ericmurphy's bunnies

[Jayhawker Soule]

There were trilobites 300 million years ago, and there are no trilobites today. There are rabbits today, but there were no rabbits 300 million years ago.

Those two observations, all by themselves, without reference to any additional observations, are more than sufficient to establish the factual nature of evolution.

[reformatted for emphasis]

Very well ...

Given:

• There were trilobites 300 million years ago, and there are no trilobites today.
• There are rabbits today, but there were no rabbits 300 million years ago.

Therefore:

• Evolution is a fact.

​

Proceed ...

 

[Aasimar]

Very well ...<b>

Given:

• There were trilobites 300 million years ago, and there are no trilobites today.
• There are rabbits today, but there were no rabbits 300 million years ago.

Therefore:

• Evolution is a fact.

​

</b>Proceed ...

Given:

• There was Mountain Dew in my refrigerator yesterday, but there is none today
• There is Dr. Pepper in my refrigerator today, there was none yestderay.

Therefore:

• My Mountain Dew Evolved into Dr. Pepper!!!!! In 1 DAY!

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Given:

• There was Mountain Dew in my refrigerator yesterday, but there is none today
• There is Dr. Pepper in my refrigerator today, there was none yestderay.

Therefore:

• My Mountain Dew Evolved into Dr. Pepper!!!!! In 1 DAY!

That's not only evolution, it's significant progress!

 

[ericmurphy]

That's not only evolution, it's significant progress!

Completely incorrect. I'm saying nothing about trilobites evolving into rabbits. (In fact, it's totally incorrect that trilobites evolved into rabbits.)

Read what I'm writing, not what you think I'm writing.

 

[Willamena]

Completely incorrect. I'm saying nothing about trilobites evolving into rabbits. (In fact, it's totally incorrect that trilobites evolved into rabbits.)

Read what I'm writing, not what you think I'm writing.

But what you wrote is illogical, so perhaps what you are writing is not what you are saying.

 

[ericmurphy]

It's not illogical. I've explained at great length what I said, and why. If there are living organisms alive today that did not exist in the past, and vice versa, then one way or another life has changed, i.e., evolved. Q.E.D.

You simply cannot get past the distinction between evolution and evolutionary theory. That someone could read what I have actually written and interpret it to mean I think rabbits evolved from trilobites is simply astonishing. Read what's actually there, not what you expect to be there.

 

[Willamena]

It's not illogical. I've explained at great length what I said, and why. If there are living organisms alive today that did not exist in the past, and vice versa, then one way or another life has changed, i.e., evolved. Q.E.D.

Not necessarily. They may have just died off.

 

[ericmurphy]

That explains why organisms in the past do not exist today. "Dying off" does not explain why organisms alive today did not exist in the past.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Very well ...

Given:

• There were trilobites 300 million years ago, and there are no trilobites today.
• There are rabbits today, but there were no rabbits 300 million years ago.

Therefore:

• Evolution is a fact.

​

Proceed ...

Given the same initial premises, there are many conclusions that fit both facts at hand:

- the rabbits ambushed the trilobites and slaughtered all of them. They did exist long ago; they were just hiding.

- rabbits are aliens and trilobites are cowards. When rabbits first arrived on Earth, they trilobites all ran away. They didn't go extinct, they're just hiding somewhere, cowering.

- some sort of God turned all trilobites into rabbits as some sort of reward/punishment.

- rabbits and trilobites are both advanced alien species, and Earth is their timeshare vacation property. They take turns being here.

- ~300 million years ago, there was a trilobite version of the Island of Dr. Moreau, where an evil genius trilobite designed a new, larger, fuzzier and air-breathing form of trilobite, which wiped out the old ones.

- God made trilobites long ago and then smote them. Later, God made rabbits.

- inside every egg or egg cell is a miniature version of the whole organism, including eggs/egg cells with miniature versions of the next generation. Change in organisms over time is due to pre-set variations between organisms and not due to inheritance or other factors.

- trilobites evolved from rabbits at some point in the future, then discovered time travel.

 

[ericmurphy]

These are all discussions of mechanisms of how we got from a state of having trilobites to not having trilobites, and from a state of no rabbits to a state of rabbits. None of these mechanisms (except for the plainly silly ones) are inconsistent with the observation that the kinds of organisms that have existed have changed over time. In no case do any of these various mechanisms allow one to say there has been no change in living organisms over time.

All of these conclusions are consistent with the only claim I have made so far: that life has evolved over time.

Why is it so difficult to get across the distinction between the observation (that life has evolved) and explanations for that observation (goddidit, random mutation + natural selection didit, aliensdidit, trimetraveldidit)?

ETA: I should also note that the "plainly silly" explanations I referred to above are the ones that contradict the observation that trilobites no longer exist and/or that rabbits exist now but did not in the past. If one disputes the reality of those two observations, then one can deny evolution has happened. Granting those two observations, I do not believe it is possible to deny that evolution has happened.

 

[Willamena]

These are all discussions of mechanisms of how we got from a state of having trilobites to not having trilobites, and from a state of no rabbits to a state of rabbits. None of these mechanisms (except for the plainly silly ones) are inconsistent with the observation that the kinds of organisms that have existed have changed over time. In no case do any of these various mechanisms allow one to say there has been no change in living organisms over time.

All of these conclusions are consistent with the only claim I have made so far: that life has evolved over time.

Why is it so difficult to get across the distinction between the observation (that life has evolved) and explanations for that observation (goddidit, random mutation + natural selection didit, aliensdidit, trimetraveldidit)?

Possibly the misunderstanding lies in the concept of "change." When we register "change" of a thing, we have seen that particular thing in two different stages of development. "Here" and "not here" are not stages of development.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Completely incorrect. I'm saying nothing about trilobites evolving into rabbits. (In fact, it's totally incorrect that trilobites evolved into rabbits.)

Read what I'm writing, not what you think I'm writing.

You read what you're writing, and then show that your conclusion flows from your two premises (that I gave you gratis).

Meanwhile, I think I'll have a Dr. Pepper.

 

[matthew.william]

That's not only evolution, it's significant progress!

Significantly delicious progress!

~matthew.william~

 

[painted wolf]

Ericmurphy...
The way you stated what appears in the OP is unfortunatly confusing.
Finding a fossil Trilobyte but no fossil rabbits together doesn't 'prove' or evidence evolution itself.

It does provide evidence against a global flood.

wa:do

 

[ericmurphy]

You read what you're writing, and then show that your conclusion flows from your two premises (that I gave you gratis).

Meanwhile, I think I'll have a Dr. Pepper.

How can it not? If different organisms existed in the past than exist today, and different organisms are alive today than existed in the past, then how is it possible for evolution not to have happened? How did we get from one state to another?

Because that is what I am writing. I am not making any statement at all about how we get from one state to the other, which is why the analogy of evolution from Mountain Dew to Dr. Pepper is completely inapposite.

All I am stating is that it is a fact that evolution has occurred. The mechanisms which have driven that evolution may be, to a greater or less extent, open to dispute. The fact of evolutionary change is not.

I've answered all the questions you've asked me. You still have not answered the one question I have asked of you: what about my conclusion (that evolution has occurred) is not an inescapable conclusion from the two premises you have granted (and which I think it would be pretty impossible not to grant)?

 

[ericmurphy]

Ericmurphy...
The way you stated what appears in the OP is unfortunatly confusing.
Finding a fossil Trilobyte but no fossil rabbits together doesn't 'prove' or evidence evolution itself.

It does provide evidence against a global flood.

wa:do

Sure it does. All "evolution" is, is changes in populations over time. You cannot have gotten from a state of trilobites but no rabbits to a state of rabbits but no trilobites without changes in populations over time.

All it is is an observation of evolutionary change. It's not evidence of any particular mechanism responsible for that change. It is evidence—conclusive evidence, in my view—that evolutionary change has happened.

 

[painted wolf]

a change in population without other evidence is not a demonstration of evolution... just extinction.

This example by itself is not evidence against special creation.
God may have killed the trilobyes (that meanie) and *poofed* the rabbits into existance.
Now the difference between the Hyracotherium, Mesohippus and Equis is the sort of evidence that is more in line with demonstrating evoution.

wa:do

 

[ericmurphy]

a change in population without other evidence is not a demonstration of evolution... just extinction.

That's why I included the appearance of organisms which exist now but did not exist in the past. If all we saw in the fossil record was fewer and few organisms, i.e, organisms which existed in the past but do not exist now, that would not be evidence for evolutionary change. The two together are.

This example by itself is not evidence against special creation.
God may have killed the trilobyes (that meanie) and *poofed* the rabbits into existance.

I'm not saying it is, and that's where the confusion sets in. I am not discussing any particular explanation or accounting for evolutionary change. All I am discussing right now is that evolutionary change has occurred.

Creationists typically do not even admit that evolution has happened. I am arguing that the evidence it has happened is conclusive. That evolution has happened is a fact. Once we've gotten to that point, then we can talk about different methods of accounting for that fact.

Now the difference between the Hyracotherium, Mesohippus and Equis is the sort of evidence that is more in line with demonstrating evoution.

wa:do

No. That is evidence for common descent with modification, which is a central tenet of evolutionary theory. Once again, I am not discussing evolutionary theory. I will eventually get there, but first I need to establish that there is no possibility of disputing that evolution happens.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

How can it not? If different organisms existed in the past than exist today, and different organisms are alive today than existed in the past, then how is it possible for evolution not to have happened?

You use of 'then' in the above sentence is misleading. There is neither 'then' nor 'therefore' in your silly wabbit argument and your not likely to pick one out of the hat by virtue of some feeble protest to the effect that evolution occurred because, well shucks, it just had to.

Now, once again ...

given:

• There were trilobites 300 million years ago, and there are no trilobites today.
• There are rabbits today, but there were no rabbits 300 million years ago.

show:

• Evolution is a fact.

​

Good luck. Well, time for another Dr. Pepper.

 

[Fluffy]

A magician puts a cat into his hat, covers it with a cloth and then pulls a rabbit out of it. Is that sufficient to justify the hypothesis that the rabbit evolved from the cat? No.

You need further reasoning to justify any hypothesis that explains a transition that is specifically related to the transition and not the before and after.

In the case of evolution we have evidence such as fossil trends, observed mutation, observed natural selection etc. which provide sufficient justification. If we did not know any of these things, we could not infer evolution.