reasonable doubt. Even if it did, a fusion would not add an advantage that justifies a selective sweep.

So are we supposed to identify the most reasonable conclusion based on the evidence or confirm the ToE?

No. I am only saying that if you make up what I am saying. There are many types of chromosomal disorders; the ones that are BAD are Trisonomy: Which are the major chromosal disorders such as down syndrome. When you get two copies of a chromosome, it can mean that specific proteins or features are over expressed; which is bad. FUSIONS, which are what we are talking about, are generally neutral, or mildly negative. They do not have the sterility and life affecting implications that trisonomy has. In fact, as I said, up to 1% of people have some chromosome weirdness going on, with up to 1/1000 having a robertson translocation (which is similar).

Genetic drift in small isolated populations.

What happened to the larger isolated population? Were the 48 C humans on the brink of extinction and the 46 C human was the messiah that saved most of the specie?

Is there an explanation for how the individual out produced or out survived the 48 chromosomes? If a NS hates certain chromosome numbers, then why don't chromosome fusions get selected and start overtaking

This is simple statitics. Remember; even today, people don't live forever. Humans live for 80ish years today, and millions of years ago, they lived for a lot shorter period. This means that the Genome is continually replaced with new generations. With a small population mutations can spread more quickly, and can fixate at random (drift) as a very small percentage of neutral (or even mildly deleterious) mutations can propogate by simple statistical chance.

But then again; how does me being able to provide proof either way that is definitively what happened affect the validity of evolution? It simply demonstrates that the processes involved are capable of explaining the data.

It is using known, demonstrable and known statistical processes together with known information to explain the specifics of how a prediction of Evolution that has been verified can actually happen in the real world.