It is terribly clear that you are one of two(2) things...please tell us which one is the reality: 1) You are playing an internet game to play the role of an individual with no grasp of science, and no wish to gain it in order to entertain. 2) You are not playing this game but actually are this individual.
claiming no evidence has been shown is a repeatedly proven lie. Why do you continue making the claim after having it proven false?
Where is the gradual transitioning of these species. Sure we can call the reason hair on a dog in Minnesota is thicker than a dog in Louisiana evolution but they are still the very same species. Yes, one side doesn't allow the intellectual exchange of ideas and the other does. One side allows discenting idea and the other doesn't. Go figure.
IMO, it is a decent theory though, and we know micro evolution is a fact from experiments. Macro evolution has to depend upon other evidence, which is not from experiments to find evidence for the hypothesis. So promissory notes are written, as they work and wait. What seems to be missing though is the genetic mechanics evidencing macro evolution. For obviously if we knew those, we could replicate what they said must have happened. And since we cannot, it is still a problem when it comes to experimental evidence. And such evidence is what separates a hard science from a soft one. And so lacking this evidence, we are told that extreme long periods of time is needed, but that is only if macro evolution is immune from manipulation, which other more hard science is not immune to. Direct manipulation of the genes, getting rid of the need for time, is what a hard science would do. But the truth is, we do not understand the genetics involved, for if we did, we could get around this magical time factor. One we understand something, which is science, we can then manipulate reality, and we do that all of the time. And yet you see such undeserved arrogance from the macro evolutionists. LOL But that is human nature infecting and affecting this field.
Hmmm, it's difficult for me to understand how science with very little evidence can see it being a logical explanation. There's more going against the theory than in favor of it. What other explanations? I oppose evolution based on science, what it actually has, and not human "value". Where did you come up with that? Curious. I'm not following any other science philosophies that teach absolute fact. Only the theory of evolution A species gradually transitioning into another species. Yes. It's taught as fact. It shouldn't matter. I'm not being sarcastic. Im very sincere. I've has an extensive college education in science do to having been rasised to be an MD. When it comes to the hard questions I got the same answers as I get here. Most answers are derived from evolution vs creationism philosophies and not based on rational evidence. But when they find that I'm not a Creationist and that they have to come up with an intelligent response instead of the usual robotic reply.
Well, on a science board you are going to get science. And so far, your attempts to invalidate evolution are just not even within a country mile of doing that. If you were addressing or proposing some specific case or process I think you would get more respect. There certainly are questions in biology that don't have ready answers. And, some of those relate to evolution in some way. Beyond that, I'm seriously concerned that there are people who fail to understand and thus disrespect science to such a degree that they see our educational institutions as being religious opposition. This is destructive to America. Obviously, we shouldn't be addressing that with anger, as that doesn't help progress. However, when it comes to protecting science education from argument that is purely religiously based, there really isn't any option but direct action, is there? As to your first, I really don't know what you are after. There certainly are huge gaps in the fossil record. Of course that is what one would expect, as finding fossils is not a major national objective, and not all animals have lived in what is now America. However ... What we find confirms evolution in that discoveries made fit the strong predictions of evolution. For dinosaurs, we're finding about 50 new species per year - not 50 fossils, but 50 species. Every one of those finds could become evidence of some problem with the theory of evolution. However, what we're seeing is that these finds are confirming the theory.
"Only a theory"? What does science have to offer that is stronger than theory? One of the problems here really comes down to understanding how science works. Also, I really don't know what it is that you see as a "hole". I know you would like to see remains of more life forms, but that's not a "hole" in evolution. That's a "hole" in finding remains of all life forms.
From what I can tell Prunepicker wants the remains of every single lifeform that has ever lived laid out so that we can reconstruct a complete unambiguous genealogy and species hierarchy. If that is the demand being expressed then no evidence short of what I just said will be satisfactory. And since that's not possible evolution will never be accepted no matter how useful the theory is. Is that a fair assessment Prunepicker?
What are the facts going against the theory of evolution? Also, the other explainations I was referring to were theistic explainations such as Creationism or any creation myths taught in religions. Those are taught as absolute fact without the scientific evidence to support those claims. While some might not even claim to be part of science the way that the theory of evolution has, the issue still is that they are taught as fact. Their religious explainations for human origin have never even been examined for evidence. You have claimed that the Bible is fact (about the 12th post down) and I hope to see scientific evidence that can support it's claims: http://politicalforum.com/index.php...g-christianity.446908/page-30#post-1066931364 Though that is good then that you base your criticism of evolution on science. Far too many theists oppose the theory of evolution because it does not suit their preferred view of humans being "special". You are right that believing in God does not necessarily make you a Creationist. I know many who belive in God and the theory of evolution together. As I've said before, I can't prove to you that any species transitioned into another, I'm not in any way an expert on the theory of evolution. Personally, I only can infer it to be plausible based on what information is available to me. That is why I'm curious about evidence for alternative explainations. In order to see other possiblities aside from evolution, I need something more than mere gaps in the fossil record. It is far too likely that many fossils have not been found or that some species left no fossils behind.
Usually the change science is subject to is in the form of an extension or generalization, not falsification. Old theories are made more accurate or extended to work under more broad conditions. Theory of relativity still reduces to newtonian gravitation for lower speeds. Quantum physics still reduces to classical physics when Planck constant becomes insignificant. So you can rest assured that evolution is not going away in the future, even if it changes somewhat.
^ This. We know for an absolute fact that the theory of Newtonian gravity, Einsteinian gravity, quantuam mechanics, the standard model of particles, etc. are all wrong (or at least incomplete) in some way. For example, quantum mechanics predicts a value for the cosmological constant that is 10^120 different than what is actually observed. It is often called the worst prediction in all of science. Yet, quantum mechanics is still considered to be one of the most tested, validated, and revered theories in all of science. We don't require our theories to be perfect. We require them to be useful. It's the same with evolution. It doesn't perfectly explain everything, but it does make useful predictions and postdictions that have been confirmed by observations. That's all we ask. So yeah, maybe evolution will get supplanted by a better theory someday. But, it's not going away.
Good point to remember. We need education to include a better understanding of science for everyone, including those unlikely to ever follow through to college level science. To much of these threads (and public policy) gets tied up with failures in a basic understanding of how science works.
Correct. Right now evolution is extrapolation that is often accompanied by artistic renderings. However, with micro evolution there is no evidence of a species changing to or from another species. Since this is happening they use the "evolution (a species changing into another species) is happening now" line which can't be supported by science. What is often called evolution is better called adaptation. They remain the same species, however, according to the evidence that has been found. True. This is the grand cop out of evolution. In a nutshell they're saying, "we don't have any substantial evidence but we want this to be true so we'll make it appear to be so." By the way, this isn't science as we know it. It's people with science degrees who have an agenda. Emphasis added. Correct. This is what people with an agenda do.
Truthfully, I'm spot on. I'm not interested in respect, which means to fall in lock step with those who have been indoctrinatated and refuse to have their desires challenged. I'm interested in the truth. What about the people, such as myself, who aren't disrespecting science or using religion? This is another cop out of the pro-evolution crowd. They can't support their claims so they have to create a red herring and go after it. True. On this forum much of the pro evolution crowd are addressing the issue with anger, name calling, etc. That's what people do when their comfort zone is ruffled and they can't provide evidence to support their claims. I'm seriously looking for evidence of a species gradually transitioning into another species. This is the crux of evolution and there is no evidence to support it.
The fossil record. Hard evidence of a species gradually transitioning into another species. Any real connection between any two species. These don't concern me. If you haven't figured out that I'm not a Creationist then you're not paying attention to my posts. Good grief.
I and others have posted documentation of new species evolving, in some cases including significant detail on how it happened.. Your off handed, categorical and unsupported dismissal of all such examples is a total denial of any claim of seriousness you might make. And, you certainly do disrespect science when you make the statements you make about the foundational principles of all modern biology and the scientists involved.
Well, the use of the term, micro evolution, which I first saw used on this forum is in reference to changes in a species due to adaptation. An example that I recall from a zoology course long, long ago used a moth that was prevalent in england, With the industrial revolution and the coal soot which was everywhere, this moth that had originally been one color, adapted to a more soot color to keep the birds and other predators from spotting them so easily on a soot covered landscape. So it adapted to the environment to help survival. Those that adapted survived to carry on their color, and those that did not adapt to a different color, perhaps got eaten. And did not pass on their genes. So, I take this to be an example of micro evolution, evolving to better survive a soot covered world. And yet, it never became a different species, and was still a moth, with the same morphology in shape. And of course we can observe bacteria adapting in order to survive an insecticide and this is seen in pest control today when it comes to insects. Years ago a new roach pesticide made it to the market, called fipronil. And when it first came out, it was the most effective pesticide that I had ever seen, used by my uncle who owned a pest control company here in the south where german roaches are a huge problem. He ranted and raved about how effective it was. Well, he thin passes away and I bought a used RV, two years old, but it was infested with german roaches. So, I waltz on down to the local farm supply store and bought myself a tube of this roach bait with fipronil, knowing I would get rid of these insects in short order. But it has been around 12 years or so since my uncle had used this new pesticide which worked so well and was so effective. But when I applied it, it had so little effect. So I bought another tube, and a 3rd, and this pesticide no longer worked. I could not rid the RV of bugs with this stuff anymore, the same brand, maxi force and the some strength, as he had so much success with. And so, the roaches had adapted to it, and created an immunity to it. And it did not take long for them to do that. Micro evolution. What has been called here, macro evolution concerns one species morphing into another totally different species. And this cannot be replicated by man. Even with us being able to monkey with the genes of a particular species. And yet we are told that indeed one species, via evolution, which must be different than micro evolution, can morph into a totally different species. But in so far as I know, the evidence for this is by interpreting the fossil record. But can that intepretation be questioned? Well, by all signs it appears that in academia you best not ever question the status quo, or you will have a hard time remaining in academia. And this is why scientists have said that change, progress in any field of science moves slowly and at the pace of tombstones, due not to science itself, but to human nature. While one would think a scientist would require being open minded, this ain't necessarily so. Scientists are human too and just as subject to human nature, and ego as anyone else. And notably, most great discoveries and changes in science have come from very young scientists, who are not yet afflicted with a closed mind, and have nothing to lose since they are young enough and have not had the time to base their careers on what they have accepted and written papers on. So they have nothing to defend...yet. If you want to see this, just look at any old scientist who has built his career on the interpretation of fossil records as evidence of macro evolution. Human nature and his self image is tied to his beliefs, and changing that is a personal attack on the man's intellect, career and position. So, progress comes at the pace of tombstones. I only know of this because particular men of science have voiced it, once they retired. lol And of course scientists have an agenda. At least many of them do. And as I said, much of the theory of evolution is easily accepted, the parts of it that are backed up by experiments as evidence. But I have not seen sufficient evidence that shows macro evolution to be a fact, when a strict materialistic sense is exclusively used. By this, I mean a total rejection of "information" being a factor in macro evolution, where man eventually is the product of evolving from a self replicating molecule. But all that it would take for me to embrace it with no reservations is simple enough. For all we have to do is to take a self replicating molecule and by manipulation which could occur naturally in time, morph that molecule into a simple single cell organism. After all, we are replacing time, great periods of time, with intelligent manipulation. But of course we must know what manipulation occurred at the genetic level in this time. And truth is, we must not know this at all. For if we knew the steps involved, and the needed environment, we should be able to intelligently manipulate the material. Yet we cannot do this. But that is what I am waiting for and would be willing to accept a promissory note on this, as long as it can be redeemed. lol For myself, at this point in my life, I entertain the idea that information, from somewhere, was needed. I am not saying a god or gods was the source of info, although it does seem some kind of intelligence is needed. But for me, it would be the same source as the information that some physicists say is involved with the makeup of an atom. They say that without this information, the atom would not exist. And could not exist. Not all accept this idea of course, but several of them do entertain this idea, and for them, there is good reason for that. Yet there is no place for information if you are looking through conditioned materialistic eyes. For materialism disavows such things in its philosophical assumption which is at the foundation of materialism. So, if it disavows it from the get-go, of course any such idea is dogmatically, yes, dogmatically dismissed as Woo. And such is the nature of a close mind whether it appears in a scientist or your plumber. And yet quite a few of the founders of QM would have no problem entertaining such an idea as information, from what I can tell in reading about these men. Some were even enticed by a sort of mysticism, and my signature denotes one of these men. And I adopted one of his ideas as my name here, One Mind. But then again, I rejected philosophical materialism long ago, due to one of the philosophy courses I took as an elective, and then added a couple more due to how interesting the Prof was who taught these courses was. Dr. Murphy. This Prof had a degree in both physics and philosophy but got a PHD in philosophy. It was through him that I got to listen to David Bohm, a physicist who was a bit of a mystic himself, as well as a man of science. I have been lucky enough to have met such interesting people earlier in my life. Rejecting materialism was quite easy for me. For me, it just seems much more credible that macro evolution involved essential information, and yet, I am not married to this and would easily change my mind if and when biologists can replicate what they interpret the fossil record as evidencing. An interpretation with a prior belief in place is not enough for me and personally I require evidence from experiments, which replicate the evolution from a self replicating molecule into a simple single cell organism. Is this asking too much? Not if you want evolutionary biology to look more like a hard science like physics. For otherwise, there is just too much faith involved in what evolutionary biologists have sold us for a long, long time. They exhibit far more fervent insistence than actual science, IMO. This could change in the future of course, and moving to a much harder science is needed, with less dependence upon dogmatic interpretation and more on hard evidence obtained from experiments.
One common path is for a population to divide. Darwin's finches divided by location, for example. Or, the dividion may come as something as simple as a preferance gor a different food. Once separated, evolution is sure to take different paths, as changes fon't get mixed into the whole population due to the separation. Subsequent change eventually results in interbreeding bring impossible, and at that point there are two species where once there was only one. They probably look alike, but small changes over time will cause increasingly different apperance. Scientists who study reproduction at the cellular level have documented several different kinds of change that results in a new species - change that prevents successful interbreeding. These processes predict what we will find in life today as well as in the fossil record. Confidence in the theory has grown over time as what is found matches these predictions. And, now with the ability to examine dna, there is even more massive corroberation. Yes, abiogenesis is a different issue. Biological evolution focuses on the change that occurs in life forms. It does not address how an initial life form (or forms) came into existence.
Thanks man. Ok a couple questions if you don't mind indulging me since you seem to know a bit about this. Is what happened to the finches just adaptation? Or what some here refer to as micro evolution? Next question is, do we actually have hard evidence that the finches after adaptations, reached point where interbreeding was impossible due to genetic changes in the finches? If this is true, please point to the reference you used so I get the evidence. I am just curious is all. And yet even if you can prove such a thing happened with the finch, you still have two birds at the end of it, instead of a bird, a finch, and another non bird species. For that jump would be what macro evolution holds actually happened. Right? That one completely different species, evolved by what, adaptation, into a completely different species, like say species X that shared no morphology with species Y, and looked nothing alike? And yet X evolved, via adaptation, into Y. Perhaps X lived in the water, and ate algae, and Y lived on land and ate a particular species of leaves as the Koala does. If I could see some hard evidence, that a finch adapted and evolved into a non bird species, you just convinced me. Getting from a bird, to a non bird species back by hard evidence, is much to ask, I know, but if you are gonna say this happened, surely relying upon a subjective interpretation is just a little short sided in so far as hard evidence goes. And how did a particular set of genes in a particular order morph into another completely different set of genetics? What is the mechanism which allowed this to transpire? Would we not have to know the mechanism involved, and what factors in an environment would have yielded this? And what sort of change in environment would provide for the genetic mechanism to ensue? If a particular change in environment is the catalyst for one species to change into another species, surely if we knew this, it could be replicated in a lab, forgoing the need for vast time, as it would be replaced by intelligent manipulation. That is what the hard sciences have provided us, the ability to manipulate matter, because we have a certain level of understanding of what manipulations are needed and how a particular set of matter operates naturally.
My understanding is that the Galapagos finches can interbreed, but are a different species from mainland birds. The catch with this example is that so much has been written about them. Besides the history, there is even dispute about whether the fairly wide variety of finches on these islands can all successfully interbreed. They are quite divided by size, beaks, food, time spenton the ground, etc. So, getting an answer to a specific question is a slog. They certainly are given a separate species name, and there are even those who disagree on what family they belong to. Yes, you would still have two birds. It would take far far longer to form something we would not call a bird. Those in the field point out that we got birds from the evolution of a bramch of the dinosaurs. And, nammals (for example) came from a division before that, as dinosaurs and mammals coexisted. So, yes, there was an ancient division that had one side evolve the characteristics of mammals and the other moved towards dinos, with more division surviving the dino disaster and moving toward birds. That is through huge numbers of generations and tiny changes. Maco and micro are just a matter of how humans focus their study. Some focus on the mechanisms of yiny changes - how dba, cells, reproduction, etc work. Others study the larger change patterns - what caused them, where we came ftom, etc. We call one micro and the other macro, but there are scientists covering stuff in the middle, too. But, it is all based on huge numbers of tiny changes. Those who work on cell /dna level processeses of reproduction have documented a variety of ways that change happens. There are ways in which chromosome number can change, for example. These have been demonstrated. Once in a while you say "completely different". But, completely different does not really exist. Humans have some of the same processes as a banana. In both cases, those processes are defined by dna. In fact dna itself is a shared technology. For another example of an important technology shared by most plants and animals, plants and animals have a krebs cycle for producing energy, involving mitochondria. And, the amount shared between animals is enormous. Yes. In a lab one can guide and speed up evolution. The best example is the history of agriculture. We are also guiding bacterial evolution, which modern medicine as practiced is teaching bacteria how to become immune to medicine. Directly manipulating life forms is happening, too, as we make plants that can survive massive amounts of weed killer, etc. Have you heard of GMOs? This came late in our history, because genetic modification is more difficult than other feats of engineering. We had to figure out dna in great detail, and then learn how to cut and splice it.
Thanks. And when I say different, I am referring to morphology, how different species can vary greatly in appearance, say comparing a fish to a Rhino. And I actually accept evolution, that all of life evolved from self replicating molecules, yet I do not believe this happened without the same source of information some physicists say is involved at the quantum level. Information, energy/matter, the trinity, of the universe manifesting, involving space/time energy/matter and information. I just think the materialistic way of looking has to reject the information part. I do not think we will ever get close to a greater understanding as long as we leave out information. Without it, the picture will never be complete. And I figure by the 22 century we will have moved to that understanding. At the pace of tombstones of course. But that is the missing part of this puzzle. But then again, I highly entertain the idea that we live in an analogous virtual reality, where the analogous super computer resides outside of the universe it manifested. And the connection between us and it, is consciousness. Or as the author of my signature said, One Mind. At least then I can find purpose and some big picture meaning to it. But it may just be human nature to seek purpose and meaning. So I have no answers of certainty, unlike some of my fellow forum members.
I see it a little differently. I don't see justification for suspecting there is a supernatural. My own view is that the vastness of the universe is sufficient for life to occur somewhere. And, obviously, we would be where it occurred. (We couldn't be where it didn't occur, right?) In other words, sentient life is not a matter of the odds of life on this specific planet. And, I don't mean we were transported here. I mean, there can not help but be many places in the unkverse where life could start, and it just happened that earth was one place where that happened. Guessing there is some missing component (like"energy", or "information") hits me as wholly unjustified speculation. It's a guess that our entire universe is insufficient. Like other plants and animals, we evolved - and continue to evolve. Like other life forms, we die and compost. However, we do have amazing brains!
Though I completely understand you will again avoid answering this very simple question as you have each of the multiple times I have asked it, I will do so again to make a point and expose your little game to the light. Please explain to us all your competing theory and understanding of what led to the diversity of life on Earth?
Meh. Sure its a beleif, technically. But so is everything. Gravity is accepted as a certainty even as we theorize the existance of negative mass particles which would not only alter our understanding of gravity, but would make possible FTL travel, which isn't possible. ToE is a decent enough explanation based on the (publicly) available datasets. But then again, I have an open mind. Its possible we were created by aliens or God or we're a glitch in a computer simulation. Everything is possible with science!
