Evolution My ToE

[Bear Wild]

If you are riding in a car going from St. Louis to Philadelphia and you fall asleep in Indiana and don't wake up until Wheeling, West Virginia, what would that mean?

Would it mean you weren't on a trip? If you don't know the names of the town's your vehicle passed through while you slept, does that mean they do not exist or that you didn't ride through them?

The human race would have never progressed if we needed every point on a line to draw the line. What is sad is the source they believe (bible) does not connect anything in clear steps yet they have no problem in believing it. Every detail of the life of jesus is not spelled out but yet they have no problem seeing the connection.

 

[Subduction Zone]

While again, that was a very interesting article and I appreciated reading it, I really think we have different ideas or interpretations of what evolution is. Breeding dogs is not natural selection. It is manipulating genes by outside (human) intervention. They still, however, remain dogs.

How many times does this guy have to be told that "change of kinds" is a creationist strawman. Of course dogs are still dogs. And he is still an ape, he is still a mammal, he is still a tetrapod, etc. and so on all the way back to eukaryotes when one might argue that there was a "change of kind" but it is not the type of change that any creationist objects to.

 

[YoursTrue]

It is an analogy. But it is actually a fairly good analogy. Changes in languages don't happen all at once. You don't go from someone speaking Latin to someone speaking French in one generation. And, at each stage of the change from Latin to French (and Spanish), each generation of speakers in a population understood all of those around them. There was no 'first French speaker' Nor was there someone who started speaking French with nobody else to speak it with.

Nonetheless, French and Spanish 'evolved' (cultural evolution, not genetic) from Latin. And now, native speakers of French do not understand Spanish (they are separate languages) and neither French nor Spanish speakers can understand Latin.

This is how species evolve: through gradual changes over the course of many generations, population splitting and changing in different ways and with fuzzy boundaries over time with no clear line separating one species from another.

Glad you agree that cultural 'evolution' is not biological or genetic evolution. Or who knows? Maybe scientistics will say it IS genetic evolution. Even Einstein kept trying to figure things out. After all, one could postulate and perhaps rightly so -- say it's in the brain, isn't it? And often people cannot change their accents, or find it very difficult to learn another language. But as said, a Chinese speaking woman does not give birth to an infant that speaks Chinese OR English. Language is a learned skill. And accents do not biologically evolve, unless one wants to start talking about brain connections, and that is not what I'm talking about. But again -- I've seen cows sway with seeming enjoyment to music. OK, that's great. But so far cows have not been able to read or write music. Something, according to the hypothesis, stopped *evolving* with the cows.
How do you feel about Darwinian evolution, since that is essentially what I THINK (not sure anymore) what we're talking about.

 

[YoursTrue]

The human race would have never progressed if we needed every point on a line to draw the line. What is sad is the source they believe (bible) does not connect anything in clear steps yet they have no problem in believing it. Every detail of the life of jesus is not spelled out but yet they have no problem seeing the connection.

What do you mean that the human race would have never progressed if we needed every point on a line to draw the line?

 

[YoursTrue]

The LCA was a population of animals that split into two (at least) smaller populations. Those smaller populations each changed gradually over time, always having a population of breeding individuals. But the populations both changed in different directions and changed away from what they began as. One population changed enough that we now say they are human. The other population changed enough we now say they are chimps.

OK, what is the LCA of humans? You're bringing up several points, and I need to concentrate on one at a time, so I'll try to center on one point at a time in my responses as much as possible.

 

[Bear Wild]

Glad you agree that cultural 'evolution' is not biological or genetic evolution. Or who knows? Maybe scientistics will say it IS genetic evolution. Even Einstein kept trying to figure things out. After all, one could postulate and perhaps rightly so -- say it's in the brain, isn't it? And often people cannot change their accents, or find it very difficult to learn another language. But as said, a Chinese speaking woman does not give birth to an infant that speaks Chinese OR English. Language is a learned skill. And accents do not biologically evolve, unless one wants to start talking about brain connections, and that is not what I'm talking about. But again -- I've seen cows sway with seeming enjoyment to music. OK, that's great. But so far cows have not been able to read or write music. Something, according to the hypothesis, stopped *evolving* with the cows.
How do you feel about Darwinian evolution, since that is essentially what I THINK (not sure anymore) what we're talking about.

Behavior is influence by genetic evolution. Each genetic change that allowed for more complex communication influence cultural change. And it is in the brain. All of the connections in the brain that allow for learning are also influence by genetic evolution. As for cows they do not have the genetic phenotypic expressions that would allow them to write but that does not mean they do not communicate. Cows have been evolving and now genetically manipulated by humans.

Darwin described one of the most important theories without any knowledge of the mechanism that would be found to explain how evolution proceeds. I suspect he was quite aware the was the beginning and not the final explanation. The theory of evolution has progressed significantly since his time yet much of what he observed still holds true. He recognized the difficulty of deciding on how much variation could be accepted in determining a species. Have you read the entire Origin of Species? Much of his discussion still holds true.

 

[YoursTrue]

Once again, populations shift slowly over many generations. There is no firm line between 'human' and 'pre-human'. And I suspect that is one of the fundamental problems here. You seem to think that species are fixed over the course of thousands of generations and they are not.

I agree that selective breeding changes characteristics of an animal such as the dog. The article on dachshunds brings to mind some sad eventualities as they were (are) bred. https://dachshundjournal.com/dachshunds-long-bodies/ But bred they are, often to their detriment. In another way, to create a bomb from chemicals is not natural selection. It is made and designed by man using -- "natural elements." It is also not evolution. In the case of dachshunds I am not sure if they have lost the genes that allowed their predecessors to have longer legs.

 

[Bear Wild]

What do you mean that the human race would have never progressed if we needed every point on a line to draw the line?

There are an infinite number of points on a line. We just simplify the idea with whole numbers.

 

[YoursTrue]

Behavior is influence by genetic evolution. Each genetic change that allowed for more complex communication influence cultural change. And it is in the brain. All of the connections in the brain that allow for learning are also influence by genetic evolution. As for cows they do not have the genetic phenotypic expressions that would allow them to write but that does not mean they do not communicate. Cows have been evolving and now genetically manipulated by humans.

Darwin described one of the most important theories without any knowledge of the mechanism that would be found to explain how evolution proceeds. I suspect he was quite aware the was the beginning and not the final explanation. The theory of evolution has progressed significantly since his time yet much of what he observed still holds true. He recognized the difficulty of deciding on how much variation could be accepted in determining a species. Have you read the entire Origin of Species? Much of his discussion still holds true.

I don't 'see' the mechanism as taught by evolutionists for micro or macro changes producing different forms. Fish remain fish. Please -- show me the proof and process where they do not. Naturally there are tadpoles that become frogs. And tadpoles are not fish. But then they don't look like frogs either.
I thought someone would promote the idea that cultural change is called evolution by biologic means (i.e., the brain). Just as Einstein introduced certain ideas for others to wrestle with, that is not biologic evolution, unless you want to say it is. And this, my dear, is basically where I get off the train.

 

[YoursTrue]

There are an infinite number of points on a line. We just simplify the idea with whole numbers.

What? Sorry, that is philosophical jargon. That is not an explanation. Thanks anyway.

 

[YoursTrue]

There are an infinite number of points on a line. We just simplify the idea with whole numbers.

As I looked at your avatar, a pretty red fox I think it is, and looking at evidence that foxes can be domesticated, I'm thinking that those who believe in, or have tried to encompass a "master race" are definitely going along with the theory of genetic, biological, and evolutionary stages, but in the case of the "master race," engineering it by human means.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The human race would have never progressed if we needed every point on a line to draw the line. What is sad is the source they believe (bible) does not connect anything in clear steps yet they have no problem in believing it. Every detail of the life of jesus is not spelled out but yet they have no problem seeing the connection.

If connections in the Bible were complete, unambiguous and error-free, we might not need these discussions and it may have eliminated a lot of historical conflict.

Creationists have a different standard for logical arguments supported by evidence. When they go against dogma, they are summarily wrong without review.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What? Sorry, that is philosophical jargon. That is not an explanation. Thanks anyway.

It isn't philosophy. You can draw a line between any two points, but the line passes through all the points in between. Do you think that you need to know every point in between to see the connection? Why?

 

[Bear Wild]

I don't 'see' the mechanism as taught by evolutionists for micro or macro changes producing different forms. Fish remain fish. Please -- show me the proof and process where they do not. Naturally there are tadpoles that become frogs. And tadpoles are not fish. But then they don't look like frogs either.
I thought someone would promote the idea that cultural change is called evolution by biologic means (i.e., the brain). Just as Einstein introduced certain ideas for others to wrestle with, that is not biologic evolution, unless you want to say it is. And this, my dear, is basically where I get off the train.

That's because you do not understand how plastic phenotypic (outward appearance) is. The study of embryology gives is and insight. I borrowed this from the internet.

The development of vertebrates shows how similar out embryonic structures are. Genetic changes in the regulation of development can have large effects on the outward appearance. Vertebrates are very similar even though we appear so different as the adult forms. Given enough time to pass and huge and sometimes abrupt changes can occur in organisms. Our problem is we have not observed these changes long enough to see major changes because our life span is so limited. If we could observe for several hundred thousand years instead of the several hundred years we have been observing we would see changes.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I don't 'see' the mechanism as taught by evolutionists for micro or macro changes producing different forms. Fish remain fish. Please -- show me the proof and process where they do not. Naturally there are tadpoles that become frogs. And tadpoles are not fish. But then they don't look like frogs either.
I thought someone would promote the idea that cultural change is called evolution by biologic means (i.e., the brain). Just as Einstein introduced certain ideas for others to wrestle with, that is not biologic evolution, unless you want to say it is. And this, my dear, is basically where I get off the train.

The process has been the subject of discussion since before you joined it and people have been trying to explain it to you. Much evidence has been provided.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I don't 'see' the mechanism as taught by evolutionists for micro or macro changes producing different forms. Fish remain fish. Please -- show me the proof and process where they do not. Naturally there are tadpoles that become frogs. And tadpoles are not fish. But then they don't look like frogs either.
I thought someone would promote the idea that cultural change is called evolution by biologic means (i.e., the brain). Just as Einstein introduced certain ideas for others to wrestle with, that is not biologic evolution, unless you want to say it is. And this, my dear, is basically where I get off the train.

The very basic definition of evolution is change over time. Cultures change over time. Countries change over time. Technology changes over time. I don't recall anyone supporting the idea that cultural change is biological evolution. That doesn't make sense to me.

Evolution in culture could be used as a metaphor to explain biological evolution, but they are not the same thing.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

As I looked at your avatar, a pretty red fox I think it is, and looking at evidence that foxes can be domesticated, I'm thinking that those who believe in, or have tried to encompass a "master race" are definitely going along with the theory of genetic, biological, and evolutionary stages, but in the case of the "master race," engineering it by human means.

Development of a master race is a cultural issue. This is not a claim or conclusion from science. Not even the theory of evolution. Those promoting it might use some information and principles from science, but that reflects on them and not science. It would be like someone disagreeing with my opinion on this forum and placing the blame on Donald Davies for inventing packet switching technology on which the internet is based.

 

[YoursTrue]

That's because you do not understand how plastic phenotypic (outward appearance) is. The study of embryology gives is and insight. I borrowed this from the internet.

The development of vertebrates shows how similar out embryonic structures are. Genetic changes in the regulation of development can have large effects on the outward appearance. Vertebrates are very similar even though we appear so different as the adult forms. Given enough time to pass and huge and sometimes abrupt changes can occur in organisms. Our problem is we have not observed these changes long enough to see major chanBy ges because our life span is so limited. If we could observe for several hundred thousand years instead of the several hundred years we have been observing we would see changes.

Naturally you don't see the value of the Bible. I do. But what makes you think that God did not engineer these things as He sees fit? Listen, I'm not contesting that a chick embryo is different from a rabbit embryo, and in some instances, looks somewhat similar. But I don't believe that life as we know it all came about as a result of evolutionary chemical/biological forces, sometimes explained as by natural selection. I believe that God is responsible for life as we know it. Even though I see and agree that chemical responses are necessary to continue life.

 

[YoursTrue]

That's because you do not understand how plastic phenotypic (outward appearance) is. The study of embryology gives is and insight. I borrowed this from the internet.

The development of vertebrates shows how similar out embryonic structures are. Genetic changes in the regulation of development can have large effects on the outward appearance. Vertebrates are very similar even though we appear so different as the adult forms. Given enough time to pass and huge and sometimes abrupt changes can occur in organisms. Our problem is we have not observed these changes long enough to see major changes because our life span is so limited. If we could observe for several hundred thousand years instead of the several hundred years we have been observing we would see changes.

Plus I see no evidence of genetic changes observable. That means that I have not seen any report of observable evidence of genetics of fish, for instance, moving to become something like a tortoise. Fossils appear or are unearthed, but this does not mean that life is simply a connection of chemical (biologic) responses or reactions without the orinator of life, let us use gravity as an example of a very powerful yet not truly understood force, greater than -- ourselves.

 

[YoursTrue]

There are an infinite number of points on a line. We just simplify the idea with whole numbers.

Well, maybe Jesus' life was written simply so as to put it in a book. You probably know that John wrote in his gospel that if everything were recorded about Jesus, it would be impossible to detail in writing. Here's how John put it:
"And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that should be written." (John 21:25)