Proof of evolution -at last-

[sayak83]

Different discipline but equally important to evolutionary biology in my opinion. I'm not only interested in why the processes of evolutionary biology work but how they arose to work that way in the first place for if the processes originated artificially that may clarify how we view the processes to begin with.
That being said and put aside...if you give me some names I might be able to acquire the textbook materials so we can start from an equally agreeable point.
I look forward to this educational journey. Thanks.

Evolution
Evolution
Evolutionary Analysis
Evolution

These books are good as far as my opinion goes.

 

[viole]

Confusing? It doesn't take a genius to deduce that evolution is an attempt at describing the evolution AND origins of life.

Apparently it does, since everybody, with the possible exception of some confused creationists, knows that they belong to different categories. Let it me put this way: evolution theory is akin the solution of a differential equation, while the start of life is the initial conditions. Obviously two different categories of objects.

in the same way we can study the universe, and we know quite a bit about it, without necessarily knowing the so called origin of it.

and it is a non sequitur to deduce, from the naturalistic development of complex life, that the begin is also naturalistic. I know several Christians that accept evolution by natural selection, while believing that the beginning was an act of God.

I don't know how terribly a lot of creationists have presented the theory of intelligent design but as it involves theories

I wonder why you guys always use the attribute “intelligent” to the alleged design you see in nature. That is an assumption that seems unsubstantiated. I would say a lot of what you call design looks pretty stupid to me.

time for a new creationist discipline: SD.

Ciao

- viole

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I'd certainly consider spending several weeks of my life researching this

If you think it is going to take you literal weeks to hash out then, I guess... I'm sorry? I mean... I suppose it does depend on one's intelligence level and ability to grasp some fairly heavy-handed subjects - possibly some brushing up on various vocabulary - but I was able to peruse and get a handle on what was being discussed, and the relevance of the findings in the better part of a couple afternoons. You think it will take weeks? Again... that is unfortunate for you, and I am sorry.

if you can provide a nutshell description of how this supports a gradual change in a major species cause by survival of the fittest.

Sure.
An endogenous retrovirus is a snippet of viral genetic material appearing in an organisms overall DNA strands that is recognized due to its unique genetic makeup.

When a virus infects a host cell, it over-writes portions of the cell's DNA with its own instructions. If this attack is on a gamete (sperm or ovum) and the cell ultimately survives the attack, then this DNA transcription can then be propagated to the next generation via reproduction using that particular cell. Keep in mind here that if the transcription of DNA of the sperm or ovum had resulted in key systems or functions being over-written, then this just means the resulting attempt at producing offspring would simply fail.

This passing on of virus' genetic material from generation to generation can mean that an entire lineage can have these traces of viral DNA coded into their genetic make-up.

The mechanisms by which this process occurs are well known and documented within the spectrum of observable phenomena. In the specific case of humans and other great ape species, the research conducted found that these types of viral DNA markers' found in humans and other apes (considering BOTH the exact-same virus of origin and the relative location within the entire strand of DNA) match in literally tens of thousands of locations! Understanding and accepting the processes by which this happens leaves no alternative but to conclude that humans and apes share a common ancestor.

And thus, with humans and apes sharing a common ancestor, one must conclude that we BOTH (humans and other ape species, that is) came from one common species that was originally neither of those species! Given other evidence for change in organisms that has been observed within the span of recorded human history (such as the purposeful breeding of dogs and plant husbandry both resulting in observable change to organisms via changes to genetic makeup as a result of selection), it is not any great leap at all to infer that the same sort of change (evolution) was at play in the transformation of this common ancestor into both humans and any of the other ape species exhibiting these same endogenous retroviruses in their DNA.

I believe "Evolution" is a religion and am no more likely to drop everything I'm doing and studying this than I am delve into Druidism.

All observed change in all life at all levels and types at all times is sudden. All individuals are equally fit. Darwin is the founder of a religion.

The rest of this is just biased soap-boxing. There is nothing to address here.

 

[viole]

It really doesn't matter. The only links claimed by scientists who believe in the theory are those fossils or...lookalikes that have no definite biologic connection, such as proof of evolving genes. And as much as believers in the theory protest to my wording, no proof of genes morphing into a form that overtakes or changes from the form before.

Scientists do not need to believe. Belief is what is required by things without evidence. Things like the Apollo, Gods, talking serpents, and all.

ciao

- viole

 

[YoursTrue]

Scientists do not need to believe. Belief is what is required by things without evidence. Things like the Apollo, Gods, talking serpents, and all.

ciao

- viole

That is not true.

 

[YoursTrue]

Apparently it does, since everybody, with the possible exception of some confused creationists, knows that they belong to different categories. Let it me put this way: evolution theory is akin the solution of a differential equation, while the start of life is the initial conditions. Obviously two different categories of objects.

in the same way we can study the universe, and we know quite a bit about it, without necessarily knowing the so called origin of it.

and it is a non sequitur to deduce, from the naturalistic development of complex life, that the begin is also naturalistic. I know several Christians that accept evolution by natural selection, while believing that the beginning was an act of God.



I wonder why you guys always use the attribute “intelligent” to the alleged design you see in nature. That is an assumption that seems unsubstantiated. I would say a lot of what you call design looks pretty stupid to me.

time for a new creationist discipline: SD.

Ciao

- viole

There is no doubt that evolution must go back to its roots -- and mechanics -- in other words, abiogenesis. Anything that says otherwise is ridiculous as well as not being consistent with its own teachings.

 

[YoursTrue]

If you think it is going to take you literal weeks to hash out then, I guess... I'm sorry? I mean... I suppose it does depend on one's intelligence level and ability to grasp some fairly heavy-handed subjects - possibly some brushing up on various vocabulary - but I was able to peruse and get a handle on what was being discussed, and the relevance of the findings in the better part of a couple afternoons. You think it will take weeks? Again... that is unfortunate for you, and I am sorry.

Sure.
An endogenous retrovirus is a snippet of viral genetic material appearing in an organisms overall DNA strands that is recognized due to its unique genetic makeup.

When a virus infects a host cell, it over-writes portions of the cell's DNA with its own instructions. If this attack is on a gamete (sperm or ovum) and the cell ultimately survives the attack, then this DNA transcription can then be propagated to the next generation via reproduction using that particular cell. Keep in mind here that if the transcription of DNA of the sperm or ovum had resulted in key systems or functions being over-written, then this just means the resulting attempt at producing offspring would simply fail.

This passing on of virus' genetic material from generation to generation can mean that an entire lineage can have these traces of viral DNA coded into their genetic make-up.

The mechanisms by which this process occurs are well known and documented within the spectrum of observable phenomena. In the specific case of humans and other great ape species, the research conducted found that these types of viral DNA markers' found in humans and other apes (considering BOTH the exact-same virus of origin and the relative location within the entire strand of DNA) match in literally tens of thousands of locations! Understanding and accepting the processes by which this happens leaves no alternative but to conclude that humans and apes share a common ancestor.

And thus, with humans and apes sharing a common ancestor, one must conclude that we BOTH (humans and other ape species, that is) came from one common species that was originally neither of those species! Given other evidence for change in organisms that has been observed within the span of recorded human history (such as the purposeful breeding of dogs and plant husbandry both resulting in observable change to organisms via changes to genetic makeup as a result of selection), it is not any great leap at all to infer that the same sort of change (evolution) was at play in the transformation of this common ancestor into both humans and any of the other ape species exhibiting these same endogenous retroviruses in their DNA.

The rest of this is just biased soap-boxing. There is nothing to address here.

Scientists of certain confines (such as putting together thoughts and evidence of evolution) must play games of maybe -- and then after a while something 'new' is discovered and they get into a battle of wits, possibly changing what was taught as true before that.

 

[YoursTrue]

There is evidence to support evolution. Sorry.

Evidence supports theories and is explained by them, but no evidence is offered as proof of any theory in science.

I fail to understand why this is so difficult to understand.

The evidence is that which is said to support a made-up theory. Since I've been reading these boards and listening to arguments about the theory as if it's true and anyone who doesn't believe it is deemed stupid, dumb, closed-minded, uneducated, etc., I've come to the conclusion that there truly IS no real evidence supporting the theory.

 

[Valjean]

How many times have I already told you that if a fish would produce anything other then a fish, it would DISPROVE evolution?


This is how I know that you are not being honest in this conversation.
This has been repeated to you so many times, I'ld be insulting your intelligence if I were to assume that you still haven't learned this.

In evolution, you never outgrow your ancestry.
Every new species is always a subspecies of the ancestral species.
In evolution, species don't jump branches.
Cats don't evolve into dogs.

When did the first Latin speaker give birth to the first French or Spanish speaker?
Change is gradual.

 

[Valjean]

I believe "Evolution" is a religion and am no more likely to drop everything I'm doing and studying this than I am delve into Druidism.

How are you defining religion, then? I see nothing religious in science.

All observed change in all life at all levels and types at all times is sudden. All individuals are equally fit. Darwin is the founder of a religion.

Where are you getting this information, and please clarify what you mean by 'sudden'.

A gazelle born with short legs, a brown or short-haired polar bear -- how are these animals fit? Sexual reproduction is not cloning. It's whole function is to generate variation for environmental selection.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The evidence is that which is said to support a made-up theory. Since I've been reading these boards and listening to arguments about the theory as if it's true and anyone who doesn't believe it is deemed stupid, dumb, closed-minded, uneducated, etc., I've come to the conclusion that there truly IS no real evidence supporting the theory.

So, your conclusion is that populations do not change over time and that poodles have always been poodles.

I don't think a reasonable person will mind if I dismiss your conclusion without further review, considering I have been here a while too and not seen valid reasons for you to draw that conclusion.

 

[shunyadragon]

I believe in the conceptual framework of evolution as described by Darwin. Where I disagree is with the modern biology addenda, connected to randomness and chance; mutations. The main reason for my disagreement with the latter, is statistics is a watered down version of science, compared to rational science like was done by Darwin.

Biology agenda?? That's an odd paranoid view of science. The contemporary 'science of evolution. does not propose 'randomness and chance play a role. Nor does statistics used in the research concerning the genetics or the paleotological evidence of evolution. In fact in all of science 'randomness; is not considered to be a factor in the outcome of events over time and space. Only known objective determined by specific physical evidence are used in science. Randomness would be considered 'unknowns that could not be relevant in scientific hypothesis. Randomness becomes a useless 'layman's term' with no meaning in science. Nothing is truly random without a cause or pattern in the Natural world. Chaos Theory of fractal nature of relationship in chains of cause and effect events that occur over time and space provide a better scientific view of the reality of our physical existence..

Your misusing how statistics is used in scientific research. Statistic is used to test the variability in terms of probability of the outcome of planned experiments In scientific methods statistics is when a sample is selected from a large population to test the hypothesis for the nature of the hypothesis for the population.

The methodological Naturalism scientific methods used in evolution are based on predictive hypothesis confirmed by the objective verifiable evidence over time like fossils. evidence of relationship in genetics. Statistics plays a minor role such things as in comparing ranges of data sets in time estimates to give ore accurate dating of materials.

References forthcoming if you are interested.

 

[Valjean]

Who cares about your "disagreement". Like all creationists, you offer nothing but rhetoric, and scamper off when your many bluffs are called.

I'd like, for once, to read a single, logical, evidence-based defense of creationism. All I ever see are attempts to discredit evolution -- as if that would support creationism.

 

[shunyadragon]

I'd like, for once, to read a single, logical, evidence-based defense of creationism. All I ever see are attempts to discredit evolution -- as if that would support creationism.

Your criticism is too kind.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Scientists of certain confines (such as putting together thoughts and evidence of evolution) must play games of maybe -- and then after a while something 'new' is discovered and they get into a battle of wits, possibly changing what was taught as true before that.

With as observable as the spectrum of data points, processes and present realities are, it is extremely unlikely that something "extra" is going to come along and alter the meaning of it all from the very roots of understanding. That's likely what it would take for your little pipe dream here to become a reality for the particular form of evidence that the observance I described has provided. Otherwise, what you're describing is the process of small tid-bits coming to light that hone-in on an even deeper understanding of the same material.

Meanwhile we have ANY of the statements made by religion that depart from observable reality, which are unable to come anywhere near the caliber of evidence I have described. Facts, figures, observations and numbers. Reality being quantified. You can't quantify the supernatural or the deific... and that is a BIG problem for any designs you might have to sway the skeptical. Your claims rest on the shakiest ground one might imagine. And all along, those who prize the facts, figures and measurements keep on fact-finding, figuring, and measuring to the tune of acquiring and fleshing out knowledge that can be of benefit to all mankind... rather than a handful of self-assured, mumbling wonderers standing in a circle, holding hands, and only hoping that they are accomplishing anything.

 

[shunyadragon]

Ah, normally I don't ask you what you mean, but -- yes -- literal "creationists"? And I still have the biology book describing life via biologic evolution and I notice this (now) as a reader -- claims are often made throughout with no substantiation. Maybe there IS substantiation to the claims, but they are not written in the textbook. When I was in school I was not a believer in God and so I took in what scientists said without question. I was a scholarship student not that that's important, but -- I had no reason to question the statements, taking them as true. I no longer do. Anyway not sure what you mean by "literal creationists." I realize attempts by scientists can be made as if to back up the theory. Or perhaps the facts (analysis of elements, etc.) are used to promote the theory. Reading about discovery of fish in Japan I believe, said to be a new species -- they're still fish. So not sure what you mean by "literal creationist." But don't bother explaining, based on my past experience with you. Just my perception, no insult intended.

Only one old biology book???

 

[Valjean]

When I look at Scripture that God the Creator is Eternal, He has life in Himself, that He spoke what we see and experience into existence, yet formed mankind from the dirt, breathed life into us, this all makes sense to me. Not only that but I know Him, when I pray He answers, He delivered me and keeps His promises.
On the other hand there are those in the abiogenesis camp who say there were materials that obviously made themselves and from those materials a chemical reaction or some kind of reaction took place and out of these dead lifeless things life happened and then we had evolution from this to get this complex life we have now. This view makes no sense to me at all. This scenario is impossible.

It doesn't matter what makes sense to you.
Things make sense to people based on their concordance with local traditions, folklore, religion and cultural norms. These need not have any epistemic credibility. They are not objective or empirical evidence.
Evolution is based on evidence, not mythology or personal familiarity.

You say natural change is impossible. This is objectively wrong, and can be demonstrated to be wrong. In contrast, magic and a divine magician have not been demonstrated to be true. There is no objective evidence whatsoever them, or for magic poofing.

The Scripture says this: It’s about the resurrection, something important about the flesh of animals and humans is mentioned, why is the flesh of animals, reptiles, human beings different? This is not from the work of evolution but The Creator.

But what does the scripture (which scripture?) have to do with reality? It's folklore. It has no scientific merit. Why do you cite it?

“But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? What kind of body will they have when they come?” You fool! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. And as for what you sow — you are not sowing the body that will be, but only a seed, perhaps of wheat or another grain. But God gives it a body as he wants, and to each of the seeds its own body. Not all flesh is the same flesh; there is one flesh for humans, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish. There are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is different from that of the earthly ones. There is a splendor of the sun, another of the moon, and another of the stars; in fact, one star differs from another star in splendor. So it is with the resurrection of the dead: Sown in corruption, raised in incorruption; sown in dishonor, raised in glory; sown in weakness, raised in power; sown a natural body, raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.”
‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭15:35-44‬ ‭CSB‬‬

EE, you're just preaching. A hundred other religious denominations could as easily preach different facts, based on different scriptures. They would be just as credible as your claims.

Objective facts must be based on evidence, not "scripture."

 

[ElishaElijah]

You say natural change is impossible

No I didn’t say that, but I will say like begets like. A fish will not change into an ape, human or an insect.

 

[Valjean]

Strictly speaking you are correct. Consider this from evolution-outreach...

[ Biological evolution and abiogenesis are distinct branches of science, although they are closely related in the context of a holistic evolutionary conceptual framework
.Mar 11, 2010 ]
Note the latter part of that sentence.
However to put it into perspective for you...all the natural evolutionists I have came across include abiogenesis in the broader theory. Why?

Consider this definition from the oxford languages dictionary...

[ the original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances. ]

"to construct any convincing theory of abiogenesis, we must take into account the condition of the Earth about 4 billion years ago"

and this from biologyonline.com

[ The modern hypothesis of abiogenesis holds that the primitive life on Earth originated from lifeless matter and it took millions of years to transpire. This theory is the widely-accepted premise on the origin of life.Feb 27, 2021 ]

[ The terms abiogenesis and biogenesis were coined by Thomas Henry Huxley 1825–1895. He proposed that the term abiogenesis be used to refer to the process of spontaneous generation whereas the term biogenesis, to the process where life arises from similar life.Feb 27, 2021 ]

Huxley was a proponent of Darwin's natural evolution.

Why consider abiogenesis a part of the broader context of evolutionary theory? Because the natural evolution we are discussing concerns life arising from earlier life all the way down and is a bid for getting rid of intelligent design. Now at some point we must conclude, going backward in time that life arose from what we might reasonably conclude is non-life. So what did this first life evolve from and how? That is a question that concerns all natural evolutionists. Do natural evolutionists simply say nothing? Or it didn't evolve? Is that how they conclude the theory?
Not if they wish to be rid of intelligent design.



Specifically, no it isn’t. The evolution of life after life has somehow become existent and the creation of life before its existence involve different arguments about different processes. However as pointed out above the two are intimately connected in the naturalists bid to get rid of intelligent design.



Generally speaking the theory of evolution IS about how life first arose and then evolved. Abiogenesis is as much a part of natural evolutionist theory as natural selection is.

Why? Because if life was intelligently created with a purpose of propagating then anything after that creation would not be natural. And no natural evolutionist would like that. And then of course one would also simply be pushing the question further down the line by asking where the intelligence that existed which created life came from itself?
No abiogenesis, no natural evolution.

Evolutionary theory presumes as axiomatic that life arose from non-life in an undirected process.

I would bet that you would be hard pressed to find a proponent of abiogenesis that wasn’t a natural evolutionist.

Most believers in the ToE believe in science and the fact-based, tested conclusions of the various scientific disciplines.

Most believers in evolution also believe in abiogenesis -- but not as a part of the ToE. They also believe in star-generated metals -- but not as part of the science of metallurgy; and in meteorology -- but not as part of agronomy.
I don't need to understand or believe in the natural history of wheat to bake a loaf of bread.

 

[ElishaElijah]

EE, you're just preaching.

Don’t mind you saying I’m preaching but how was my post preaching? Creation by God makes sense, abiogenesis doesn’t and is imposssible.