Evidence God Is

[nPeace]

The taxonomy of biological life isn't as precise as you think. Mostly we group them in traits and compatibility. What exactly defines a "new species" isn't always a straightforward answer.

Look into the evolution of corn or the evolution of cabbage/cauliflower, and you can see it takes some time, usually not in a human life time. Speciation happens when there's a separation of a gene pool, and then there has to be variations in the environment making one group evolve traits the other group doesn't have.

Like the lizard on Galapagos islands (if I remember it correctly, it was a while ago I studied these things).


Well, mutations happen all the time. Mutations don't respond to environment. Mutations just happen and the selective pressure will push one gene forward and force other genes back.


Not quite, but that's okay. It's good that the bugs are evolving to survive the climate change because a huge number of insects are disappearing currently. And it's affecting the ecological system as well.

Thanks

 

[Valjean]

Okay. Now ya talking.
All I was saying, is that you would not always get 10 of the best.
Random generations do not always produce 10. At times you may get 5, or even 1.
So, say you got 5, the chances of success are slimmer than 10, and when you add up more random generation, even slimmer.
So what I am saying, is that if you always start at 10, you assume that you will have thousands of 10s, thus increasing your chances of success even if 95% failed.
Cheating, I call it.

And yet the process works. Eg: the peppered moths did turn black, then white again.
All it takes is a small differential in reproductive success for a feature to increase in frequency over many generations. You can see this modeled in dozens of computer models. You can see this happen in Nature. You can see this happen in the lab.
Don't like research; want a visual? You Tube's full of educational videos.

Right. The uncertain stuff.

???

There is also the meteorite strikes, right?

Again, not following. What are you implying? True, a large meteor or a volcanic eruption can alter climate for various periods. so do natural, sequential events. So does human activity.
So........?

Yes. The uncertainties that are inferred from a few fossils. I know of those.
The assumption are not new, and they keep coming.

You mean the evidence from the entire anatomy of thousands of species, both extinct and extant? Plus comparative anatomy is only one avenue of research.

I was specifically asking about the algorithm, curious about how they worked in regard to timing. That's all.

Which algorithm, specifically, are you asking about, and what timing?

 

[Valjean]

...Trying to determine where we are at...

In what respect?
You ask perplexing questions.

So what are you saying?
How have these adapted from what they were not, and when did you see it happen?

A lot happens than we can't see directly. I can't observe the grass grow, but I have evidence that it does. Your arms, a horses legs, a bat's wings,-- all began as a fish's fins. We don't live long enough to actually observe the transition, but we have lots of fossil and living examples of the steps involved.
Keep in mind, most of what we know we cannot observe directly. If direct observation were the only good evidence our courts would never convict anyone, in fact, hardly anyone would even be arrested.

How have these happened?

Your question indicates that you have no knowledge of the mechanisms of evolution. Haven't you been reading our posts? I hesitate to explain things again, if it's just going to go in one ear and out the other (so to speak).

Wow. That's a huge percent of what we know.
The more you think you know, the less you know, and scientists acknowledge this.

Rather, the more you learn, the more questions arise.

You lost me here. I am talking about climate change. What are you talking about?

I'm responding to your question:
"According to scientists, the universe has been undergoing climate changes for billions of years.
How much change, and how often, or quickly these changes occurred have never been directly observed."
I'm giving examples to show how we might conclude that things were different long ago, without our actually having been there. Again, most of what you know you did not directly observe. When we find evidence that things were different in the past -- that a region was once warmer, once colder, or drier, or under water &c, we draw conclusions, that fauna, flora and climate have changed.
Some places changed quickly, some slowly. It's local.

I am only trying to prompt you to be more exact in explaining what you mean, when you say, "A greater scale is just a protracted larger scale". I just threw out some wild question, to help,
I'm sure you are talking about evolution, but I can't read your mind on what's you are visioning.

Sorry, I corrected the typo. The greater scale is a protracted smaller scale.
Small changes add up to produce large changes. There is nothing to stop these changes at any particular point, so as to avoid their becoming big changes.

Okay. You basically answered. It is speculated, or assumed.

No, the evidence that aquatic animals were once terrestrial, or that marine creatures took to the land is overwhelming. I'm just calling your attention to some existing examples of sequential land-water and water-land adaptations that you could examine yourself, since you seem so skeptical of anything not directly observable -- like all the ancient fossils we've found.

 

[nPeace]

And yet the process works. Eg: the peppered moths did turn black, then white again.
All it takes is a small differential in reproductive success for a feature to increase in frequency over many generations. You can see this modeled in dozens of computer models. You can see this happen in Nature. You can see this happen in the lab.
Don't like research; want a visual? You Tube's full of educational videos.
???
Again, not following. What are you implying? True, a large meteor or a volcanic eruption can alter climate for various periods. so do natural, sequential events. So does human activity.
So........?
You mean the evidence from the entire anatomy of thousands of species, both extinct and extant? Plus comparative anatomy is only one avenue of research.
Which algorithm, specifically, are you asking about, and what timing?

I think you are mistaken. No peppered moths turned black.
The blacks thrived when the trees got sooty. While the peppered moths were reduced.
When conditions changed, or the peppered moths had a new environment where they had a better chance of surviving, they thrived again.

You seem a bit lost as to what I mean about uncertainties. I'll try to help.
What's certain about the Panda's thumb?

Spoiler: Interpretations and Possibilities

Tracing the origin of the panda’s thumb
Ever since Gould’s seminal essay on the ‘panda’s thumb’ (Gould 1980; Gould and Vrba 1982), this structure has become one of the most famous examples to illustrate the contingent nature of evolution, as opposed to optimality of design.
The panda’s false thumb illustrates one of the Darwinian principles of historical inference, namely, that based on finding discordances (imperfections or oddities) between the anatomy of an organism and its current circumstances, which make no sense outside the evolutionary paradigm (Gould 2002). More recently, with the recognition that lesser pandas are only distantly related to giant pandas but also display an enlarged radial sesamoid involved in bamboo feeding activities, the false thumb of both pandas has acquired further significance as one of the most remarkable examples of convergent evolution (Antón et al. 2006; Salesa et al. 2006b). Given their similar grasping function during bamboo feeding and based on extant taxa alone, it might seem warranted to infer that the giant and lesser pandas’ hypertrophied radial sesamoids con-
stitute a remarkable case of convergent adaptation. However, the radial sesamoid is not employed as a truly opposable and freely movable thumb in either the giant or lesser panda (contra Davis 1964). In the former, the ‘false thumb’ constitutes a part of a double pincer-like, manipulative functional apparatus in which the hand flexes around the scapholunar and the unciform, so as to grasp objects between the true digits and both
the radial sesamoid and the pisiform (Endo et al. 1999a, b, 2001a; Antón et al. 2006). In contrast, the less marked hypertrophy of the radial sesamoid of the lesser panda, coupled with associated musculoskeletal differences, indicate the possession of a different grasping mechanism (Endo et al. 2001b, 2007; Antón et al. 2006; Salesa et al. 2006b; Abella et al. 2013a), more similar to that displayed by other small- to medium-sized carnivorans. In the latter taxa, these grasping abilities are employed not only in food manipulation but also in arboreal climbing behaviours along thin branches (Antónet al. 2006), given the lack in these taxa of the true thumb opposability characteristic of primates.
The simultaneous locomotor and manipulatory role of the radial sesamoid in ailurids casts some doubts on the adaptive origin of this structure. In fact, locomotion has been favoured as the original primary role of this structure, based on the information provided by the fossil record (Antón et al. 2006; Salesa et al. 2006b).
The remains of the extinct ailurid Simocyon batalleri from Spain traced the possession of a hypertrophied radial sesamoid in this group back to the Late Miocene, clearly prior to the acquisition of the extreme hebivorous adaptations of the extant Ai. fulgens (Salesa et al.2006b, 2008). This is confirmed by the common occurrence of this feature in younger members of the same lineage, even if not as well developed as in the Ailuridae (Wallace 2011). This fact indicates that, in ailurids, the large radial sesamoid originally had a primary locomotor role, probably related to climbing on thin branches (Antón et al. 2006; Salesa et al.2006b), having been subsequently co-opted to perform a manipulatory function and thus constituting an exaptation rather
than adaptation to bamboo feeding (Antón et al. 2006). In the giant panda lineage, the evolutionary origin of the false thumb is less well understood, and thus it is uncertain whether it should be considered an exaptation regarding its current role in bamboo feeding (Hutchinson et al. 2011), as in lesser pandas (Antón et al. 2006; Salesa et al. 2006a, b), or rather as an adaptation to food manipulation, as customarily thought (Wood-Jones 1939a, b; Davis 1964; Endo et al.1999b; Antón et al. 2006; Salesa et al. 2006b). The interpretation of the giant panda’s false thumb as an adaptation to... Read on, if you like.

Panda's Thumb
In anatomy, a sesamoid bone is a bone embedded within a tendon or a muscle. It is derived from the Latin word sesamum ("sesame seed"), due to the small size of most sesamoids. Often, these bones form in response to strain, or can be present as a normal variant. The kneecap is the largest sesamoid bone in the body. Sesamoids act like pulleys, providing a smooth surface for tendons to slide over, increasing the tendon's ability to transmit muscular forces.

The sesamoid is a small nodular bone most often present embedded in tendons in the region of the thumb. Calcification of sesamoid bone is one of the important features of pubertal growth spurt, which is earlier in females than in males. Absence of sesamoid bone indicates delay in reaching puberty.

Sesamoid bones can be found on joints throughout the body, including:
In the knee—the patella (within the quadriceps tendon). This is the largest sesamoid bone.
In the hand—two sesamoid bones are commonly found in the distal portions of the first metacarpal bone (within the tendons of adductor pollicis and flexor pollicis brevis). There is also commonly a sesamoid bone in distal portions of the second metacarpal bone.
In the wrist—The pisiform of the wrist is a sesamoid bone (within the tendon of flexor carpi ulnaris). It begins to ossify in children ages 9–12.
In the foot—the first metatarsal bone usually has two sesamoid bones at its connection to the big toe (both within the tendon of flexor hallucis brevis). One is found on the lateral side of the first metatarsal while the other is found on the medial side. In some people, only a single sesamoid is found on the first metatarsal bone.
In the neck—Although the hyoid bone is free-floating, it is not technically a sesamoid bone. All sesamoid bones form directly from the connective tissue found in tendons and ligaments. By contrast, the hyoid bone forms from a cartilaginous precursor like most other bones in the body.
In the ear—the lenticular process of the incus is a sesamoid bone and therefore is considered the fourth ossicle of the middle ear.

An anatomical variation, anatomical variant, or anatomical variability is a difference between the anatomical structures of animals from the same species. The variations are seen as normal in the sense that they are found consistently among different individuals, are mostly without symptoms, and are termed anatomical variations rather than abnormalities. Some variations are found in different species such as polydactyly, having more than the usual number of digits.

Anatomical variations are mainly caused by genetics and may vary considerably between different populations. The rate of variation considerably differs between single organs, particularly in muscles. Knowledge of anatomical variations is important in order to distinguish them from pathological conditions.

This is one of the reasons the evolution theory is, to me, philosophy.
It is entirely based on assumptions derived from observations of normal functions, or genetic heredity.
It's like someone looking at engines in vehicles, and claiming they were copied or duplicated with modifications.

 

[nPeace]

To me, there are many reasons not to believe what we are being told is evidence for the theory of evolution
Pakicetus

From a skull, we get this...

Mind you... a skull.
The original finds from 1983 included only skull fragments. Gingerich classified Pakicetus as a cetacean based on its inner ear, and he originally thought that it was aquatic or amphibious. However, full skeletons were discovered in 2001, and these revealed that Pakicetus was a wolf-like land mammal, with legs capable of running.


Pakicetidae
Locomotion
Interpretations of pakicetid habitat and locomotion behaviour varies considerably:

Spoiler: Various Interpretations

In 2001, it was concluded by Thiwissen et al. that "pakicetids were terrestrial mammals, no more amphibious than a tapir." According to them, none of the aquatic adaptations found in the oldest obligate aquatic cetaceans, basilosaurids and dorudontids, are present in pakicetids. Pakicetid cervical vertebrae are longer than in late Eocene whales, the thoracic vertebrae increase in size from the neck backwards, and the lumbar and caudal vertebrae are longer than in modern cetaceans (but still shorter than in some extinct cetaceans with undulating spines.) Motion in the spine of pakicetids was further reduced by the revolute zygapophyses (processes between the vertebrae) like in stiff-backed runners such as mesonychians. The sacral vertebrae are fused and the sacroiliac joints present like in land mammals and amphibious cetaceans.

Furthermore, according to Thewissenet al., the pakicetid scapulae have large supraspinous fossae with small acromions, in contrast to other cetaceans. The deltopectoral crests are absent in the long and slender humeri like in cursorial animals but unlike other Eocene cetaceans. Pakicetid elbows are rigid hinge joints like in running mammals and the forearms are not flattened like in truly aquatic cetaceans. In the pakicetid pelvis, the innominates are large and the ischia are longer than the ilia. The pakicetid tibiae are long with a short tibial crest. Hindlimb features that all more reminiscent of running and jumping animals than swimming animals.

Gingerich 2003 disagreed and got support from Madar 2007: postcranial morphology and microstructural features suggest that pakicetids were adapted to an aquatic lifestyle which included bottom wading, paddling, and undulatory swimming, but probably not sustained running. Isotopic evidence indicate Pakicetids spent a considerable part of their life in freshwater and probably ate freshwater prey.

Rodhocetus
From a few bones, we get all sorts of stuff... that isn't there.
Dr. Phil Gingerich Interview About Rodhocetus

Ambulocetus
Dr Hans Thewissen Interviewed About Walking Whale Ambulocetus
Dr Hans Thewissen Interviewed About Blow Hole of Ambulocetus
Ambulocetus - Wikipedia
Did they ever find Ambulocetus' nose?

Spoiler: I'm uncertain

Argentine-Swedish team discovers 49 million-years fossil of fully aquatic whale in Antarctica

From a jawbone, we get this...

A Jawbone!!!

Wow.
It must fit in with the rest of course. .. Obviously.

The jawbone of an ancient whale found in Antarctica may be the oldest fully aquatic whale yet discovered, Argentine scientists said Tuesday. The discovery took place close to the Argentine Antarctic base of Marambio next to the Weddell Sea.


Argentine palaeontologist Marcelo Reguero, who led a joint Argentine-Swedish team, said the fossilized archaeocete jawbone found in February dates back 49 million years. In evolutionary terms, that's not far off from the fossils of even older proto-whales from 53 million years ago that have been found in South Asia and other warmer latitudes.


Those earlier proto-whales were amphibians, able to live on land as well as sea. This jawbone, in contrast, belongs to the Basilosauridae group of fully aquatic whales, said Reguero, who leads research for the Argentine Antarctic Institute.


“The relevance of this discovery is that it's the oldest known completely aquatic whale found yet,” said Reguero, who shared the discovery with Argentine palaeontologist Claudia Tambussi and Swedish palaeontologists Thomas Mors and Jonas Hagstrom of the Natural History Museum in Stockholm.


This is evident with most fossils, used to support human evolution as well.


No end to the SURPRISES.

Why This Whale Ancestor is an Evolutionary Surprise

Surprises... No problem.
From slow and gradual, to super fast

Oldest Antarctic Whale Found; Shows Fast Evolution
The early whale swam polar waters during the Eocene period, some 49 million years ago. Its age suggests fully aquatic whales evolved from their mammalian ancestors more rapidly than previously thought, said researcher Thomas Mörs, paleozoologist at the Swedish Museum of Natural History.

Based on 53-million-year-old fossils of whale-like, semi-aquatic mammals, scientists had thought mammals gave rise to whales in a process that took 15 million years. The new find suggests it took just 4 million years. (See a prehistoric time line.)

What's more, "as soon as they became fully marine animals, they dispersed all over the world, showing the great success of the whale construction," Mörs said in an email.

Spoiler: Bonus

Prehistoric Whale Jaw Bone Sheds Light on the Evolution of Baleen
According to a new study published by researchers at the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History, Texas A&M University, the Burke Museum of Natural History and Culture in Seattle, and George Mason University, this ancient whale named Maiabalaena nesbittae fed with neither teeth nor baleen. Today, two lineages of whales exist—those that eat using baleen, and those that eat using teeth and echolocation to track prey. For a long time, paleobiologists have speculated that an ancestor of baleen whales might have both teeth and a primitive form of baleen—what scientists call a transition species. There remains no proof of such a species, but the discovery of Maiabalaena suggests that one ancient species of whale may have needed neither teeth nor baleen to survive.
Read more: Prehistoric Whale Jaw Bone Sheds Light on the Evolution of Baleen | Science | Smithsonian

Interestingly, evolution takes place super fast, in less than 1 million to less than half a million years, for huge organisms, yet no one can explain why we don't see organisms evolving new body plans today, and why millions of bacteria undergo evolution countless times a day, and still remain bacteria.

Perhaps evolution has stopped, as they are debating for human evolution.
Sir David Attenborough: Humans have stopped evolving
Human evolution is now '100 times faster'
Why human evolution pretty much stopped about 10,000 years ago
Human evolution is still happening – possibly faster than ever

Has that debate been put to rest?
Has Human Evolution Stopped?
It has been argued that human evolution has stopped because humans now adapt to their environment via cultural evolution and not biological evolution. However, all organisms adapt to their environment, and humans are no exception. Culture defines much of the human environment, so cultural evolution has actually led to adaptive evolution in humans.

@Valjean, I hope this lays to rest your uncertainties.
I hope it also helps you understand a few reasons why I don't believe in the theory of evolution. To me, it is full of magic, and the stories are mythical.
It takes more faith to believe in that, than to believe in an intelligent designer, for which I see supporting evidence.
I really find it hard to understand how it's so easy for you to extrapolate on what we clearly observe as creatures going through a simple process of reproducing, passing on genes - which may create problems, or cause no harm, but can allow for survival, and adapting... Yet you can't see this as a valid option...
Every house is constructed by someone. He that constructed all things is God. Hebrews 3:4

I guess we see things differently, and hold to certain views.
Take care.

 

[Subduction Zone]

To me, there are many reasons not to believe what we are being told is evidence for the theory of evolution
Pakicetus

From a skull, we get this...

Mind you... a skull.
The original finds from 1983 included only skull fragments. Gingerich classified Pakicetus as a cetacean based on its inner ear, and he originally thought that it was aquatic or amphibious. However, full skeletons were discovered in 2001, and these revealed that Pakicetus was a wolf-like land mammal, with legs capable of running.

From a skull a lot can be told. One thing that we can see is that it has a whale's ear. Now by itself that would not be conclusive evidence, but you are forgetting all of the other transitional fossils found. The skull also tells us of his diet by his teeth and analysis of the isotopes in his teeth. Pakicetus was most likely a freshwater dweller as show by analysis of the isotopes in its teeth enamel:

Isotopic Records from Early Whales and Sea Cows: Contrasting Patterns of Ecological Transition on JSTOR

Diet can be deducted by shape of teeth and their wear. There is a lot that biologists can tell by analyzing various parts of the skeleton. Just because you and your creationist friends do nt know something does not mean that others cannot figure facts out about life.

Pakicetidae
Locomotion
Interpretations of pakicetid habitat and locomotion behaviour varies considerably:

Spoiler: Various Interpretations

In 2001, it was concluded by Thiwissen et al. that "pakicetids were terrestrial mammals, no more amphibious than a tapir." According to them, none of the aquatic adaptations found in the oldest obligate aquatic cetaceans, basilosaurids and dorudontids, are present in pakicetids. Pakicetid cervical vertebrae are longer than in late Eocene whales, the thoracic vertebrae increase in size from the neck backwards, and the lumbar and caudal vertebrae are longer than in modern cetaceans (but still shorter than in some extinct cetaceans with undulating spines.) Motion in the spine of pakicetids was further reduced by the revolute zygapophyses (processes between the vertebrae) like in stiff-backed runners such as mesonychians. The sacral vertebrae are fused and the sacroiliac joints present like in land mammals and amphibious cetaceans.

Furthermore, according to Thewissenet al., the pakicetid scapulae have large supraspinous fossae with small acromions, in contrast to other cetaceans. The deltopectoral crests are absent in the long and slender humeri like in cursorial animals but unlike other Eocene cetaceans. Pakicetid elbows are rigid hinge joints like in running mammals and the forearms are not flattened like in truly aquatic cetaceans. In the pakicetid pelvis, the innominates are large and the ischia are longer than the ilia. The pakicetid tibiae are long with a short tibial crest. Hindlimb features that all more reminiscent of running and jumping animals than swimming animals.

Gingerich 2003 disagreed and got support from Madar 2007: postcranial morphology and microstructural features suggest that pakicetids were adapted to an aquatic lifestyle which included bottom wading, paddling, and undulatory swimming, but probably not sustained running. Isotopic evidence indicate Pakicetids spent a considerable part of their life in freshwater and probably ate freshwater prey.

It does not matter if it may have been less aquatic. Now you are grasping at straws, There had to be an ancestor that was purely a land dweller. Why do you think that this is some sort of problem?

Rodhocetus
From a few bones, we get all sorts of stuff... that isn't there.
Dr. Phil Gingerich Interview About Rodhocetus

Ambulocetus
Dr Hans Thewissen Interviewed About Walking Whale Ambulocetus
Dr Hans Thewissen Interviewed About Blow Hole of Ambulocetus
Ambulocetus - Wikipedia
Did they ever find Ambulocetus' nose?

Spoiler: I'm uncertain

Argentine-Swedish team discovers 49 million-years fossil of fully aquatic whale in Antarctica

From a jawbone, we get this...

A Jawbone!!!

Wow.
It must fit in with the rest of course. .. Obviously.

The jawbone of an ancient whale found in Antarctica may be the oldest fully aquatic whale yet discovered, Argentine scientists said Tuesday. The discovery took place close to the Argentine Antarctic base of Marambio next to the Weddell Sea.


Argentine palaeontologist Marcelo Reguero, who led a joint Argentine-Swedish team, said the fossilized archaeocete jawbone found in February dates back 49 million years. In evolutionary terms, that's not far off from the fossils of even older proto-whales from 53 million years ago that have been found in South Asia and other warmer latitudes.


Those earlier proto-whales were amphibians, able to live on land as well as sea. This jawbone, in contrast, belongs to the Basilosauridae group of fully aquatic whales, said Reguero, who leads research for the Argentine Antarctic Institute.


“The relevance of this discovery is that it's the oldest known completely aquatic whale found yet,” said Reguero, who shared the discovery with Argentine palaeontologist Claudia Tambussi and Swedish palaeontologists Thomas Mors and Jonas Hagstrom of the Natural History Museum in Stockholm.


This is evident with most fossils, used to support human evolution as well.


No end to the SURPRISES.

Why This Whale Ancestor is an Evolutionary Surprise

Surprises... No problem.
From slow and gradual, to super fast

Oldest Antarctic Whale Found; Shows Fast Evolution
The early whale swam polar waters during the Eocene period, some 49 million years ago. Its age suggests fully aquatic whales evolved from their mammalian ancestors more rapidly than previously thought, said researcher Thomas Mörs, paleozoologist at the Swedish Museum of Natural History.

Based on 53-million-year-old fossils of whale-like, semi-aquatic mammals, scientists had thought mammals gave rise to whales in a process that took 15 million years. The new find suggests it took just 4 million years. (See a prehistoric time line.)

What's more, "as soon as they became fully marine animals, they dispersed all over the world, showing the great success of the whale construction," Mörs said in an email.

e see things differently, and hold to certain views.
Take care.

By the way, since your start of this foolish Gish Gallop was refuted, your whole post was refuted. Don't do this. It is an improper and dishonest way to debate. Bring up your points one at a time. I also went to one of your YouTube video sources. It demonstrated that it was almost certainly a lying source. They had comments disabled on YouTube. The only groups that tend to do that are creationists that have lied or been dishonest in their videos. It is far to easy to refute them so they turn off comments.

 

[nPeace]

In what respect?
You ask perplexing questions.

A lot happens than we can't see directly. I can't observe the grass grow, but I have evidence that it does. Your arms, a horses legs, a bat's wings,-- all began as a fish's fins. We don't live long enough to actually observe the transition, but we have lots of fossil and living examples of the steps involved.
Keep in mind, most of what we know we cannot observe directly. If direct observation were the only good evidence our courts would never convict anyone, in fact, hardly anyone would even be arrested.

Come on Valjean. You are looking at limbs, comparing them, and using subjective opinions to come to a conclusion
I don't see how that is different to a religious approach.
They don't lead to a factual conclusion.

Your question indicates that you have no knowledge of the mechanisms of evolution. Haven't you been reading our posts? I hesitate to explain things again, if it's just going to go in one ear and out the other (so to speak).

Rather, the more you learn, the more questions arise.

I'm responding to your question:
"According to scientists, the universe has been undergoing climate changes for billions of years.
How much change, and how often, or quickly these changes occurred have never been directly observed."
I'm giving examples to show how we might conclude that things were different long ago, without our actually having been there. Again, most of what you know you did not directly observe. When we find evidence that things were different in the past -- that a region was once warmer, once colder, or drier, or under water &c, we draw conclusions, that fauna, flora and climate have changed.

Some places changed quickly, some slowly. It's local.
Sorry, I corrected the typo. The greater scale is a protracted smaller scale.

Small changes add up to produce large changes. There is nothing to stop these changes at any particular point, so as to avoid their becoming big changes.
No, the evidence that aquatic animals were once terrestrial, or that marine creatures took to the land is overwhelming. I'm just calling your attention to some existing examples of sequential land-water and water-land adaptations that you could examine yourself, since you seem so skeptical of anything not directly observable -- like all the ancient fossils we've found.

"Small changes add up", is said so casually, yet we don't see that. It is not known to happen. The best you can do, is make inferences from the fossil record - subjective opinions, and outright speculation... some of which I pointed out in my previous post.

Here, we see some slight changes from just one mutation.
Mutations (2 of 2)
Notice the cat's ear is not becoming a wing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Come on Valjean. You are looking at limbs, comparing them, and using subjective opinions to come to a conclusion
I don't see how that is different to a religious approach.
They don't lead to a factual conclusion.


"Small changes add up", is said so casually, yet we don't see that. It is not known to happen. The best you can do, is make inferences from the fossil record - subjective opinions, and outright speculation... some of which I pointed out in my previous post.

Here, we see some slight changes from just one mutation.
Mutations (2 of 2)
Notice the cat's ear is not becoming a wing.

If you understood the concept of evidence you might understand the difference.

 

[Valjean]

I think you are mistaken. No peppered moths turned black. While the peppered moths were reduced.
When conditions changed, or the peppered moths had a new environment where they had a better chance of surviving, they thrived again.

No-one is saying individual moths changed color. This is just a simple example of the process of natural selection.
Peppered moths, like many animals, come in varying colors. Generally they have white wings 'peppered' with black. The peppering varies. Sometimes there is so much they look mostly black.
They're preyed on by birds, which find them by sight.
When the trees were clean, the light individuals are better camouflaged. They get eaten less, have more light babies, and become the dominant color scheme. But when the suburban London trees became covered with coal soot during the 1800s, the darker ones were better camouflaged. The lighter ones were more frequently spotted and eaten and, by this natural, selective process, the dark ones became more successful, had more babies that looked like them and soon the dark ones were the majority. When cleaner fuels were adopted the trees became light again, and the process reversed.

You seem a bit lost as to what I mean about uncertainties. I'll try to help.
What's certain about the Panda's thumb?

Science doesn't yield certainty, it proposes the best explanation given the evidence at hand. It's conclusions are always provisional.
You don't seem to understand how science works.
The panda has an odd "thumb" it uses to manipulate its food. It turns out this protuberance is an outsized sesamoid bone. Your link explains its significance well, and introduces new evidence of its origins.
Did you read and understand the article? It supports the theory of evolution.

This is one of the reasons the evolution theory is, to me, philosophy.
It is entirely based on assumptions derived from observations of normal functions, or genetic heredity.
It's like someone looking at engines in vehicles, and claiming they were copied or duplicated with modifications.

I don't understand how you come to this conclusion. Cars don't reproduce with modifications. Organisms do. Ever see a litter of puppies? Were they all identical?

 

[Valjean]

Come on Valjean. You are looking at limbs, comparing them, and using subjective opinions to come to a conclusion
I don't see how that is different to a religious approach.
They don't lead to a factual conclusion.

The limb fossils show a gradual transition over time to legs, and the legs to wings, arms, paddles &c. Moreover, there are modern exemplars of many of the stages of this process. And this is only one line of evidence. The conclusion makes sense, and there is no reasonable alternate explanation for the findings.

Religion begins with a conclusion, looks for supporting evidence, ignores contrary evidence, and resists any attempts to test or falsify the conclusion or continue research.
Science does just the opposite. It begins with evidence, formulates an explanation for it, tests the explanation, invites others to find flaws in it, and only then concludes the explanation is factual. It continues researching the subject, repeating the process and inviting criticism.
All its conclusions are provisional, nothing's writ in stone, alternate explanations are invited and revision is part of the process.

No-one's come up with an alternate explanation of the evidence thus far collected. If you know of any it would certainly be appreciated.

"Small changes add up", is said so casually, yet we don't see that. It is not known to happen. The best you can do, is make inferences from the fossil record - subjective opinions, and outright speculation... some of which I pointed out in my previous post.

What??!! "Not known to happen?" Outright speculation?
What are you talking about? How do you come up with this? You don't seem to have a clue about how science works, what evidence it has or how to evaluate evidence.
Again, what other explanation is there?

Here, we see some slight changes from just one mutation.
Mutations (2 of 2)
Notice the cat's ear is not becoming a wing.

What's your point? A mutation can have no effect, a slight effect or a major effect. And your wing statement indicates total ignorance of how evolution works. It tweaks existing structures. It can't overhaul the original design.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Please explain why we don't find things like these, in the millions...

Ow joy, the equivalent of the crockoduck.
The epitome of scientific ignorance and ill-understanding of basic biology.

Finding a thing like the above would actually FALSIFY evolution, do you realise that?

Sorry about the illustration. It's not meant to offend, just illustrate.

To illustrate ignorance?

Also, please explain what environmental change was responsible for land creatures adapting to take to salt water, and salt water creatures taking to land.

Then help me to appreciate how you know this, please.
Oh, and please don't forget the dinosaur. I suppose they wanted to fly for some reason, but some didn't make the grade... or...
New dinosaur fossil challenges bird evolution theory

I'll look at the video later.

I suggest you first learn the basics of the theory properly, before moving into more advanced subject that require an understanding of the solid foundation of the basics. Otherwise, you'll just be confusing yourself even more then you already are.

You are trying to run, but you can't even walk yet. In fact, you're barely even crawling.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

This one works much better than the HTML5 version. Just saying.

One thing I find fascinating is how different the results can be from different runs. There is still optimization going on, but there are clearly several different 'fitness peaks'.

Yep!

What I always found very interesting, is to achieve a "fitness peak" on one track and then use the top performer of that track and "seed" it into another track.

The top performer of the first track would eventually remain virtually unchanged once it reached its local optimum. Switch tracks and within 10 generations, it evolves new features to overcome new dificulties.

My favorite one was by far the one it evolved on a track with "rubble" on it. The top performer was essentially a plow. It had this extra polygon at the front that was angled and shaped in such a way that it could clear all the rubble on the track with a minimum of speed loss.

 

[nPeace]

No-one is saying individual moths changed color. This is just a simple example of the process of natural selection.
Peppered moths, like many animals, come in varying colors. Generally they have white wings 'peppered' with black. The peppering varies. Sometimes there is so much they look mostly black.
They're preyed on by birds, which find them by sight.
When the trees were clean, the light individuals are better camouflaged. They get eaten less, have more light babies, and become the dominant color scheme. But when the suburban London trees became covered with coal soot during the 1800s, the darker ones were better camouflaged. The lighter ones were more frequently spotted and eaten and, by this natural, selective process, the dark ones became more successful, had more babies that looked like them and soon the dark ones were the majority. When cleaner fuels were adopted the trees became light again, and the process reversed.

That's not what you said before.
You said, "the peppered moths did turn black, then white again".
That's totally different.

Science doesn't yield certainty, it proposes the best explanation given the evidence at hand. It's conclusions are always provisional.
You don't seem to understand how science works.
The panda has an odd "thumb" it uses to manipulate its food. It turns out this protuberance is an outsized sesamoid bone. Your link explains its significance well, and introduces new evidence of its origins.
Did you read and understand the article? It supports the theory of evolution.

However, scientists do claim speculations and uncertainties as fact, despite insufficient evidence.
These wind up in text books and museums, for years. Why?

I don't understand how you come to this conclusion. Cars don't reproduce with modifications. Organisms do. Ever see a litter of puppies? Were they all identical?

 

[nPeace]

The limb fossils show a gradual transition over time to legs, and the legs to wings, arms, paddles &c. Moreover, there are modern exemplars of many of the stages of this process. And this is only one line of evidence. The conclusion makes sense, and there is no reasonable alternate explanation for the findings.

I don't think I need to repeat myself.... so I won't.

Religion begins with a conclusion, looks for supporting evidence, ignores contrary evidence, and resists any attempts to test or falsify the conclusion or continue research.
Science does just the opposite. It begins with evidence, formulates an explanation for it, tests the explanation, invites others to find flaws in it, and only then concludes the explanation is factual. It continues researching the subject, repeating the process and inviting criticism.
All its conclusions are provisional, nothing's writ in stone, alternate explanations are invited and revision is part of the process.

This is not true. I think, some persons are mistaken about this, and from my experience on these forums, some persons seem not to be interested in being corrected. I won't accuse you of not understanding religion though.

No-one's come up with an alternate explanation of the evidence thus far collected. If you know of any it would certainly be appreciated.

You mean an alternative scientific explanation. The naturalist aren't opened to it.

What??!! "Not known to happen?" Outright speculation?
What are you talking about? How do you come up with this? You don't seem to have a clue about how science works, what evidence it has or how to evaluate evidence.
Again, what other explanation is there?

Again, no need to repeat myself... but I will. Evolution on the larger scale is not known to have happened. It is believed to have happened.
I understand persons who will say out of one side of their mouth (figure of speech ) science doesn't deal with certainties, nor proof, will say out of the other side, "We know... it happened."
No you don't.

What other explanation is there? Nothing you are interested in.

What's your point? A mutation can have no effect, a slight effect or a major effect. And your wing statement indicates total ignorance of how evolution works. It tweaks existing structures. It can't overhaul the original design.

My point? Hmp.
"It tweaks existing structures", so a tail can become a fluke; arms can become wings; feet can become flippers... and I don't know how evolution works.

How many times have you repeated that phrase now? Do they give away prizes to anyone who repeats that phrase to someone more than... is there a "lucky" number.

 

[nPeace]

@Valjean

Religion begins with a conclusion, looks for supporting evidence, ignores contrary evidence, and resists any attempts to test or falsify the conclusion or continue research.

How open are you to seeing that you have a very mistaken view?

 

[night912]

Ow joy, the equivalent of the crockoduck.
The epitome of scientific ignorance and ill-understanding of basic biology.

Finding a thing like the above would actually FALSIFY evolution, do you realise that?



To illustrate ignorance?



I suggest you first learn the basics of the theory properly, before moving into more advanced subject that require an understanding of the solid foundation of the basics. Otherwise, you'll just be confusing yourself even more then you already are.

You are trying to run, but you can't even walk yet. In fact, you're barely even crawling.

Actually, the crockoduck does exist . The platypus fit the description.

 

[Valjean]

That's not what you said before.
You said, "the peppered moths did turn black, then white again".
That's totally different.

The POPULATION changed color! Sheesh -- How could you so misunderstand these posts? Do I have to dissect and display every sentence?
Are you deliberately misunderstanding?

However, scientists do claim speculations and uncertainties as fact, despite insufficient evidence.
These wind up in text books and museums, for years. Why?

Knowledge begins with observation and speculation; with thought-experiments, odd bones, strange occurrences, &c. Science collects these and comes up with theorems explaining them, but till these theorems are tested and reviewed by others they won't rise to the level of theory.

 

[Valjean]

You mean an alternative scientific explanation. The naturalist aren't opened to it.

I mean any conceivable alternative explanation. I know of none. Please inform me if you know of any.

Again, no need to repeat myself... but I will. Evolution on the larger scale is not known to have happened. It is believed to have happened.

What's the difference? Degree of certainty?
Do you believe or know that germs cause disease; that the Earth orbits the Sun? The ToE is more extensively evidenced than either of these theories.
Apparently you're either unaware of the evidence or unable to see the connections, or maybe...unwilling?

I understand persons who will say out of one side of their mouth (figure of speech ) science doesn't deal with certainties, nor proof, will say out of the other side, "We know... it happened."
No you don't.

You have an awfully Cartesian definition of "know," don't you think? By your criterion no-one "knows" anything. The word becomes meaningless.

What other explanation is there? Nothing you are interested in.

Try me.

"It tweaks existing structures"

, so a tail can become a fluke; arms can become wings; feet can become flippers... and I don't know how evolution works.

How many times have you repeated that phrase now? Do they give away prizes to anyone who repeats that phrase to someone more than... is there a "lucky" number.

I've pointed it out many times. We've all been saying it. You keep making statements and asking questions that clearly indicate a lack of understanding. What perplexes me is why you can't seem to grasp the explanations you've been offered and, despite a professed interest in the subject, you don't seem to have made any effort either to understand or to research the subject. Everything we tell you goes in one ear and out the other.

 

[Valjean]

@Valjean

How open are you to seeing that you have a very mistaken view?

I'm fascinated. Please enlighten me.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Actually, the crockoduck does exist . The platypus fit the description.

No, it doesn't fit that description at all.
A crockoduck is a creature that breaks / violates the nested hierarchy predicted by evolution theory.
The platypus does not.