metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
It's only a hypothesis and has never been assumed.
-
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!
Another case of observed speciation
- Thread starter Polymath257
- Start date
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
That's also a hypothesis, and yet you accept it without evidence.
Yes I do, but science seems to like to fudge the line between them. Using one to prove the other just doesn't cut it I'm afraid.
One is demonstrable, provable.....the other is suggested off that real evidence with no proof whatsoever that what they are suggesting is even possible..
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
Oh for the love of......how long have you been here "discussing" science?Are you serious?What is a hypothesis? It is a scientist's word for an assumption.
What I constantly wonder is, do you Jehovah's Witnesses truly think you're representing your faith in a positive way here? Do you honestly think statements like the above reflect well upon you and your faith? Really?
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
I think universal common ancestry is more than a hypothesis. It's not like the idea was just recently proposed and has only scant evidence. It was proposed over a century ago and has massive amounts of corroborating evidence, which puts it firmly in the category of "scientific theory".
Totally wrong.
Are you telling me that as a Catholic you can accept both evolution and creation on faith? If both are hypothetical, on what basis can you choose one over the other? Evidence?
Are you telling me that nature is not evidence, in and of itself, for an Intelligent mind behind it all? Complexity of that magnitude requires planning. There is a planner.....but he is a Creator who, according to God's word, created the world and everything in it.....in carefully planned stages. At the end of each period, he expressed his satisfaction thus far. Six "days" (obviously not 24 hour days) and everything was "good". After the creation of man, he upped the ante to "very good"......an indication that the Creator was pleased with his own efforts.
I think that those who want to believe both creation and science need to pick a lane. The lines appear to be too obscure so that they think they can drift from one lane to the other without sacrificing the truth. Having a foot in both camps means that they don't need to choose. God says you do. Either he is real and achieved everything he says he did.....or he's not and it's all just a colossal unplanned accident.
Bear Wild
Well-Known Member
Are humans related to bananas? In what way. They are both living things, they both have DNA, both use mitochondria for energy and burn oxygen to form CO2 and H2O. So yes in those respects we are related. Oh both are found on the planet Earth.
Did dinosaurs morph into chickens? Not sure how they are using the word morph. Are they descended from dinosaurs? Yes there is sufficient evidence of that connection. The evidence for the first can be found in a biology book but if you need instruction on those ideas then further explanation can be provided. As for dinosaurs to birds there is plenty of evidence all recorded for us to see in the fossil record. There are plenty of scientific journals that will help show the evidence but that can also be provided.
Proof - science does not have the absolute proof of a mathematical equation for a complex process as evolution so stop asking for absolute proof since that makes no sense in this field of science as in many fields of science. Ecology for instance. Evidence is not based on faith. Faith is required when there is no evidence. There is more than enough evidence for evolution so using the word faith is completely inappropriate. Creation has no proof - that's were you use the word faith when there is no evidence.
The real evidence has been unfolding every year with increasing understanding of organic an biochemistry showing how the process could unfold. No video cameras back then for the proof you irrationally demand. But then science is always being questioned and reevaluated which makes it such an effective method of finding out about evolution. How often have you questioned your creation belief looking if there is evidence for it. The creation belief falls apart as soon as you look for evidence so best not to question it or you will start believing in evolution which you so desperately do not want to do in the face of overwhelming evidence in so many scientific journals many of which you can get access to.
Exactly where is the Creator and explain how and why he or she created what he or she did? Why create fossils? Well maybe the creator created fossils just to confuse humans.
Speciation - you clearly do not know this concept at all. This can be explained if you actually want to know. If not don't bring it up. Start by understanding the cause and influence of variation first, then natural selection, then the influence of reproductive rates and population sizes. But take one point at a time instead of long multi-conceptual posts if you really want to understand evolution.
Bear Wild
Well-Known Member
Which is then tested with evidence provided with a conclusion. It only begins with the hypothesis. I guess you never took a science class. More clear examples can be given.Are you serious?
Etritonakin
Well-Known Member
I've never seen any reason for this controversy -except the belief that the Earth is 6,000 years old -which is in no way biblical.
At least Jacob was not ignorant of breeding for specific traits to be passed on.....
Gen 30:37And Jacob took him rods of green poplar, and of the hazel and chesnut tree; and pilled white strakes in them, and made the white appear which was in the rods. 38And he set the rods which he had pilled before the flocks in the gutters in the watering troughs when the flocks came to drink, that they should conceive when they came to drink. 39And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted. 40And Jacob did separate the lambs, and set the faces of the flocks toward the ringstraked, and all the brown in the flock of Laban; and he put his own flocks by themselves, and put them not unto Laban's cattle. 41And it came to pass, whensoever the stronger cattle did conceive, that Jacob laid the rods before the eyes of the cattle in the gutters, that they might conceive among the rods. 42But when the cattle were feeble, he put them not in: so the feebler were Laban's, and the stronger Jacob's.
Using a funny emoticon to disagree?
That said, I'll correct your misunderstanding of micro- v. macro-evolution. No credible scientist has ever posited that macro-evolution is the theory of evolution. Macro-evolution is the sum total, the cumulative effect of micro-evolution. Micro-evolution is the minute changes in an organism that are either beneficial, benign/neutral or harmful to its survival. These changes may or may not ever lead to the organism becoming so different from the rest of its population that they can no longer interbreed. If the changes are so great that the organisms can no longer interbreed, then we have a new species. Actually a new genus. Interbreeding usually can't happen at the genus level, but can at the species level. Panthera leo and Panthera tigris, lion and tiger, respectively can interbreed. Panthera leo, tigris or leopardis, etc. and Felis silvestrus (the house cat) cannot interbreed. And it has nothing to do with size differences. In-vitro fertilization and surrogate pregnancy would take care of that. But the chromosomes are not compatible. Macro-evolution does not happen overnight. It takes ten or hundreds of thousands or millions of years to occur. But look around you, most every living thing you see is a product of macro-evolution VIA micro-evolution. So please stop drinking the Creationist Kool-Aid and latching onto an incorrect usage of the term macro-evolution. You're not disproving evolution.
Macroevolution - Wikipedia
Macroevolution is evolution on a scale at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution,[1] which refers to smaller evolutionary changes of allele frequencies within a species or population.[2] Macroevolution and microevolution describe fundamentally identical processes on different time scales.
What I also want to know from creationists is why this creator has such a limited repertoire of body plans. We have bilateral and radial symmetry, the tetrapod and arthropod forms being predominant, with some asymmetry. Fish, reptiles, mammals, and birds all follow the tetrapod form. I wonder why the creator didn't make life based on energy or pure spirit. Why not based on silicon? Why carbon based? Why are there physical bodies anyway? Is this creator so limited in imagination that everything follows these few basic plans? Or is this creator that lazy?
I've never gotten an answer.
Have you looked into the evolution of whales? Have you looked at the intermediate forms between the LCA of whales, and whales themselves? Did you know that they all carry the same basic body plan and dentition? Yet they began as land animals, sort of like wolves with hooves. Did you know that hippopotamuses are the closest living relatives of whales? How? Because hippopotamuses, giraffes, sheep, cows, deer, antelopes, horses all descend from a common ancestor with whales. It's in the DNA and bones.
Why do humans, apes and other primates not resemble any of those animals? Because we didn't descend from those wolves with hooves, and the fossil records do show it, as well as the DNA. It's available for anyone to see, who wants to see, If someone doesn't want to see, then there's nothing anyone can do.
As a side note, what purpose does it serve for a theist to deny creationism and embrace evolution? I'm as theistic as it gets, and I accept evolution as the method of creation.
Of course the taxonomy stays the same. That's how the taxonomy works. Just like the immediate descendants of finches will be finches, birds, vertebrates, etc, the long term descendants will be birds, vertebrates, etc. Your inclusion of 'fish' as a category is instructive: there is more variety in the types of animals we call 'fish' than in the class of animals we call 'mammals'. So a change in fish equivalent to a change from lemur to human would still be in the 'type' if 'fish' for a creationist. All that means is that pre-scientific standards are used to determine 'kinds' and that is a very poor way to understand life and how it changes over time.
Have you looked at the variety of creatures alive toda that shw examples of almost every stage of that process? From single celled bacteria, to eucaryotic (complex) single-celled species, to Volvox, which forms colonies with division of abilities, to slime molds that show communication between single celled stages leading to multi-celled fruiting bodies, etc? No, I suspect you haven't.
Go and read some basic biology and learn about the wide variety of life that exists *today* that shows essentially every stage from single cell to humans.
No, it isn't to 'get rid' of that notion. The notion isn't ev en coherent enough to spend time on. Until ID practitioners actually manage to come up with a testable theory, they will be and should be ignored.
Nobody has said such is impossible. But the assumption is also not helpful for understanding what we see around us.
Well, you have already said that ay sort of inference isn't allowed, which means nothing about the past can really be known (according to you). Fortunately, others take a more reasonable approach and do, in fact, understand much about the history of the Earth and universe.
That's all you see because you refuse to actually read a competent research paper. But to do so would require learning some basics of terminology (jargon, according to you) and wanting to really know what the truth is.
Yes, of course, we are distantly related to bananas. Both are eucaryotic organisms with many similarities of basic metabolism (which is why we have as many shared genes as we do). The most recent common ancestor between us and bananas is quite a long time ago, when life was single celled, but there was such an ancestor.
No dinosaur morphed itself in a chicken. That's the second time in this post that you have used that word and it shows an incredible lack of understanding of what the actual theory of evolution says. ou seem to think a dinosaur one day changed its bodily structure and became a chicken in the life of that one individual. And, I hope, you do understand that is not even close to what anyone says happened. Nor did any dinosaur give birth to a modern bird. Again, changes in species simply don't happen that fast.
One of the remarkable things about the OP is that speciation and reproductive isolation happened as fast as it did (within a few generations). Typically, we would *expect* such to take hundreds of generations. So, if anything, this is showing far *more* variability than was expected: far *more* ability to evolve than was predicted. If anything, this has shown how *conservative* evolutionary biologists have been in their conclusions and how *rapidly* major changes can happen in the real world.
There's a couple more tag words. The word 'accident' suggests and randomness factor that simply isn't present in the real world: the laws of physics and chemistry are NOT accidental nor are they random. They are 'unplanned' only in the sense that no intelligence planned them. That doesn't mean they are disorderly or unpredictable.
Yes, that is preisely what I am saying.
Please prove this statement. We have all sorts of evidence it is false. Self-organized structures form all the time.
yes, that is your claim. But it is claim based on no actual evidence and way too much guesswork.
Why? There is nothing inherently wrong with believing the universe was created and made to develop by the laws discovered by science. Evolution then becomes the method whereby creation is manifested. That isn't me belief, but it is a consistent and not unreasonable viewpoint. And it is one taken by many scientists.
Well, that is your opinion. Many people who are both religious and scientists disagree.
No, I just thought it was funny to say "Totally wrong" with no explanation. But since you have now provided details, I have something to address.
"No credible scientist"....is that the same as saying "no true Scotsman? No credible scientists would dare step outside of what is accepted by the majority in the world of science because they would instantly lose their credibility....and likely their job along with it. They prefer to just shut-up and go with the flow.
Changes that depend on random mutations that end up being beneficial are extremely rare....way too rare to have been repeated so many millions of times for so many living things. Neutral mutations are the most common but they do not affect the organism either way. But mutations that lead to harm are far more common than anything beneficial, so the numbers simply do not stack up IMO. There is a lot of wishful thinking to suggest otherwise.
The ability to interbreed appears to make no difference to the taxonomy.....all remain within their genetic "family".....and I cannot see where it has ever been clearly established that variety within a single species can take any creature outside of its own family. Felines are all still felines. Canines are all canines...finches are all finches.....fish are still the same kind of fish, regardless of their species.....science has never observed any branching taking place leading to a new "kind"....just to a new variety of one "kind".
Well, if anyone is drinking the Kool Aid, it appears to be science flying in the face of what is obvious to anyone who can see the clear design in nature.
It isn't until you start researching that you realize how much of nature is interdependent. That didn't just happen by undirected chance....otherwise people would be winning the lottery way more often than they do. Gambling is a fool's game....assuming that there is a win around every corner.
Science has never been able to observe this process because of the time it supposedly takes to make these minuscule differences add up to something noticeable. What they cannot observe, they assume to have taken place because it all has to fit their theory.....a Creator just isn't "scientific" until you actually see him as the Creator of all that science studies. And humans are so clever that science has not been around very long compared to belief in this particular God.
From your link...."As Ernst W. Mayr observes, "transspecific evolution is nothing but an extrapolation and magnification of the events that take place within populations and species...it is misleading to make a distinction between the causes of micro- and macroevolution"
Read that carefully and see what this fellow is really saying.....What is the meaning of "extrapolation?.....it is defined as...."the action of estimating or concluding something by assuming that existing trends will continue or a current method will remain applicable." So assumption is the clear basis for macro-evolution and "magnification" just makes the lies bigger. It is "misleading" NOT the make the distinction IMO.
Bear Wild
Well-Known Member
Actually scientists do challenge each other and question what has been assumed. That's the difference between science and blind acceptance of a book written by humans which is an issue you avoid. It is so sad that you have so little understanding of science and you are the one making "misleading" claims about science. Extrapolation is a tool to predict based on evidence. It has been a very effective tool in the medical field but then maybe you do not believe in medical knowledge either. You always avoid the flaw in the opposite belief because you cannot defend it. Creation myth does not fit what is known about our world. Because you cannot support the creation myth you look for any detail in the theory of evolution that has not been completely supported yet and ignore all of the other evidence which is overwhelming to you argument.
So you write long posts about multiple ideas which in the end reflect how little you know about evolution.
For the sake of simplicity, we will refer to fish as fish. If you want to be specific about how many fish are actually marine animals and mammals, then we can go there on another thread. The experiments on speciation were done on stickleback fish if memory serves me. They remained stickleback fish even though small features about them changed. Adaptation has never been disputed. Adaptation was all that was observed....same with the fruit flies....and the bacteria.
And if evolution is true, then why are there still primitive life forms today who have not changed significantly for millions of years? Where is their evolution? Were they standing behind the door when the clever branching genes were issued?
That is like me telling you to go and read the Bible and learn about the Creator.
I have read basic biology and I know the difference between something that is stated as a fact because it can be proven in a lab, compared to things that fall into the category of suggestion and educated guesswork. Biologists don't know everything either. If something falls outside of their ability to test, they do what all scientists do....err on the side of evolution and guess.
And there you have it. Humans feeling so superior about what little they know, that they assume to be able to take the place of God. Testable theory? You make me smile....the theory of evolution is not and never has been truly testable. It is guessable at best......completely in error at worst.
What is the point of being half right? What is the value of a half truth?
On the contrary....it is more helpful in understanding what we see around us because our existence has a purpose, and this planet and all that inhabit it were made by a superior intelligence for a reason.
That reason is stated in the Bible....where is it stated in your textbooks?
Inference is like circumstantial evidence....it can be pointed to and talked about in a theoretical way....but NEVER touted as if it can't be wrong. The atheist scientist is a like the hard ball lawyer determined to make a case even though the evidence is not conclusive. He will make it sound very conclusive when trying to sway a jury.
I have read the papers and I see how much is hidden behind the jargon. Only when forced to simplify the language is the truth revealed. The language of fact does not need "might have" or "could have" or "leads us to the conclusion that"....because facts are statements of truth....science is way short when it comes to truth in the area of macro-evolution.
I rest my case. And you can believe that, yet deny the existence of the one who gave all of us food in infinite variety. There is not a single shred of solid evidence that what you said is true. Science is assuming it to be true....does it feel comfortable even saying it? You are related to a banana.
Science infers that similarity equals relationship. Similar is just similar because the Creator may well have been experimenting with matter. It is obvious that he has a structural framework that is used for a variety of creatures and he has used the same genetic material to create all of them. We may have blood in our veins....air in our lungs....and four limbs of different kinds.....but we are all different.....none of that immediately points to evolution without a great deal of assumption. It can equally point to a Creator who was simply being creative without limits.
Oh please Polymath, I may not have a science degree but I'm not that stupid. The very idea that chickens are descended from dinosaurs is extremely far fetched when you have nothing solid to back up the assertion. Show us the evidence that this is true. It amazes me when scientists can say these things with a straight face and then call what we believe fairy tales.
Or how way off the mark they have always been. If anyone reads your link, they would wonder what all the fuss is about. Two finches produced some other finches. Not exactly headline news is it? Like I said...much ado about nothing.
That post was directed at a believer Polymath....it was specific for him....not for an atheist.
Can you explain the concept behind the term "self-organized" for me though.....