Evolution has been observed... right?

[Wildswanderer]

Wow; the environment doesn't exist!

The environment has no mechanism to choose. Dino survives a meteor shower and then gets taken out in a landslide. Was this chosen? No, it's random.
Unless you believe God is guiding the environmental changes.

 

[ratiocinator]

The environment has no mechanism to choose. Dino survives a meteor shower and then gets taken out in a landslide. Was this chosen? No, it's random.

Are you really incapable of understanding this?

If some trait (e.g. running faster, having slightly different colouring, being more tolerant of heat or cold, etc.) confers a survival advantage, in the context of the environment (what predators or prey there are, how hot or cold it is, and so on) then obviously those with that trait will be more likely to leave more offspring in the next generation. The converse is also true in that a disadvantage, in the context of the environment, will be much less likely to leave offspring. Hence, the environment 'selects' individuals for survival that have traits that suit it.

This is, in principle and as far as the population is concerned, no different to the environment consisting mainly of humans who deliberately select traits. The natural environment may not be quite as specific or efficient (humans can ensure that 100% of the next generation have 'desirable' traits) but there is no qualitative difference. The mechanism of change in the population is identical.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Not in a million years. The evidence shows that this occurred over billions of years. It isn't magic. They didn't just poof into fish, birds and insects. The evidence exists. Denying it doesn't make it disappear.

I do not care if it is many billions of years. Has anyone ever found out how one cell animals could become something else? Just saying that one day there were one cell animals and billions of years later there were other animals does not explain how it happened. That is a big difference between bears in a cold climate growing thicker coats. They are still bears. But bears in a cold climate do not become walruses.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

There is evidence. Without evidence no claim would be made. Somehow you're either unaware of the evidence or are consciously ignoring it.

Would you be so kind as to show me some of the evidence? Just consider me a dummy that does not understand.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Yes. Literally every time any living thing reproduces.

Do not show your ignorance. It takes TWO cells to reproduce. One from a male and one from a female. And they are both the same species. A single cell cannot become anything but a single cell.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Do not show your ignorance. It takes TWO cells to reproduce. One from a male and one from a female. And they are both the same species. A single cell cannot become anything but a single cell.

So you've never heard of asexual reproduction and parthenogenesis?

You do realize that sexual reproduction isn't the ONLY kind of reproduction, right?

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Yes, but let me first link you to the fact that all life forms evolve: Speciation - Wikipedia

OK, that just involves single-cell bacterium or viruses that have mutated to the point of forming new "kids" to use your word for it. But let's take a look at another source, namely the fossil record:
Multicellularity has evolved independently at least 25 times in eukaryotes, and also in some prokaryotes, like cyanobacteria, myxobacteria, actinomycetes, Magnetoglobus multicellularis or Methanosarcina. However, complex multicellular organisms evolved only in six eukaryotic groups: animals, fungi, brown algae, red algae, green algae, and land plants. It evolved repeatedly for Chloroplastida (green algae and land plants), once or twice for animals, once for brown algae, three times in the fungi (chytrids, ascomycetes and basidiomycetes) and perhaps several times for slime molds and red algae. The first evidence of multicellularity is from cyanobacteria-like organisms that lived 3–3.5 billion years ago.[7] To reproduce, true multicellular organisms must solve the problem of regenerating a whole organism from germ cells (i.e., sperm and egg cells), an issue that is studied in evolutionary developmental biology. Animals have evolved a considerable diversity of cell types in a multicellular body (100–150 different cell types), compared with 10–20 in plants and fungi... -- Multicellular organism - Wikipedia.

IOW, If we go back far enough, no fossil, or any other kind of evidence, indicates that multicellular life-forms existed. Then suddenly we begin to see them. So, where did they come from? Did God pull off some more creations after the Creation accounts say that He stopped at the end of the 6th day?

Life forms evolve, so my recommendation is that it's best to accept the reality of both what the scientific evidence and the scriptures actually do say. To ignore both probably isn't the best thing to do.

So the "proof" is that if we go back far enough there were only one cell animals. Then at some later time there were multicell animals. This may be comp;etely true but it is only an observation. Observations are not proof. Otherewise magic would be true. I observed a rabbit come out of a hat so it must be true.I observed a time when there were one cell animals and a later time when there werre othere animals so evolution must be true. There was a time when people used wagons to get places and later they used cars. So I guess there was some evolution involved there also.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Are you really incapable of understanding this?

If some trait (e.g. running faster, having slightly different colouring, being more tolerant of heat or cold, etc.) confers a survival advantage, in the context of the environment (what predators or prey there are, how hot or cold it is, and so on) then obviously those with that trait will be more likely to leave more offspring in the next generation. The converse is also true in that a disadvantage, in the context of the environment, will be much less likely to leave offspring. Hence, the environment 'selects' individuals for survival that have traits that suit it.

This is, in principle and as far as the population is concerned, no different to the environment consisting mainly of humans who deliberately select traits. The natural environment may not be quite as specific or efficient (humans can ensure that 100% of the next generation have 'desirable' traits) but there is no qualitative difference. The mechanism of change in the population is identical.

" More likely" vs artificial selection by an intelligent human being. If you can't see the difference... you're not trying.

 

[Wildswanderer]

So the "proof" is that if we go back far enough there were only one cell animals. Then at some later time there were multicell animals. This may be comp;etely true but it is only an observation. Observations are not proof. Otherewise magic would be true. I observed a rabbit come out of a hat so it must be true.I observed a time when there were one cell animals and a later time when there werre othere animals so evolution must be true. There was a time when people used wagons to get places and later they used cars. So I guess there was some evolution involved there also.

And this also assumes that the interpretation of layers equaling certain times is correct.
If it is incorrect, the whole theory is called into question.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

So you've never heard of asexual reproduction and parthenogenesis?

You do realize that sexual reproduction isn't the ONLY kind of reproduction, right?

I do know when animals reproduce they make the same kind of animals. Dogs do not make cats and horses do not make cows. But over millions of years one cell animals made thousands of different kinds of animals?

 

[ratiocinator]

" More likely" vs artificial selection by an intelligent human being. If you can't see the difference... you're not trying.

Are you even being serious? Do you want another go? Try reading it first, this time...

 

[metis]

This may be comp;etely true but it is only an observation. Observations are not proof.

First of all, we go by "evidence" in science, thus we generally avoid the word "proof". But what we do tend to assume is that if something happens then something(s) must have caused it to happen.

Thus, if we only see one-celled organisms in the fossil record, and then suddenly we start seeing multi-celled organisms, then we sorta assume that something probably caused this. Then it begs the question what did?

In the case of evolution, that's an abundance of objective evidence to posit that organisms have and still do change through what we call "biological evolution". OTOH, we do not have a singe shred of objective evidence that some deity(ies) was the cause. In your case, you assume it's the latter even though there's a complete lack of such objective evidence to support it. I do accept theistic causation, but it's not based on the poetry of the Creation accounts.

Otherewise magic would be true.

No, so now you're really grasping at straws as that's not how science works.

There was a time when people used wagons to get places and later they used cars. So I guess there was some evolution involved there also.

It is "evolution", but in this case it's not "biological evolution".

 

[Jose Fly]

Adaptation - Wikipedia

"In biology, adaptation has three related meanings. Firstly, it is the dynamic evolutionary process that fits organisms to their environment, enhancing their evolutionary fitness. Secondly, it is a state reached by the population during that process. Thirdly, it is a phenotypic trait or adaptive trait, with a functional role in each individual organism, that is maintained and has evolved through natural selection."

Adapatation is an observable and verified to exist.

Well there ya' go....evolution is observable and verified to exist. I guess we're done then!

 

[Jose Fly]

Seriously? But you think a bunch of single cell animals became fish and birds and every other type of animals. Where is the evidence? One day there were nothing but single cell animals and millions of years later there were other animals. So they must have evolved because no one can think of any other way. Is that proof?

LOL....how long have you been debating evolution and science? In all that time, not one person has ever shown you any evidence at all of common ancestry, nor has anyone explained that science doesn't deal in "proof"?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I do know when animals reproduce they make the same kind of animals. Dogs do not make cats and horses do not make cows. But over millions of years one cell animals made thousands of different kinds of animals?

I like how you immediately changed the subject when you realized how wrong you were.

Very subtle.

Also, single celled creatures becoming many different kinds of creatures is not even remotely far fetched. As I have just explained (and you tacitly acknowledged) every single example of an organisn reproducing is an example of unicellular organisms growing into large, multicelled ones. So obviously you don't believe it's impossible to happen, do you?

 

[Jose Fly]

How many times do we have to point out that natural selection's not random?

As often as you're willing to repeat it, because as should be abundantly clear by now, the creationists just aren't going to get it. So it won't be them finally understanding this very basic concept that ends it, it'll be you just giving up trying to explain it to them.

 

[Jose Fly]

But bears in a cold climate do not become walruses.

Again, creationists sure are entertaining.

 

[Valjean]

Seriously? But you think a bunch of single cell animals became fish and birds and every other type of animals. Where is the evidence? One day there were nothing but single cell animals and millions of years later there were other animals. So they must have evolved because no one can think of any other way. Is that proof?

The evidence -- not proof --is in the fossils, in the genetic codes, in the observation of the mechanisms described by the ToE.
Evolution would be the expected result of the observed mechanisms we see in nature.

We know Earth once had no life. We know it later had simple life, and later still, more complex life. The ToE is the best explanation of how this came about. It is, in fact, the only reasonable explanation anyone has thought of.
You're skeptical -- why? Personal incredulity? You expect to see evolution happen before your eyes? What reasonable alternative theory do you have?.

How many times have I dismissed your empty rhetoric as unsubstantiated nonsense? I only deliberately ignore your posts when you dish up the same excuses....none of which address anything I have said with real evidence.

You choose to ignore the evidence. Substantial evidence. Please explain why you find evolution incredible, when everyone who understands it finds it credible?

You could have fooled me....science likes to state all its opinions as if they were proven facts that cannot be contested....gathering and testing data, can never address science's first premise, for which it has absolutely nothing to back up its assertions.

Science contests its own assertions. That's part of the scientific process. Science doesn't claim to prove anything. Every scientific theory is provisional. You don't seem to see this. Nobody's more skeptical than the scientists themselves.

Stating that something "might have" happened is not the same as stating that something "must have" happened because science says so....what arrogance!

Science asserts something happened when there's clear evidence that it did happen. Ignore the evidence if you will, but it doesn't remove the evidence or the conclusions derived from it. How is following the evidence arrogance?

Science is not my god or my religion.

It's nobody's god or religion. It's an investigational modality, nothing more.
Apparently it challenges your faith, and you feel the best defense is a good offense. Reasonable, since you have no alternative theories or evidence thereof. But your criticisms and challenges are baseless, and indicate you don't understand either science or the specifics of the ToE.

It will still be a movie screen, no matter what color it ended up....do you understand that? There is absolutely no real substantiated evidence for evolution of the 'macro' kind. Hiding behind adaptation like it explains the process is nonsense because every single "repeatedly tested" experiment ever undertaken by scientists never took any creature outside of its taxonomy.

Deny it all you want. It's still there, for all to see. Change happens. It may be fast or slow, but it has been observed. The observed changes come about by the mechanisms described by the ToE.
What change, in your estimation, would constitute a change of kind? Why would such changes be any different from a change of fur density?

This is where we get the whole ridiculous "whale evolution" scenario by suggesting that the four legged furry creature Pakicetus was actually a "whale", because you could not call him anything else...otherwise your chain of evolution snaps and falls in a heap.
What do you notice about this graph? Do the math and tell me why the whales that we see today have basically remained unaltered for 34 million years...whilst the others morphed spectacularly in just a few million years?

If a design works, why would it change?
Species change when there is a need to change, or an unutilized opportunity. 34M years is nothing. There are species that haven't needed to change for billions of years. If it ain't broke, nature doesn't fix it.

What do you see regarding the lines representing "common ancestors" that go back 65 million years? Not one of them is identified......they "must have" existed because evolution cannot stand if they don't.

So you think someone made up the fossils; that they don't actually exist? What would constitute "identification?" A name? They have names.
As for common ancestors, I don't understand what you're getting at. Clarify?

So where are they? There must be countless millions of them that supposedly were responsible for branching out to become every species of creature on this earth......so where are they? How could they all be missing?

They're missing because fossilization is a rare event, and what fossils there are are not easy to find. We don't need to see every single footprint to follow the tracks.

The song and dance is not nearly so entertaining as the scientists having to resort to insults instead of evidence.

What insults? Declaring ignorance ignorance is not an insult, it's statement of fact. As for evidence, science operates on nothing but evidence. Do you think scientists are just puling their conclusions out of their hats?

By stating that I have no concrete evidence to support my assertions, don't you have to wonder why you have have none either?

But science does. Science can't go anywhere without evidence.

If science can virtually kill God, then it must have the goods....so far I haven't seen anything but educated guesses about what "might have" happened all those millions of years ago.

Kill God? Where are you getting this? Is it because the scientific conclusions contradict your theology? Which is better evidenced?
Deny the evidence all you want, but it's still there. The "educated guesses" are still evidenced, and are still put out there for criticism by others. Science actively attempts to disprove its own conclusions. It's part of the process. It yields more robust conclusions.
Religion, on the other hand, is based on questionable evidence, at best. Untested evidence. Evidence that's contested by other theologies, with equal supporting evidence.

Who turned "might have" into "must have" I wonder?
God is not dead to those of us who see through the smoke and mirrors.

What does God have to do with this? Are you proposing divine magic as a reasonable explanation? Unevidenced magic?

They might accumulate some traits different from their cousins on other continents, but they will never become something else.

You keep declaring this, but how do you come to your conclusions? Why would endless change over time not accumulate into significant change?

Darwin did not see any change in species, just adaptations in the same creatures he knew from the mainland. None were becoming something else.

How many adaptations does it take to create a new species? What would constitute a new species, in your opinion?

They will still be moths....and there may be more varieties...but they will all still be moths. None of them will have morphed into some other creature with invisible "common ancestors".

Again, you assert this, but why could endless small changes never accumulate into something significantly different from the original?

Ah...this old recurring chestnut.....creation taken over eons of time is not "magic"...it never was. The Creator is the inventor and producer of the materials he used for the living creatures he created. He fashioned them deliberately and thoughtfully to co-exist in perfect harmony with the habitats he created before they were even here.....well prepared in advance to receive them with food supply and water supply...along with all the mechanisms required for reproducing their "kind"......inbuilt genetic roadblocks would prevent one "kind" from wanting to mate with another....each instinctively knew who was a suitable mate. These creatures all came fully programmed to do as they were created to do. Instinct has never been fully explained by science, has it? How is it possible to be born with an inbuilt "program"...without a programmer?

Please demonstrate the mechanisms the creator used to achieve this. Magic is lack of mechanism.
Yet again, a lot of assertions, but no support for them. Why do you believe these things? Why can we not see the evidence that led to these claims?
Inbuilt programs and instincts, like anatomy or physiology, are adaptive. They're selected for, by the same mechanisms long hair or color are selected for.
You're mystified by the mechanisms of evolution, so you declare them absurd. You're arguing from personal incredulity.

 

[Valjean]

Has anyone ever seen a one celled animal turn into any other animal?

Noönes seen lots of things that exist or have happened. Why would you expect a process that occurred billions of years ago to have been witnessed?
We know the process happened. Did anyone witness God poofing anything into existence -- a process that must have happened thousands of times, given the turnover of species on Earth?

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Well there ya' go....evolution is observable and verified to exist. I guess we're done then!

I would say there is a big difference between some birds of a species having long beaks and other of the same species having short beaks. I 100% agree with this type of "evolution". Whereas one set of birds becoming fish is a completely different story. Animals of a species can change but not become a different species.