• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Evolution My ToE

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
I realize there is nothing that can be done to stop you from continuing with your goal. So if the phrase "Jehovah's Witnesses" is stuck on your lips, maybe it's because you love them so much, and mentioning them gives you peace. :)
Oh, I thought you had me on your ignore list. Anyways, I have no idea what you think my "goal" is, nor do I understand why you're so reluctant to acknowledge the role you being a Witness plays in how you approach this subject.

Thanks. I hear you. The explanation is repeated thousands of times.
Now can you put that in the concept as explained in the article...
Natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity.
variation + differential reproduction + heredity = natural selection
That's pretty much what I said. I'm not sure what the basis for your struggles with this is, since it's something we see happen all the time. Perhaps you should clarify.....are you having trouble understanding how selection works? Are you disputing that it's a real thing? Both?

That was not talking about beneficial mutations.
Read it again, and you will see... hopefully.
Then what did you mean when you said, "How does positive changes add up, without the introduction of positive additions?" To me, that reads like you're saying "positive additions", i.e., beneficial mutations, don't occur.

Wow. I am not talking about a hypothesis.
That's different to testing assumptions and then calling the assumptions facts.
Since when is an assumption a stated fact that should be taught to classrooms of young people, as such?
First, you do realize that hypotheses are not the only things that can be tested, right? It is possible to test a hypothesis as well as test one's assumptions.

Second, in order for your assertions to have merit, you're going to have to give a specific example of what you're talking about (complete with actual material from a textbook or other teaching material).

According to scientists, the fossil record, and geologic column says, the stick insect with it's camouflage ability, evolved during the time of the dinosaur, before flying birds - 126 million years ago.
According to scientists,"Previous studies were unable to explain the early evolution of these insects. This has now changed with the new and much more extensive dataset that can even reconstruct the origin of the oldest lineages,"
Thus... The age estimation of the phylogenetic tree suggests that most of the old lineages emerged after the dinosaurs became extinct 66 million years ago. Thus, the remarkable camouflage of stick and leaf insects most probably evolved afterwards as adaptation against predatory mammals and birds.

Seems there is a conflict with the data, but this is only one of many examples. In other examples, including the best example used for transitional fossil, DNA comparison conflicts with fossil evidence.
Nope, sorry....still not making sense. What I see is scientists revising their explanations as more data is acquired, which is exactly how science works. What else would you have them do? Ignore the new data? I have a feeling if they did that, you'd be complaining even more!
 
Last edited:

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
Yes. Any animal or plant breeder will understand how a population of living organisms can be changed by selective breeding. Mankind has been doing this for thousands of years.

Darwin's insight was simply that the environment in which organisms find themselves can do the same thing as a human breeder. This insight is supported by huge amounts of evidence.
Yep. I have to confess as to being a little confused as to exactly what @nPeace is getting at. Is he denying that natural selection occurs? Is he denying that it's purely natural? Is it something else? I dunno....:shrug:
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
Yep. I have to confess as to being a little confused as to exactly what @nPeace is getting at. Is he denying that natural selection occurs? Is he denying that it's purely natural? Is it something else? I dunno....:shrug:
It will be some contorted way of clinging onto a preposterous religious belief and, as such, not amenable to rational argument. That poster has been on my Ignore list for a while now.
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
It will be some contorted way of clinging onto a preposterous religious belief and, as such, not amenable to rational argument. That poster has been on my Ignore list for a while now.
Either way, in reading through this thread it's clear that I'm not the only one scratching my head on this. I guess we'll see......
 

Bear Wild

Well-Known Member
Hi, there.

Is there really is a categorical difference between kinds of selection? For example,

Say I'm a plant in a population and I happen to have a trait that makes me more resistant to cold than my neighbours. And it gets colder on average for a few years. My offspring may come to dominate the population.

Or,

Say I'm a plant in a population and I happen to have a trait where I spring more fuit/seeds/tubers etc. And a human spots this and chooses my offspring for his next season. My offspring come to dominate the population.

In each case I'm the plant with the trait that makes me better suited to my environment. The environment selects these traits from the population and they become more common.

Thoughts?

ceist shuimiúil.

Both are selective pressures that alter genetic patterns in the plant population. The term natural as originally presented by Darwin implied a sperate selective pattern between the human and non-human pressures implying two separate aspects of selection. Humans and what humans do have for a long time been seen as separate from nature. Of course humans are natural so what we do is actually an aspect of nature. Clearly we are creating selective pressures for those organisms with genetic patterns allow them to be important to humans or able to adapt to the environmental changes humans are creating. So the difference is just the selective force - one the environmental conditions and the other the importance to a single organism.

The concept of mutualism in nature is similar in ways to the human selection where the selective advantage is oriented to another organism. There are selection factors other than humans which are also behavioral but not on the alarming grand scale of humans.
 

Bear Wild

Well-Known Member
There is also the argument that the DNA evidence, comparative anatomy, the fossil record, the geographic column, etc, is solid evidence for the theory. What do we find to be the truth?
One piece at a time...
Assumptions - Conflicting Data
#1

140319-science-stick2_6d298efca2851d5cb2da714b87cea86c.fit-760w.jpg


This is the earliest known plant-mimicking stick insect, its fragile body preserved for 126 million years in the dusty rocks of north-east China.

Cretophasmomima melanogramma is the latest discovery from the Jehol Biota, a dinosaur-era community preserved in incredible detail – perhaps because a Pompeii-style catastrophe swamped the area in volcanic ash. The Jehol Biota is famous for its fossils of feathered dinosaurs and early birds. Their penchant for gobbling up invertebrates may have helped drive the evolution of the stick insect’s plant mimicry.


Ancient stick insect in camouflage for 126 million years: Fossil discovered in China
Scientists have recently excavated the fossilized remains of an ancient stick insect in China. The insect is a member of a newly discovered species that exhibited leaf mimicry over 126 million years ago.

The prehistoric insect lived sometime during the early Cretaceous period [145–66 million years ago] and scientists say that it is one of the early descendants of modern stick insects. The researchers who found the insect published their findings in the online journal PLOS ONE.

"Fossil species that can be conclusively identified as stem-relatives of stick- and leaf-insects (Phasmatodea) are extremely rare, especially for the Mesozoic era [252 to 66 million years ago]," says the study. ...

"As early as in the Early Cretaceous, some stem-Phasmatodea achieved effective leaf mimicry," the study says. "The diversification of small-sized arboreal insectivore birds and mammals might have triggered the acquisition of such primary defenses."

The fossilized remains were found in the Yixian Formation in China. This is an area widely known among paleontologists for producing a relatively large number of well-preserved fossils from the early Cretaceous Period. The team found two specimens in a single layer. The first specimen was male and the second was female.
The scientists also noticed something intriguing about the fossils.
...
"We know from the same locality where the stick insect was discovered that there are a bunch of predators; including tiny tree-climbing dinosaurs and mammals with insect-eating teeth, as well as birds," Béthoux said.


Was early stick insect evolution triggered by birds and mammals?
...A team of international researchers led by the University of Göttingen has now generated the first phylogenomic tree of these insects. The results have been published in the journal Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution.

"Previously the relationships between stick insects were inferred based on just a handful of genes. This is the first study in which more than 2,000 genes were analysed for each species," explains Dr Sven Bradler from the University of Göttingen and senior author of the study. 38 species of stick and leaf insects from all over the world were investigated by the researchers of the 1KITE project (1,000 Insect Transcriptome Evolution). "Previous studies were unable to explain the early evolution of these insects. This has now changed with the new and much more extensive dataset that can even reconstruct the origin of the oldest lineages," adds Dr Sabrina Simon, first author of this study from the University Wageningen.

The most surprising finding is that the relationships between the early emerging groups of stick and leaf insects largely disprove the earlier assumptions. In fact, the genealogy reflects more the geographic distribution than the anatomical similarity of the animals. The authors revealed a New World lineage of purely North and South American species and a group of Old World origin that comprises species from Africa to New Zealand.

The biogeographic history was reconstructed by Sarah Bank, PhD student at the University of Göttingen and coauthor of the study, which resulted in further unexpected results: "The flamboyant stick insects of Madagascar, for instance, descended from a single ancestral species who colonised the island approximately 45 million years ago."

The age estimation of the phylogenetic tree suggests that most of the old lineages emerged after the dinosaurs became extinct 66 million years ago. Thus, the remarkable camouflage of stick and leaf insects most probably evolved afterwards as adaptation against predatory mammals and birds.

"Stick insects become more and more important as model organisms for evolutionary research. The new comprehensive molecular dataset won't be exhaustively analysed for quite some time and will provide exciting insights into the function of the numerous detected genes," explains Bradler with regard to future studies.

There is clearly no corroborating evidence for conclusions on the extended concept of the ToE. More to come.

I want to thank you for this interesting example of how science works. You have sited how the genetic studies help to support evolutionary theory. They say clearly in the genetic study that the "estimated" age is suggestive that the pattern occurred after dinosaurs. Then you supplied a finding of the fossil record that showed the estimated age was incorrect and that the pattern for stick insects began at least while the dinosaurs existed. Thus we find the genetic pattern for evolution which will no be modified by the fossil record supporting evolution. Exactly how science works.

This is what makes science so effective at explaining our would is that it is not absolutism and welcomes change to get better answers. You have provided a very good example of the power of the theory of evolution. It keeps improving as new information is found. Very nice.

The alternative - biblical account or an imaginative "intelligent design" (To bad the intelligent designer did not design out cancer - well unless that intelligent designer likes to see suffering)
So how does your view on how life originated explain the dinosaurs and plant mimicking better. Help me find where in the bible this is specifically addressed. I could not find it.
 

Bear Wild

Well-Known Member
On the video - #1

Seems to me most evolution believers are just happy to believe in ridiculous claims, but somehow believe that claims made for these ideas are facts.
Their best example for evolution from one LUCA is purely conjecture, and looking at it, one is left to wonder, how one can be that deluded.
Then you realize, it is simply an emotional attachment to a desired belief.

7633560.png


Wow. How can one miss this transition... The blow hole smoothly transitions upward, while the snout contracts and expands.
Look at the eyes. What a match.

The dupers must be having a good laugh at the duped.
Pure conjecture based on subjective opinion is what this is.
It does make for quite a fanciful story.

Who knew, the day would come when myths were accepted in science. Yet evolution believers swallow it whole.

No evidence provided here. Where is your evidence.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
On the video - #1

Seems to me most evolution believers are just happy to believe in ridiculous claims, but somehow believe that claims made for these ideas are facts.
Their best example for evolution from one LUCA is purely conjecture, and looking at it, one is left to wonder, how one can be that deluded.
Then you realize, it is simply an emotional attachment to a desired belief.

7633560.png


Wow. How can one miss this transition... The blow hole smoothly transitions upward, while the snout contracts and expands.
Look at the eyes. What a match.

The dupers must be having a good laugh at the duped.
Pure conjecture based on subjective opinion is what this is.
It does make for quite a fanciful story.

Who knew, the day would come when myths were accepted in science. Yet evolution believers swallow it whole.

The wooden nose is getting longer, maybe it is evolving.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
I don't think so, but if you believe I did, how much would it take, to make the point clearer? Are you not suggesting basically, that the OP is attacking the ToE, as though it will somehow make an argument for a creator God?
I'm saying, no, that is not the case. What did I miss?

Everything with absolutely no knowledge of the science involved.
 

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
You read my point.
Evolution believers get all riled and deny it, when told that their claims of evidence in support of their belief, are assumptions, guesses, suppositions etc..
They refer to said assumptions as scientific facts.
Assumptions are not facts.
That is my point.
Evidence, of which is there an insurmountable mountain of, is not "assumptions" or "guesses".
Ancient goat herders were wrong. Deal with it.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
So what do you think happened in reality?

How do you account for the beginning of life on earth?

And the origin of species?

If there's any real evidence to support what you're arguing for, what is it?

I think it's something like "I've been indoctrinated so long and thoroughly I'm in a mental rut. The doctrines have become a mental ROM, unalterable by outside influence."
"I cant imagine how such a complex world could have come about without someone intentionally assembling all the pieces. This, after all, has been my experience with human technology. Therefore, this must be the situation in nature, as well."

Argument from ignorance and argument from personal incredulity.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Hi, there.

Is there really is a categorical difference between kinds of selection? For example,

Say I'm a plant in a population and I happen to have a trait that makes me more resistant to cold than my neighbours. And it gets colder on average for a few years. My offspring may come to dominate the population.

Or,

Say I'm a plant in a population and I happen to have a trait where I spring more fuit/seeds/tubers etc. And a human spots this and chooses my offspring for his next season. My offspring come to dominate the population.

In each case I'm the plant with the trait that makes me better suited to my environment. The environment selects these traits from the population and they become more common.
Same basic mechanisms, I'd say, but different causes; different initiating factors or drivers.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Actually, nobody knows because that day hasn't arrive yet, creationism is still not accepted in science.
What myths are accepted in science? Science only accepts things with supporting evidence.
Creationism isn't accepted because it's pure myth. There is no supporting evidence for any of its claims. Science is a method for evaluating evidence. If there's no empirical evidence to evaluate science has nothing to work with.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
Bravo! I'm frankly surprised. You watched the video and actually picked up on some good information, but you're still not quite seeing the picture, likely you're cherry picking ambiguous and unclarified data, and collecting apparently unsupported 'facts'.

OK, first, selective breeding isn't about selecting species, but characteristics within a species -- like color, hair length, size, &c; variationss you can easily observe in a litter of puppies, for example.
Yes, nature does the same thing, but without intention or guidance.
The farmer doesn't select characteristics within a species. He selects species - with desirable characteristics. Sheesh.
Nature has no choice but to work with what's given it.
Variation, is inherited from the available "sources". Natural selection has occurred.

Ouch! Bad choice of words. It clearly implies intenionality, but, as you picked up on from the rest of the video, there is no need for any.

Positive and negative have implications as well. Useful or detrimental might have been better.
Doesn't seem different to me. Useful implies that it's what something or someone wants, or considers desirable.

Correct.

Now I'm confused. The video answers your question. It's non-random in the same way selective breeding is non-random. There's variation: not all babies are identical. Qualities that chance to lead to greater reproductive success tend to pass themselves on through said reproductive success. They increase in frequency in the population.
Qualities that chance to lead to greater reproductive success.
Sounds good to me. Notice, you just identified natural selection - variety, heredity, differential reproduction.
How about what may be a dominant, or "learned" trait that enhances survival and fitness, being passed on.

What drives the increase in frequency?

See above -- by reproductive advantage. The 'positive changes' the parents were born with help them to thrive; to get more food, or run faster from predators; to hide better or be favored by females. More survive, more mate, they live longer and they have more babies -- with the advantageous trait
You are saying what I understand and agree with.

-- which increases its frequency in the population.
I just want to understand where you get the "increases in frequency". What's the driver?

Remember the peppered moths?
I thought you were catching on, but now the information in your video, your quotation, and your own link seems to have been forgotten.

Is it hysterical suppression? How are you not getting this? The process as presented is intuitive and childishly simple.
No. Perhaps you are not catching on, because you think I am slow and obtuse. Remember?
The peppered moths is a perfect example of how natural selection drives adaptation.
1) variation, 2) heredity, 3) differential reproduction. Nature works with what it's given. The (dominant, or "learned" trait that enhances survival and fitness) genes were passed on, and that's why I think scientists are making up stuff about mutations, as their best attempts at guessing.

What?! "Somehow becomes?" Remember reproductive variation? That introduces the "something new." Puppies in a litter aren't all identical, are they? There's variation to select from.
It's the same process as selective breeding, except the traits are selected by the environment rather than the farmer.

How about the new 'chance advantageous traits'? That's exactly how natural selection works, except the rooting out is done automatically by the environment. Those with less advantageous characteristics for their particular environment aren't as successful. They pass on the trait to fewer young. Those with the advantageous traits are more reproductively successful and the percentage of those with 'positive' features increases over time.
Okay. I never disagreed. I just though it was kind of careless not to mention how they add us, as it can be misinterpreted.

Doesn't need to be "all powerful," just adaptive. Nor is urging needed, it's all automatic. Nor is there any "progress," just endless adaptation.
What do you mean, "just needs to be adaptive"? Natural selection is adaptive now? I thought it was natural selection driving the adaptation.


Palpable poppycock! Sure science makes guesses, but it's the process of vetting that makes it a powerful tool. Its guesses and speculations are investigated, tested, peer reviewed and criticized. Science may take off in ten different directions, but abandons hypotheses that aren't supported by evidence.
So? In science everything is provisional, pending new evidence. What science believes is what the current, best evidence indicates. If new evidence points in a new direction, that's where science goes.
So? That's why science continues to investigate and come up with new hypotheses as evidence accumulates.

As I said, everything's provisional; science invites criticism and new avenues of investigation. That's its strength, not a weakness. Unlike religious doctrine, nothing's writ in stone.
"current, best evidence indicates".
Thank you. So the current best evidence can be mere assumptions, guesses, conjecture, and wrong.
My point exactly. So why do you guys deny it when Creationists sincerely point that out?
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
You have quite clearly misunderstood what I said. It does no good to compare selection by the farmer with natural selection. They are not even remotely the same thing. The farmer selects and discards on the basis of desirable traits. Nature selects on the ability to produce successful offspring. Yes, less-successful offspring will also be produced, but even you should be able to see that over time, over multiple generations, the modification that leads to more offspring will soon far out number the others. This is simple arithmetic, like you could do in grade 3.

If strain A produces 1.9 offspring per parent, and strain B produces 2.1 offspring per parent, and keeping in mind that the parents don't live forever, it should be obvious even to you that in 10, or 100 generations, there will be many, many more strain Bs around, and eventually there will be no strain As left at all.
If you are saying natural selection drives the adaptation,, I agree.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
So what do you think happened in reality?

How do you account for the beginning of life on earth?

And the origin of species?

If there's any real evidence to support what you're arguing for, what is it?
Distractions, distractions. No end to them. Some seem to like going in circles, on threads... and don't seem to mind repeating that process multiple times.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
Oh, I thought you had me on your ignore list. Anyways, I have no idea what you think my "goal" is, nor do I understand why you're so reluctant to acknowledge the role you being a Witness plays in how you approach this subject.


That's pretty much what I said. I'm not sure what the basis for your struggles with this is, since it's something we see happen all the time. Perhaps you should clarify.....are you having trouble understanding how selection works? Are you disputing that it's a real thing? Both?
None of the above.
I don't get how these two statements harmonize.
1. "natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity that is mindless and mechanistic".
2. "selection acts on that variation in a very non-random way".
However, I see you can't reconcile them either. You might not even understand the concept.

Then what did you mean when you said, "How does positive changes add up, without the introduction of positive additions?" To me, that reads like you're saying "positive additions", i.e., beneficial mutations, don't occur.
No. The narrator failed to fill in a vital detail, imo. See my response to Valjean.

First, you do realize that hypotheses are not the only things that can be tested, right? It is possible to test a hypothesis as well as test one's assumptions.

Second, in order for your assertions to have merit, you're going to have to give a specific example of what you're talking about (complete with actual material from a textbook or other teaching material).
I'll come back to this, as I don't have time to gather all the information I want for responding to this.

Nope, sorry....still not making sense. What I see is scientists revising their explanations as more data is acquired, which is exactly how science works. What else would you have them do? Ignore the new data? I have a feeling if they did that, you'd be complaining even more!
So you accept that if the geologic column, and the fossil record tells you a date must be correct - cannot be wrong, and you later measure using genetics, in finding a node to fit your "specimen", for building your phylogenetic tree, and the dates are tens of millions of years out, then something is wrong with your entire geologic column, or your entire "measuring rod"?

I have more on this, but again, my time is limited. So I will get back to this later.
 
Top