Evolution My ToE

nPeace · Oct 14, 2019

Evangelicalhumanist said:
Again you just miss the truth. New generations are very much like their forebears, but not identical to them. You are not identical to your parents, but in most important ways, you almost are. The processes that maintain your life are just about exactly the same as theirs.

However, very minor differences, caused by nothing but small variations in genetic makeup, can provide real benefits. For example, the production of enzymes that can metabolize lactose gives a lot of people, north of the equator, a much enlarged menu to choose nourishment from. 80% of people south of the equator are lactose intolerant, while only 20% north of the equator are. So dairy, including all cheeses (yum yum) are on the diet of many in the north, few in the south.

Natural selection doesn't drive adaptation. Small changes just happen, but when they are beneficial (in terms of survival to reproduce) they are selected for, and will thus form an increasing part of the population, until the population is better adapted to the environment it inhabits.

Can you explain what you mean by, "Small changes just happen"?
Can you also explain what you mean by "when they are beneficial (in terms of survival to reproduce) they are selected for"?

Subduction Zone · Oct 14, 2019

nPeace said:
Can you explain what you mean by, "Small changes just happen"?
Can you also explain what you mean by "when they are beneficial (in terms of survival to reproduce) they are selected for"?

Earlier you made an error when you decided for no good reason that the fact that most mutations are marginal that means that they could not be a factor in evolution. In a walk from New York to L.A. a single step is marginal. That does not mean that one cannot travel from New York to L.A. on foot. Those marginal differences arise naturally. That can be demonstrated. Natural selection is how they get added to the genome. The result is evolution.

nPeace · Oct 14, 2019

Wild Fox said:
Science knowledge grows with new discoveries. The genetic information shows the expected genetic links consistent with the theory of evolution.

That's not what I read. I am constantly reading that there are many surprises.

Wild Fox said:
From this they make a prediction of how far back in time this would have been predicted to have started. Fossil evidence then shows this prediction to be to short and gives physical evidence of when this genetic lineage would have already existed. The fossil evidence modifies the predictions of the genetic information and allows for new understanding of time frames. Rather than be contradictory they are complementary in understanding evolution. Each new evidence modifies and strengthens the theory of evolution.

I'm sure you did not get this from considering what was said in my second post.
The fossils found were in the layers with dinosaur fossils.
They date it to the early Cretaceous period between 145–66 million years ago.
Thus later, when building their tree, they fit it to 45 million years ago, something is wrong with determining the age of fossils by the geologic strata.

Wild Fox said:
Alternative - an old book that does not explain how life came about with evidence only magic. Or the imagination of the intelligent designer. Both without evidence relying on opinion. Explain what evidence there is contained in the bible for the genetic changes or the fossils.

Please... the Bible is not a science journal. Was that not explained to you previously.

nPeace · Oct 14, 2019

Evangelicalhumanist said:
A long post, but since you start right away with a statement that is 100% incorrect, how good can it get after that?

I suppose you are not going to tell me how it is incorrect. :shrug:

Okay.

Subduction Zone · Oct 14, 2019

nPeace said:
I suppose you are not going to tell me how it is incorrect. Okay.

Selective breeding is done within a species.

Subduction Zone · Oct 14, 2019

nPeace said:
That's not what I read. I am constantly reading that there are many surprises.

Minor surprises. Almost all the time what was already know was confirmed. Focusing on the rare exceptions does not help you.

nPeace · Oct 14, 2019

Jose Fly said:
I understand natural selection quite well, thank you.

What I don't understand is exactly what you're struggling with. Are you struggling to understand how selection can be both a result and a process?

No.

Jose Fly said:
Do you mean when you said "Useful implies that it's what something or someone wants, or considers desirable"?

If so, something can be "useful" regardless of how it arises. When bacteria acquire a mutation that confers resistance to an antibiotic, it's "useful" even though it arose randomly. Likewise, if a scientist manipulated the bacteria's genome to make them resistant to the antibiotic, it's just as "useful" to the bacteria. Understand? The "usefulness" of a mutation/trait is determined by the effect it has on the organism, not by how it arose.

I understand that. I was only saying that useful and positive suggests the same thing to me.

Jose Fly said:
First of all, you need to understand that in science, nothing is absolute. All results are subject to revision if new information should warrant it.

And yes, if there is disagreement between two methods, one of them is obviously off. The scientists then go out and collect more data and conduct more tests to try and resolve the issue. That's how science works.

So if one is off, then it's off for everything else. Isn't it.
If I find a fossil in a layer where I date all fossils found in that strata to be 500 million years, but then other evidence shows the fossil to be very much younger, and I go with that, then I should question the age of every other fossil in that strata. Not so?

Bear Wild · Oct 14, 2019

nPeace said:
That's not what I read. I am constantly reading that there are many surprises.

I'm sure you did not get this from considering what was said in my second post.
The fossils found were in the layers with dinosaur fossils.
They date it to the early Cretaceous period between 145–66 million years ago.
Thus later, when building their tree, they fit it to 45 million years ago, something is wrong with determining the age of fossils by the geologic strata.

Please... the Bible is not a science journal. Was that not explained to you previously.

There are always surprises in science as our understanding grows. That is as it should be when keeping and open mind.
As for the fossil record it is our guide to the past. What you do not comprehend is how science works. Ideas are set forward with good evidence as explained in the predictions from the genetic work. But this should not be taken in isolation so when new data from geologic data shows new evidence those working from the genetics aspect and take this into account. This is neither surprising or confusing. It is what makes science such an important tool to understand ourselves and were we come from. You just gave a good example of how different ways of studying evolution correct and compliment each other.

You are correct the bible is not a science journal and never intended to be. But what is the alternative to evolution? The answer is clearly nothing with any evidence of support. So your attempt to question evidence of evolution only supports the therapy.

Subduction Zone · Oct 14, 2019

nPeace said:
So if one is off, then it's off for everything else. Isn't it.
If I find a fossil in a layer where I date all fossils found in that strata to be 500 million years, but then other evidence shows the fossil to be very much younger, and I go with that, then I should question the age of every other fossil in that strata. Not so?

One needs to be careful. Some fossil life existed for many millions of years with little noticeable changes. And then sometimes people with an agenda improperly date fossils. There was a case recently where creationists lied to "date" some samples.

nPeace · Oct 14, 2019

Wild Fox said:
You can call it conjecture if you want but it is still a conclusion based on evidence. The evidence may not be complete but it is sufficient.
Compare this to ID or bible interpretations which have no evidence and are just opinion. One has evidence if not complete the other has none.

Please don't fool yourself. You are not fooling anyone else.
I can say, I see design in living things, therefore goddidit.
Comparing fossils, and similarities, and saying therefore evolution, is no different.
Reaching conclusions is what we all do. One is not better than the other because someone calls it science. It's not.
It is a conclusion jumped to, based on assumption, and presupposition.
See here.

Bear Wild · Oct 14, 2019

nPeace said:
No.

I understand that. I was only saying that useful and positive suggests the same thing to me.

So if one is off, then it's off for everything else. Isn't it.
If I find a fossil in a layer where I date all fossils found in that strata to be 500 million years, but then other evidence shows the fossil to be very much younger, and I go with that, then I should question the age of every other fossil in that strata. Not so?

Your information presented was the comparison of the phylogenic studies of camouflaged insects compared to the geological find. So it is clear that the phylogenic studies need to use the geologic information to correct their prediction. This is exactly how science works and makes it so powerful. There are two different techniques not two different estimations of the same fossil record.

nPeace · Oct 14, 2019

Wild Fox said:
There are always surprises in science as our understanding grows. That is as it should be when keeping and open mind.
As for the fossil record it is our guide to the past. What you do not comprehend is how science works. Ideas are set forward with good evidence as explained in the predictions from the genetic work. But this should not be taken in isolation so when new data from geologic data shows new evidence those working from the genetics aspect and take this into account. This is neither surprising or confusing. It is what makes science such an important tool to understand ourselves and were we come from. You just gave a good example of how different ways of studying evolution correct and compliment each other.

You are correct the bible is not a science journal and never intended to be. But what is the alternative to evolution? The answer is clearly nothing with any evidence of support. So your attempt to question evidence of evolution only supports the therapy.

There is no evidence for the theory of evolution, regarding all life arising from one common ancestor. There are claims, yes.

Subduction Zone · Oct 14, 2019

nPeace said:
Please don't fool yourself. You are not fooling anyone else.
I can say, I see design in living things, therefore goddidit.
Comparing fossils, and similarities, and saying therefore evolution, is no different.
Reaching conclusions is what we all do. One is not better than the other because someone calls it science. It's not.
It is a conclusion jumped to, based on assumption, and presupposition.
See here.

No, we went over the concept of evidence. Your nonsense did not qualify and you unwittingly admitted that.

Subduction Zone · Oct 14, 2019

nPeace said:
There is no evidence for the theory of evolution, regarding all life arising from one common ancestor. There are claims, yes.

So you still have no clue as to what is and what is not evidence. Too bad. This sort of post makes one look like either a fool or a liar. Stating something that you do not know as a fact that is demonstrably wrong is not very wise.

Bear Wild · Oct 14, 2019

nPeace said:
Please don't fool yourself. You are not fooling anyone else.
I can say, I see design in living things, therefore goddidit.
Comparing fossils, and similarities, and saying therefore evolution, is no different.
Reaching conclusions is what we all do. One is not better than the other because someone calls it science. It's not.
It is a conclusion jumped to, based on assumption, and presupposition.
See here.

It is competently different. It is not just fossils which of course the bible has no explanation and ID people have no explanation for. One is so clearly better because it has at least evidence instead of the imagination and wishful thinking presented by those who are terrified of the theory of evolution.
Explain the fossil record with your best non evolution evidence. I would like to see it.

nPeace · Oct 14, 2019

Wild Fox said:
Your information presented was the comparison of the phylogenic studies of camouflaged insects compared to the geological find. So it is clear that the phylogenic studies need to use the geologic information to correct their prediction. This is exactly how science works and makes it so powerful. There are two different techniques not two different estimations of the same fossil record.

We seem to be on two different pages, and not discussing the same thing.

Bear Wild · Oct 14, 2019

nPeace said:
There is no evidence for the theory of evolution, regarding all life arising from one common ancestor. There are claims, yes.

There are journals full of evidence. You may not be aware of the evidence but it is there even if you choose ignore it. Give any evidence that you have that gives a better explanation. Remember however it is not just fossil record but many branches of science supportive. It is ignorance only to make a foolish statement that there is no evidence.

nPeace · Oct 14, 2019

Wild Fox said:
It is competently different. It is not just fossils which of course the bible has no explanation and ID people have no explanation for. One is so clearly better because it has at least evidence instead of the imagination and wishful thinking presented by those who are terrified of the theory of evolution.
Explain the fossil record with your best non evolution evidence. I would like to see it.

I think you are dreaming, or just deluded.
Nothing you said there is true.
Maybe I will explain when I have time,

Bear Wild · Oct 14, 2019

nPeace said:
We seem to be on two different pages, and not discussing the same thing.

I was discussing your example you gave, the one you did not understand. What page are you on?

nPeace · Oct 14, 2019

Wild Fox said:
There are journals full of evidence. You may not be aware of the evidence but it is there even if you choose ignore it. Give any evidence that you have that gives a better explanation. Remember however it is not just fossil record but many branches of science supportive. It is ignorance only to make a foolish statement that there is no evidence.

Apparently there are a lot of "ignorant" scientists out there. How sad.

Evolution My ToE

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member