True or not true about evolution...?

[Dan From Smithville]

I agree, I’m extra skeptical when someone requires unquestioning obedience. I definitely feel this is the case with this person. I explained the mechanisms for the process of natural selection very clearly and they just ignored it.

That is the main part of the creationist strategy. Ignore all valid explanations. Pretend. Offer nothing and just keep attacking science. And don't forget to attack those supporting science no matter who they are and what they believe, while whining that creationists are the ones being attacked.

I have watched this play out the same for a long time. Lots of us here have.

But there is an up side.

Over time, the creationists have begun accepting the beginnings of science. Many creationists today are accepting speciation. Some have adjusted the word kind to the family level. They have had to step back at every step. But they can't acknowledge this of course. They have to find some creationist rationalization to justify it. But it is getting better and they can learn. Even 30 years ago, most creationists denied speciation. The old notion that all life was created as is and exists just as when it was created was their only paradigm.

It is my opinion that the move to create pseudosciences like ID and creation science have been significant in driving this tiny advancement. I think that when they started pretending to be part of the science camp, some of them were exposed to actual science.

 

[infrabenji]

That is the main part of the creationist strategy. Ignore all valid explanations. Pretend. Offer nothing and just keep attacking science. And don't forget to attack those supporting science no matter who they are and what they believe, while whining that creationists are the ones being attacked.

I have watched this play out the same for a long time. Lots of us here have.

But there is an up side.

Over time, the creationists have begun accepting the beginnings of science. Many creationists today are accepting speciation. Some have adjusted the word kind to the family level. They have had to step back at every step. But they can't acknowledge this of course. They have to find some creationist rationalization to justify it. But it is getting better and they can learn. Even 30 years ago, most creationists denied speciation. The old notion that all life was created as is and exists just as when it was created was their only paradigm.

It is my opinion that the move to create pseudosciences like ID and creation science have been significant in driving this tiny advancement. I think that when they started pretending to be part of the science camp, some of them were exposed to actual science.

That’s well said. I’ve been noticing since I’m new to the forum that there many intellectuals like yourself that have been fighting this uphill battle against anti science rhetoric for years. That’s really encouraging to me as a new outspoken atheist. I feel like I’ve had the chops for a long time considering my academic achievements but for some reason never thought to go online and test my mettle. It’s been a blast and is totally addicting and super informative. Did you see me call out yours true lol

 

[Astrophile]

I understand what you mean when you equate growing from a baby to adult as evolution. But that's not the theory. The theory, or concept, is that a substantially different form of life that cannot reproduce with another type somehow comes up and stays that way. There are theories and there are theories. Cats stay cats and do not mate with gorillas or lions. The theory is that something happened in the interim to stop the interbreeding. We see cats. We see gorillas.

This is not quite accurate. The theory is that two or more populations of the same species are separated, usually geographically, so that they never meet and are therefore not able to interbreed. Over many generations each population changes by the accumulation of small genetic changes to adapt to its environment. Eventually the populations become so genetically different that if they were re-united they would not be able to interbreed, i.e. to mate and produce fertile offspring, and they are therefore counted as different species. However, if one could trace the lineage of each species back in time, they would be found to be descended from a common ancestral species.

For example, chimpanzees do not interbreed with gorillas, and wolves do not interbreed with foxes. However, there are good reasons to think that chimpanzees and gorillas share a geologically recent common ancestor, and that wolves and foxes also share a common ancestor.

 

[Valjean]

Since the theory is that the genes mutated into another form (I'm not speaking of things like viruses or interbreeding dogs) that eventually cannot interbreed with its previous form, the theory is questionable, since again -- there are no videos or eyewitnesses of these changes.

There are no videos or eyewitnesses supporting Christianity, either, yet you seem to accept that.

Just how much evidence do you need, to accept a new idea? Do you believe germs cause disease; that the Earth is spherical? If so, why? Do you believe a George Washington was once president, or that dinosaurs once existed? Why?

What's your take on ring species or tube mosquitos?

I notice you chose not to respond to the questions in post #91.

 

[infrabenji]

@YoursTrue

Items (organisms) are placed there on the various branches, where are the 'proofs' or "evidences" of the in-between organisms? And more specifically, what happened to cause these distinct (other) organisms to come about?

Firstly, thanks for your understanding. I hope you’re having a good day. Answering your second question should explain the first as well. I think both questions tie together nicely and are just a simple matter of misunderstanding the process of evolution.
You see natural selection only acts on the population’s heritable traits: selecting for beneficial alleles (an allele is one of two or more alternative forms of a gene that arise by mutation and are found at the same place on a chromosome) and thus increasing their frequency (the variant of a gene at a particular point in a population and is the fraction of all chromosomes in the population that carry that alternative gene) in the population, while selecting against deleterious alleles and thereby decreasing their frequency—a process that is adaptive. Natural selection does not act on individual alleles, but on entire organisms. An individual may carry a very beneficial genotype (the genetic constitution of an individual organism) with a resulting phenotype (the set of observable characteristics of an individual resulting from the interaction of its genotype with the environment) that, for example, increases the ability to reproduce, but if that same individual also carries an allele that results in a fatal childhood disease, that fertility or reproductive phenotype will not be passed on to the next generation because the individual will not live to reach reproductive age. Natural selection acts at the level of the individual; it selects for individuals with greater contributions to the gene pool of the next generation, known as an organism’s evolutionary fitness. Fitness is often quantifiable and is measured by scientists in the field. However, it is not the absolute fitness of an individual that counts, but rather how it compares to the other organisms in the population. This concept called relative fitness allows researchers to determine which individuals are contributing additional offspring to the next generation, and therefore, how the population might evolve. There are several ways selection can affect population variation: stabilizing selection (a type of natural selection is which the population mean stabilizes on a particular non extreme trait value. This means that most common phenotype in the population is selected for and continues to dominate in future generations), directional selection (a trend in which an extreme phenotype is favored over other phenotypes, causing the allele frequency to change over time in the direction of that phenotype),
diversifying selection (a mode in which extreme values for a trait are favored over intermediate values and can occur when environmental changes favor individuals on either end of the phenotypic spectrum), frequency-dependent selection (a process whereby the fitness of a phenotype or genotype increases as it becomes more common in a population), and sexual selection (natural selection arising through preference by one sex for certain characteristics in individuals of the other sex). As natural selection influences the allele frequencies in a population, individuals can either become more or less genetically similar and the phenotypes displayed can become more similar or more disparate. So in short there are several different factors that effect genetics and as a result over time these mutations can make a group more or less genetically similar. So for instance genetic mutations occur and the now less genetically similar creatures may change slowly over time, slowly becoming less similar, and passing down genetic mutations and accruing new genetic mutations by either the mutation becoming more prevalent in the group or by environmental changes or sexual preference etc…until they are a new group of creatures. We have found and do find transitional fossils all the time and we use evolutionary taxonomy to arrange and classify them using a combination of progenitor-descendant relationships (serial descent), degrees of evolutionary change, and their phylogenetic relationship (shared descent). I probably should have listed the definitions below instead of next to the words to make it easier to read but that would take forever on my phone and you seem like a smart guy. So I imagine it will be fine. Let me know if you need further clarification. Thanks.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That’s well said. I’ve been noticing since I’m new to the forum that there many intellectuals like yourself that have been fighting this uphill battle against anti science rhetoric for years. That’s really encouraging to me as a new outspoken atheist. I feel like I’ve had the chops for a long time considering my academic achievements but for some reason never thought to go online and test my mettle. It’s been a blast and is totally addicting and super informative. Did you see me call out yours true lol

Thanks.

What is your science background if you do not mind my asking?

The beauty of science is that our personal beliefs are irrelevant to it. You can be theist, agnostic or atheist and the science is all the same.

I saw. Nice work.

 

[infrabenji]

Thanks.

What is your science background if you do not mind my asking?

The beauty of science is that our personal beliefs are irrelevant to it. You can be theist, agnostic or atheist and the science is all the same.

I saw. Nice work.

No background really to speak of though I hold 2 undergraduate degrees, a bachelors degree, and am currently studying law. I debated in high school and college. I agree the value of the information is independent from our perspective and doesn't require consciousness to be fact. Or it's all just chaos in a void lol?

 

[YoursTrue]

Two question asked by @YoursTrue. Answered questions but with no response? What happened?

Items (organisms) are placed there on the various branches, where are the 'proofs' or "evidences" of the in-between organisms? And more specifically, what happened to cause these distinct (other) organisms to come about?

Answering your second question should explain the first as well. I think both questions tie together nicely and are just a simple matter of misunderstanding the process of evolution.
You see natural selection only acts on the population’s heritable traits: selecting for beneficial alleles (an allele is one of two or more alternative forms of a gene that arise by mutation and are found at the same place on a chromosome) and thus increasing their frequency (the variant of a gene at a particular point in a population and is the fraction of all chromosomes in the population that carry that alternative gene) in the population, while selecting against deleterious alleles and thereby decreasing their frequency—a process that is adaptive. Natural selection does not act on individual alleles, but on entire organisms. An individual may carry a very beneficial genotype (the genetic constitution of an individual organism) with a resulting phenotype (the set of observable characteristics of an individual resulting from the interaction of its genotype with the environment) that, for example, increases the ability to reproduce, but if that same individual also carries an allele that results in a fatal childhood disease, that fertility or reproductive phenotype will not be passed on to the next generation because the individual will not live to reach reproductive age. Natural selection acts at the level of the individual; it selects for individuals with greater contributions to the gene pool of the next generation, known as an organism’s evolutionary fitness. Fitness is often quantifiable and is measured by scientists in the field. However, it is not the absolute fitness of an individual that counts, but rather how it compares to the other organisms in the population. This concept called relative fitness allows researchers to determine which individuals are contributing additional offspring to the next generation, and therefore, how the population might evolve. There are several ways selection can affect population variation: stabilizing selection (a type of natural selection is which the population mean stabilizes on a particular non extreme trait value. This means that most common phenotype in the population is selected for and continues to dominate in future generations), directional selection (a trend in which an extreme phenotype is favored over other phenotypes, causing the allele frequency to change over time in the direction of that phenotype),
diversifying selection (a mode in which extreme values for a trait are favored over intermediate values and can occur when environmental changes favor individuals on either end of the phenotypic spectrum), frequency-dependent selection (a process whereby the fitness of a phenotype or genotype increases as it becomes more common in a population), and sexual selection (natural selection arising through preference by one sex for certain characteristics in individuals of the other sex). As natural selection influences the allele frequencies in a population, individuals can either become more or less genetically similar and the phenotypes displayed can become more similar or more disparate. So in short there are several different factors that effect genetics and as a result over time these mutations can make a group more or less genetically similar. So for instance genetic mutations occur and the now less genetically similar creatures may change slowly over time, slowly becoming less similar, and passing down genetic mutations and accruing new genetic mutations by either the mutation becoming more prevalent in the group or by environmental changes or sexual preference etc…until they are a new creature. We have found and do find transitional fossils all the time and we use evolutionary taxonomy to arrange and classify them using a combination of progenitor-descendant relationships (serial descent), degrees of evolutionary change, and their phylogenetic relationship (shared descent). You seem like a smart guy. Let me know if you need further clarification.

Thanks for the decent conversation, I appreciate it. Just to clarify, I'm not a guy, I'm a gal. I know that makes a difference in some people's minds. Not ncessarily mine, but some people. So I just wanted to clarify that.
So I must say in essence that (1) I wasn't there when 'things happened,' meaning the growth, if that's a good word, from one or a few cells to something greater. By some force (even if it's lightning) that we do not know about, and frankly, probably never will know about. I mean people can say it was a meteor, lightning, or something like that, but I just shrugged my shoulder to that. So the conjecture (idea) is that because certain organisms look alike, they must have evolved from something that came before it. Not saying that didn't happen biologically, But aside from conjecture, the proof is not there. I am including in lack of proof common genes that may be in gorillas and humans and -- as I hear it -- bananas. My comprehension now tells me that there is a creative force greater than that which happened to physical life on the earth. No matter how smart you or I may be, that is partially where I stop,. Does that mean I would not be a researcher working to combat a flu perhaps, if I were to study all over again? No, it does not. In fact the older I get the more interested I am in these things. But the idea that life just happened to happen is incomprehensible to me now. Hopefully we can continue this conversation, thank you for your respectful discussion. I'll get back to it because I have to carefully and slowly go over what you wrote when I have more time. Thanks.

 

[YoursTrue]

I agree, I’m extra skeptical when someone requires unquestioning obedience. I definitely feel this is the case with this person. I explained the mechanisms for the process of natural selection very clearly and they just ignored it.

Hmm, I see you "called me out"? lol...ok...well anyway, I'll stick with my last answer to you. So I can consider the conversation more or less over, but perhaps from time to time I may say something.

 

[YoursTrue]

They always forget the trees.

you guys are making me laugh - the trees that no one really knows about? lol. Thanks. Might as well go back to the horror movie of the watery face that scares people, lolol...

 

[YoursTrue]

No background really to speak of though I hold 2 undergraduate degrees, a bachelors degree, and am currently studying law. I debated in high school and college. I agree the value of the information is independent from our perspective and doesn't require consciousness to be fact. Or it's all just chaos in a void lol?

Not really. But it does depend on certain factors. Which shall be left open at the present time. Anyway -- have a good day, and be careful, as the newer saying goes since the Covid19 started.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

you guys are making me laugh - the trees that no one really knows about? lol. Thanks. Might as well go back to the horror movie of the watery face that scares people, lolol...

I note you are doing your very best to "laugh it away" and avoid like hell to actually respond to it.

 

[ratiocinator]

I just shrugged my shoulder to that. So the conjecture (idea) is that because certain organisms look alike, they must have evolved from something that came before it. Not saying that didn't happen biologically, But aside from conjecture, the proof is not there. I am including in lack of proof common genes that may be in gorillas and humans and -- as I hear it -- bananas.

I personally, and I've seen others do the same, have given lots of evidence from genetics that goes way beyond just saying saying we have genes in common with other species. You have done nothing but studiously ignore it.

My comprehension...

...of the subject of evolution and the evidence for it, appears to be next to non-existent because you simply ignore what you're told and the evidence you've been given. Do you really think that people are going to be drawn to a belief that refuses to learn anything or even look at the evidence that might challenge it?

 

[Valjean]

Thanks for the decent conversation, I appreciate it. Just to clarify, I'm not a guy, I'm a gal. I know that makes a difference in some people's minds. Not ncessarily mine, but some people. So I just wanted to clarify that.
So I must say in essence that (1) I wasn't there when 'things happened,' meaning the growth, if that's a good word, from one or a few cells to something greater. By some force (even if it's lightning) that we do not know about, and frankly, probably never will know about. I mean people can say it was a meteor, lightning, or something like that, but I just shrugged my shoulder to that. So the conjecture (idea) is that because certain organisms look alike, they must have evolved from something that came before it.

There's a lot more to it than just looking alike. Lot's of organisms look alike that aren't considered closely related, and others that look quite different are related.

Not saying that didn't happen biologically, But aside from conjecture, the proof is not there.

As you know, science is pretty much the opposite of conjecture, and we've explained to you a hundred times about science and "proof."

There is no proof that germs cause disease; that the Earth revolves around the Sun, or that there was an ice age 20,000 years ago, there is just a lot of evidence -- not as much or as consilient as there is for the ToE, mind you, but enough that no reasonable person would not be persuaded.
Why would you believe these examples but not the ToE? You're making a special exception for the T0E.

I am including in lack of proof common genes that may be in gorillas and humans and -- as I hear it -- bananas. My comprehension now tells me that there is a creative force greater than that which happened to physical life on the earth. No matter how smart you or I may be, that is partially where I stop,. Does that mean I would not be a researcher working to combat a flu perhaps, if I were to study all over again? No, it does not. In fact the older I get the more interested I am in these things. But . Hopefully we can continue this conversation, thank you for your respectful discussion. I'll get back to it because I have to carefully and slowly go over what you wrote when I have more time. Thanks.

Many of the original complement of genes found in the earliest organisms have been passed down for millions of generations, and are widespread in nature. Some have been modified over time; some do different, but often related, things in different organisms, and there are new ones, too.
There are ways of tracing these genetic lineages that, apparently, you're unaware of. There is evidence from other, unrelated disciplines that points to the same conclusion. Do you discount these?

"...the idea that life just happened to happen is incomprehensible to me "

"Just happened to happen" is just being dismissive. You seem to be deliberately ignoring the proposed mechanisms and steps involved (you've been sent links). You're arguing from personal incredulity.

 

[infrabenji]

Thanks for the decent conversation, I appreciate it. Just to clarify, I'm not a guy, I'm a gal. I know that makes a difference in some people's minds. Not ncessarily mine, but some people. So I just wanted to clarify that.
So I must say in essence that (1) I wasn't there when 'things happened,' meaning the growth, if that's a good word, from one or a few cells to something greater. By some force (even if it's lightning) that we do not know about, and frankly, probably never will know about. I mean people can say it was a meteor, lightning, or something like that, but I just shrugged my shoulder to that. So the conjecture (idea) is that because certain organisms look alike, they must have evolved from something that came before it. Not saying that didn't happen biologically, But aside from conjecture, the proof is not there. I am including in lack of proof common genes that may be in gorillas and humans and -- as I hear it -- bananas. My comprehension now tells me that there is a creative force greater than that which happened to physical life on the earth. No matter how smart you or I may be, that is partially where I stop,. Does that mean I would not be a researcher working to combat a flu perhaps, if I were to study all over again? No, it does not. In fact the older I get the more interested I am in these things. But the idea that life just happened to happen is incomprehensible to me now. Hopefully we can continue this conversation, thank you for your respectful discussion. I'll get back to it because I have to carefully and slowly go over what you wrote when I have more time. Thanks.

Oh geez, I always get that wrong. That so embarrassing. I’m sorry I mis gendered you. Much forgiveness. Yeah let me know what you think? I imagined their would be some clarification needed as their are a lot of individual mechanisms that play a role in the process of evolution by natural selection. Again apologies and hope you’re having a great day! My fiancé is getting ready for work which means I got to go and help lol. I’ll be back later today after I study.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

you guys are making me laugh - the trees that no one really knows about? lol. Thanks. Might as well go back to the horror movie of the watery face that scares people, lolol...

I am uncertain what you are laughing at. You have continually claimed that you do not evolution and the science surrounding it. Ignorance is not a real basis to reject something.

You picked a religion that clearly denies the science and just jumped right on the denial wagon.

Haven't you claimed to have just accepted evolution in your youth. Now you just accept something else. Seems like you have a pattern.

Your pattern of acceptance of whatever is popular with you at the time is not a basis for me (and others) to reject science.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No background really to speak of though I hold 2 undergraduate degrees, a bachelors degree, and am currently studying law. I debated in high school and college. I agree the value of the information is independent from our perspective and doesn't require consciousness to be fact. Or it's all just chaos in a void lol?

Just an interest in the subject. I have a sister that is a lawyer. Or was. She did it for five years and then went back to school. She felt she could help others better as a psychologist.

We do not find objective evidence of a guiding consciousness. It doesn't mean one does not exist. I believe one does, but it would not be valid and scientific to superimpose my beliefs on observations and logic explanations.

 

[YoursTrue]

That’s well said. I’ve been noticing since I’m new to the forum that there many intellectuals like yourself that have been fighting this uphill battle against anti science rhetoric for years. That’s really encouraging to me as a new outspoken atheist. I feel like I’ve had the chops for a long time considering my academic achievements but for some reason never thought to go online and test my mettle. It’s been a blast and is totally addicting and super informative. Did you see me call out yours true lol

I note you are doing your very best to "laugh it away" and avoid like hell to actually respond to it.

Sometimes people are psychologically blind. I have answerd; you just didn't see it. And I do not have "blind" faith -- I have answered based on the FACT that there is no real, substantial evidence of genes moving from one type, form, kind, or whatever you want to call it, to another. And forming a different type, species, or something else. Nothing but looking at forms and genes and then figuring it just had to come about by itself of, as you call it, "natural selection." (No proof whatsoever.) But thanks for the conversation, and I see your prejudice. By the way, I am NOT against science if you have read my posts - but by this time, getting to know you guys, I realize you don't get it. OK, and y'all have a nice enough day. Some here claim a belief in God, and also evoluition. (shrug.) Maybe you can talk to them if you're an atheist as to WHY they believe in God. (Have a nice day and have a good time.)

 

[metis]

My comprehension now tells me that there is a creative force greater than that which happened to physical life on the earth. No matter how smart you or I may be, that is partially where I stop,. Does that mean I would not be a researcher working to combat a flu perhaps, if I were to study all over again? No, it does not. In fact the older I get the more interested I am in these things. But the idea that life just happened to happen is incomprehensible to me now.

The ToE does not go against what you wrote above

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Sometimes people are psychologically blind. I have answerd; you just didn't see it. And I do not have "blind" faith -- I have answered based on the FACT that there is no real, substantial evidence of genes moving from one type, form, kind, or whatever you want to call it, to another. And forming a different type, species, or something else. Nothing but looking at forms and genes and then figuring it just had to come about by itself of, as you call it, "natural selection." (No proof whatsoever.) But thanks for the conversation, and I see your prejudice. By the way, I am NOT against science if you have read my posts - but by this time, getting to know you guys, I realize you don't get it. OK, and y'all have a nice enough day. Some here claim a belief in God, and also evoluition. (shrug.) Maybe you can talk to them if you're an atheist as to WHY they believe in God. (Have a nice day and have a good time.)

You have denied the evidence. There is lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of evidence. That is a lot of denial on your part and to do it without even bothering to understand it too.

You are against science. You just find science that doesn't dislodge you from your cozy little comfort zone to be something you can blindly accept.

I do not "believe" in evolution. It is an observed fact. I accept the explanation that has been developed in science.

I am no fool that decided that the senses and mind that God gave me should be denied. I do not believe that His Creation is a lie.