Author Topic: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...  (Read 8472 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1701
  • Darwins +114/-12
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #580 on: August 08, 2014, 06:33:40 AM »
What about what you call microevolution? You accept the microevolution of birds, but what about the microevolution of apes? Humans are one type of ape. Are you going to show your confirmation bias again by denying this one piece of microevolution?

Explain to me how humans evolved from apes. How exactly did that happen? What biological mechanism made that possible and how do you know that whatever you offer is actually true and accurate or not?

Humans have not evolved from apes, humans are a type of ape. Why are you denying this type of microevolution when you accept the microevolution of birds?
The Foxy Freedom antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline atheola

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1308
  • Darwins +28/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • Hospitals suck past an hour.
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #581 on: August 08, 2014, 11:22:48 AM »
If you can grasp the concept of a god who has existed for billions, perhaps trillions upon trillions of years then grasp the concept that we ultimately did indeed evolve from basic cells, but like your god it's been a very long process spanning billions, perhaps trillions of years. Personally I don't have the patience to sit and observe anything for a billion years so I have to conceptualize it.. There's a very good likelihood I won't even live a billion years, but I am going to the VA right now so ya never know.. It might be a billion years before I get seen.
You better believe it's not butter or you'll burn in hell forever and EVER!
Get on your knees right now and thank GOD for not being real!

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #582 on: August 08, 2014, 12:55:08 PM »
As has been stated before, evolution is both a fact and a theory.

Yes, I believe that has been alleged.
 
Quote
Here is the definition of evolution and the way we use it when we refer to evolution as a fact. 

Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.

Short story... species change over time.  This is absolutely beyond any reasonable doubt, true.  Species DO change over time.  It is fact. For thousands of years, people have been cultivating plants and selectively breeding animals for specific traits.  You, yourself, could use the scientific method to verify it by breeding dogs, cats, tomato plants, etc with specific traits that you want to see.  You could start with 1000 dogs with floppy ears, and selectively breed a group of dogs that has pointy ears within just a few generations.  Its beyond stupid to say this doesn't happen.  It is as factual as saying the sky is blue.

The theory of evolution, which you seem to have such a hard time with, describes HOW this happens.  In order to have a biological process that accounts for everything we see, you would need a few things.  1.  Some method of heredity.  2. Some sort of process that gives us variations.  3. A method by which those variations would stay with a species or be deleted. 

We have those 3 things.  1. We inherit genetic material from our parents.  2. There are random mutations that occur sometimes during the DNA copying process and 3. Death. Literally, death.

Now, if we can show that those 3 pieces were discovered using the scientific method, we can say that the ToE is scientific.  Regarding point 1, Gregor Mendel was probably one of the first people to put the scientific method to work on proving that we inherit traits from our parents.  He used peas first and found, using the scientific method, that there was a relationship between the characteristics of offspring and the parent plants that was relatively predictable.  He discovered, using the scientific method, that there was a BIOLOGICAL PROCESS at work that allowed for the passing on of specific information between parent and offspring.  Later on, DNA was discovered as the vehicle by which this information was transferred from parent to offspring.  The scientific method was brought to bear heavily on that to determine how it worked.  Through the scientific method, we were able to determine that additions, deletions and changes within the ACGT codes caused variations in the offspring. 

Regarding point 2, There are literally dozens of conditions that have been discovered (using the scientific method) that are the result of single changes within specific gene sequences which is absolute proof that changes occur in the process.  Sometimes, as little as one allele change such as is the case with the most famous example, sickle cell anemia, can have huge impacts on the organism.  This genetic change, found using the scientific method occurs in the HBB gene.  We have also discovered, using the scientific method, that DNA similarities exist between multiple different species of animal, plant, bacteria, fungus, etc. where long, long stretches of DNA are identical, while other stretches are quite different. 

Regarding point 3, This is nothing more than simple logic.  Some traits are better than others in a given environment.  A pure white rabbit in the jungle is not going to live long, whereas a pure white rabbit will live a long time in the arctic.  You do not need to employ the scientific method to understand this.  It's an observable feature of nature.  If you wanted to do a study on it, just put 1000 white rabbits in the jungle and 1000 in the arctic, come back in a year and see what you've got.

It seems to me that your biggest hangup is that you just can't understand how it got from single celled life forms all the way to the complexity of life that we have today. You have to stop thinking of it in those terms, because it just makes it difficult.  Take a look at the individual steps, add them up, and you can understand it.  Like imagine the first organism that had a random mutation that gave it a single cell with the capability to detect light.  Is this beneficial to the organism?  Sure it is for many reasons.  So that organism has an advantage over others of it's kind.  Can you see how it would then be able to live longer to pass on that genetic piece to it's kin?  Ok, great.  Now, would 2 cells be better?  Sure it would.  Next random mutation provides 2 cells that can detect light.  Organism lives longer than others of its kind.  Then 3, then 5, then 100, then 1000 light sensitive cells, just keep going with it and you get a million different variations of light sensitive organs in all sorts of animal species.  That is how MICRO becomes MACRO.  It was the same with livers, arms, legs, brains, hearts.  Don't look at the big picture and be so confused.  Look at the little picture and add up the little pictures over millions of years.     

I agree with the vast majority of your post. However, like others, you are taking what we have observed on a micro level and simply deducing that significantly larger and more complex biological changes can also occur. The absence of a proper scientific study (using the scientific method) to demonstrate that this occurs renders whatever you deduce from the microevolutionary evidence as nothing more than speculation.

No matter how you slice it or dice it, without evidence that this mechanism you cite is capable of producing legs, arms, lungs, and eyes, you are only speculating that micro+micro=macro. It may seem logical to you and that is fine but, unfortunately, it is NOT based on science. Where is the scientific evidence (based on observable, repeatable, and falsifiable experiments) to demonstrate that an evolutionary mechanism can produce organs and limbs.


Quote
Its easier to understand if you think in the following terms...  You started out as 2 cells in your mothers body and look at you now.  How did that happen?  Lots and lots of micro changes leading to macro changes. 
Yes, because the ‘programming’ for those changes are already coded for. The part you are failing to demonstrate is how that coding in earlier forms of life went off in a different direction and started producing the enormous variation we see in today’s life forms. Just because we observed the composition of a bird’s beak change over time doesn’t necessarily demonstrate that that same process or some other process is capable of producing highly complex new extremities and organs. You need to show that it can using scientific protocol before you can claim your conclusions as science.

Quote
What you are doing to us is tantamount to me saying, "you need to demonstrate how the scientific method was employed to verify that a biological process exists (or existed) that is capable of taking you from 2 cells in your mothers body to where you are today." 

We understand far more about the progression of the biological processes that took me from two cells to who I am today than we know about the biological process that gave to rise to snakes evolving from lizards. While I think I understand the point you are attempting to make, you are talking apples and oranges.

As I mentioned earlier in this thread:

We have no observed evidence of benefit gaining mutations that can produce macroevolution....that is, large scale biological changes (eg. snakes-from lizards, birds-from dinosaurs, etc). Most mutations are injurious which can only lead to what seems to be a ridiculous proposition that an organism randomly acquired a beneficial mutation which then, in turn, happened to be inherited, which then, in turn, was complimented by another beneficial mutation which would then, in turn, be inherited and, again, be complimented by another beneficial mutation that somehow conferred an advantage to the organism. And, all along the way, the intermediate steps would have required that they produced an advantage that was selected for.

If you want to believe that that’s what occurred without having some solid scientific evidence to back it up, then all the power to you…..just don’t go calling it a scientific conclusion because it most certainly is not.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #583 on: August 08, 2014, 01:38:45 PM »
Note: This was written while you posted a response to another recent post from me, BS. I'll respond to it shortly.

BibleStudent

Science cannot always rely on experimentation to prove things. Evolution would require millions of years to prove, and I hate to break it to you, but we don't have that long left (and our limited timeframe has nothing to do with Jesus). But science can find evidence via inference. We didn't have absolute proof that our own planet was round (i.e. photographs) until 1961. Would you, in 1960, have been claiming that the earth can't be round because we don't have any pictures of it? Or would you have settled for a large set of findings that helped science conclude that the earth was round, starting 2,000 years ago? If your standard for proof is universal, then you barely missed being a flat-earther.

We had all sorts of things figured out without having direct observation available. Some of the science we have now didn't' exist even 30 or 40 years ago, let alone 100 years ago. Germs and bacteria, viruses, UV rays, X-rays, enzymes, all were inferred by discovery long before we had the instruments to detect them. They existed, science thought they existed, nobody could prove directly for many many years.  Are you saying that prior to the proof of those things, none of them were real?

And science is a lot more than experimentation. The scientific method is not limited to that process. Science makes observations, forms hypothesis, predicts based on the hypothesis and searches for confirmation or contradictions to confirm or deny the accuracy of the hypothesis. This is normal science. It is used where direct laboratory experimentation is not possible.

So if science predicts something about evolution, and then that prediction is found to be true, that is a good sign they are on the right track. And many, many, many predictions have been made and found to be accurate. Example? There was reason to believe that whales and hippos were related. But there was no fossil evidence proving them to be related. Then, over the years, transitional fossils were found that had bone structures that tied whales and the early relatives of hippos together. And some whales have vestigial legs, small leg bones within their rear flippers. And every once in a while, as science would have predicted if such things hadn't been found before Darwin, whales are caught that actually have small rear legs. The same happens with snakes. Some species have vestigial legs. This helps to prove the hypothesis that the ancestors of snakes had legs. Why would either have legs if neither evolved from animals with legs? You need to be able to answer that if your mission to discredit evolution is to succeed.

In science, the  best hypothesis are the ones that make the fewest assumptions and also make the most confirmed assumptions (predictions). Evolutionary science is full of hypothesis that have done exactly that. And that is why I ask you how fossils got buried in a particular order, with simple single celled animals in the oldest rocks, simple multi-celled critters in slightly younger rocks, more complex critters in yet younger rocks, with life forms becoming both more numerous and more complex as rock layers get younger and younger. You discount that as irrelevant, but it is entirely consistent with the hypothesis that simple life forms begat more complex ones over time via evolution. And as much as you want to run away and hide when confronted with those findings, you MUST provide an alternative explanation for such phenomena if you are to hope to make any headway in this discussion. It is not your job to say "what a crock of shit" without providing an alternative crock of shit for our perusal.

If you cannot tell us why things like fossils and genes don't in fact point to evolution, then you have nothing. You can't say something is wrong with such authority without having something more than just excuses on your side.

So when you say that evolution is wrong because it can't prove in a lab that single celled animals evolved into multi-celled critters, you are flying against evidence that is considered overwhelming by the scientific community. You are saying in three or four sentences that you are so right you don't even have to provide any alternatives to evolution, all you have to do is declare it invalid. That you yourself are ethe final authority and there rest of us silly rabbits are absolute fools for saying that the complex can come from the simple just because we can't do it to your satisfaction in a test tube.

You're gonna have to get used to us shaking our heads when you talk like that, or maybe you should just go back to living on a flat earth.

I can type 110 words a minute, so you're not going to wear me out. This shit is child's play to me. And I won't wear you out, because typing four terse, oft repeated and uninformative sentences is easy for you.

Carry on.

Another wall of words with no evidence that macroevolution is supported by scientific evidence. You continue to do the same thing over and over and over again. You keep indicating that I am claiming evolution is false when I don’t believe I have said that even once in this thread. In addition, you (and others), for some reason, keep claiming that I need to offer a more plausible explanation when that has virtually nothing to do with my claim that macroevolution is not science.

With regards to these comments from above:
Quote
And science is a lot more than experimentation. The scientific method is not limited to that process. Science makes observations, forms hypothesis, predicts based on the hypothesis and searches for confirmation or contradictions to confirm or deny the accuracy of the hypothesis. This is normal science. It is used where direct laboratory experimentation is not possible.
Are you claiming that experimentation can be excluded from the process referred to as the scientific method?


Quote
So when you say that evolution is wrong because it can't prove in a lab that single celled animals evolved into multi-celled critters, you are flying against evidence that is considered overwhelming by the scientific community.
Do you always make decisions about important matters based on consensus rather than the truth and the acts?

Quote
And that is why I ask you how fossils got buried in a particular order, with simple single celled animals in the oldest rocks, simple multi-celled critters in slightly younger rocks, more complex critters in yet younger rocks, with life forms becoming both more numerous and more complex as rock layers get younger and younger. You discount that as irrelevant, but it is entirely consistent with the hypothesis that simple life forms begat more complex ones over time via evolution.

Pulling fossils out of the ground and saying “hey, they’re similar, evolution did that” is using the observation as the evidence. You first need to demonstrate that evolutionary mechanisms are capable of producing the snakes-from-lizard transition before you can claim that evolution is responsible. If you are unable to do that, then you are just begging the question.

There is a difference between high probability and fact and if you are going to claim that the Theory of Evolution is a theory and a fact, then you need to adhere to the scientific method and demonstrate that there exists an evolutionary mechanism capable of producing those results..... and, in order to do that, you must perform experiments that are measurable and  repeatable so that the hypothesis can either be falsified or confirmed.

You cannot simply "assume" that  snakes evolved from lizards based on observations in the fossil record and similarities in DNA. That is not scientific. It must be demonstrated using the scientific method.


Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #584 on: August 08, 2014, 01:42:17 PM »
What about what you call microevolution? You accept the microevolution of birds, but what about the microevolution of apes? Humans are one type of ape. Are you going to show your confirmation bias again by denying this one piece of microevolution?

Explain to me how humans evolved from apes. How exactly did that happen? What biological mechanism made that possible and how do you know that whatever you offer is actually true and accurate or not?

Humans have not evolved from apes, humans are a type of ape. Why are you denying this type of microevolution when you accept the microevolution of birds?

So, what came first, the human or the ape?...or did they both evolve at the same time and, if so, from what ancestor?

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1701
  • Darwins +114/-12
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #585 on: August 08, 2014, 02:03:33 PM »
So, what came first, the human or the ape?...or did they both evolve at the same time and, if so, from what ancestor?

Humans and other apes evolved together from previous apes. The human line and the ape line are so similar at first that it is difficult to tell them apart. It is an excellent example of microevolution. That is why creationists cannot decide when the label "human" should be first used. To make matters more difficult the different lines interbred so you have DNA of more than one species in you. I suppose you accept DNA paternity tests.
The Foxy Freedom antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6773
  • Darwins +821/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • If you are religious, you are misconcepted
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #586 on: August 08, 2014, 02:05:40 PM »
Are you claiming that experimentation can be excluded from the process referred to as the scientific method?
No, I am saying that experimentation is only one way to do science, and when experimentation is impossible (in this case because of the time frame required), other methods of doing science are used.

Quote
Quote
So when you say that evolution is wrong because it can't prove in a lab that single celled animals evolved into multi-celled critters, you are flying against evidence that is considered overwhelming by the scientific community.
Do you always make decisions about important matters based on consensus rather than the truth and the acts?

When I refer to scientific consensus, it isn't something people voted on. It is something where the same conclusions have been reached numerous times by various researchers. The results speak for themselves. Not to you though.

Quote
Quote
And that is why I ask you how fossils got buried in a particular order, with simple single celled animals in the oldest rocks, simple multi-celled critters in slightly younger rocks, more complex critters in yet younger rocks, with life forms becoming both more numerous and more complex as rock layers get younger and younger. You discount that as irrelevant, but it is entirely consistent with the hypothesis that simple life forms begat more complex ones over time via evolution.

Pulling fossils out of the ground and saying “hey, they’re similar, evolution did that” is using the observation as the evidence. You first need to demonstrate that evolutionary mechanisms are capable of producing the snakes-from-lizard transition before you can claim that evolution is responsible. If you are unable to do that, then you are just begging the question.

There is a difference between high probability and fact and if you are going to claim that the Theory of Evolution is a theory and a fact, then you need to adhere to the scientific method and demonstrate that there exists an evolutionary mechanism capable of producing those results..... and, in order to do that, you must perform experiments that are measurable and  repeatable so that the hypothesis can either be falsified or confirmed.

You cannot simply "assume" that  snakes evolved from lizards based on observations in the fossil record and similarities in DNA. That is not scientific. It must be demonstrated using the scientific method.

No, the difference between probability and fact isn't quite as large as you're hoping it is. Via sound methods such as using the Null Hypothesis, it is possible to look at the numbers and decide whether or not something is merely one possibility or the most likely one. When one possible explanation if heads and shoulders better than any other explanation (note that you cannot offer even a feeble alternative to evolution because that is how much better the theory is than anything else), then the possibility of some other factor being involved is so greatly reduced that it need not be considered until that possibility starts showing the ability to predict. And no other explanation for the fossil record has ever, ever, ever predicted anything. Anything at all. So if we have a theory that accurately predicts, again and again, what kinds of new fossils will be found, and where, and we have absolutely no other theory that can touch evolution in even the tiniest way, then we sort of have to go with the flow and accept, until a more accurate method of interpreting and predicting the fossil record (and this applies to genetics as well) comes along.

You keep saying that alternatives explanations are of no concern, and all of your efforts are aimed at simply convincing us that evolution can't be true because it can't be duplicated in the lab. The lab is not the only place science is done, and no other science is being done that can explain and/or predict within the evolutionary sciences.

What part of "it works" doesn't work for you? And why, even if it does work, do you think that tiny fact is irrelevant? If our knowledge of evolution can lead us to accurately predict everything from fossils we'll find to medicines we can produce, why is it wrong?

Before you respond to this, you need to google "Empirical evidence" and make sure you understand the concept. It is used in every single science out there, including all those that you have no quarrel with. Tell me why its okay to use it in chemistry and not evolution, if that's how you feel.
Jesus, the cracker flavored treat!

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6773
  • Darwins +821/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • If you are religious, you are misconcepted
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #587 on: August 08, 2014, 02:08:06 PM »
So, what came first, the human or the ape?...or did they both evolve at the same time and, if so, from what ancestor?

Note that when you ask questions like this, BS, it is clear that you have read nothing on the subject. This is such basic stuff that your ignorance seems to indicate you don't know a damn thing about what you're arguing against.

If atheists were that ignorant about the bible, we wouldn't even know enough to have no belief.
Jesus, the cracker flavored treat!

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2350
  • Darwins +438/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #588 on: August 08, 2014, 02:09:40 PM »
No matter how you slice it or dice it, without evidence that this mechanism you cite is capable of producing legs, arms, lungs, and eyes, you are only speculating that micro+micro=macro.

The mechanism is imperfect reproduction resulting in accumulated changesThat's it.  Small change + small change + small change + ... + small change = big change.

I'm going to pose your question in a different way - or, at least the way I'm interpreting what you're actually asking - and perhaps pointing out the discrepancies between how I understand your question and how you understand your question will allow this thread to progress.  Your question seems to be this:

"How can a number of microscopic, incremental, accumulated changes result in a macroscopic net change?  What mechanism exists that can produce a large macroscopic net change from a number of microscopic, incremental, accumulated changes?"

And, to me, that question is a bit silly.  So silly, in fact, that I'm pretty convinced that isn't the question that you're asking.  Could you word what you're looking for more specifically?

Quote
Most mutations are injurious which can only lead to what seems to be a ridiculous proposition that an organism randomly acquired a beneficial mutation which then, in turn, happened to be inherited, which then, in turn, was complimented by another beneficial mutation which would then, in turn, be inherited and, again, be complimented by another beneficial mutation that somehow conferred an advantage to the organism. And, all along the way, the intermediate steps would have required that they produced an advantage that was selected for.
I don't see why that seems ridiculous.  I really don't.

I mean, if you're saying that all of that occurs in a 6,000 year period among a starting population of 2, well, yeah, that would seem insane.  If, on the other hand, you're talking hundreds of millions of years, with starting populations of many thousands...

Yes, getting a straight flush is a rare beast.  How many straight flushes do you think I'd draw among 10 poker hands?  100?  1,000? 10,000,000,000,000?
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Offline atheola

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1308
  • Darwins +28/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • Hospitals suck past an hour.
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #589 on: August 08, 2014, 02:36:58 PM »
BS..(fitting initials) Far be it from me to call you a nitwit, but you're making a really poor case for being remotely smart. &)
You better believe it's not butter or you'll burn in hell forever and EVER!
Get on your knees right now and thank GOD for not being real!

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #590 on: August 08, 2014, 02:59:18 PM »
Humans have not evolved from apes, humans are a type of ape.

Humans and other apes evolved together from previous apes.

In one post you indicate humans have not evolved from apes and then not too long after that you indicate that they evolved from previous apes.

Which is it?

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #591 on: August 08, 2014, 03:02:36 PM »
BS..(fitting initials) Far be it from me to call you a nitwit, but you're making a really poor case for being remotely smart. &)

It would help if you explained why you feel my position is incorrect.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #592 on: August 08, 2014, 03:04:51 PM »
I'm going to pose your question in a different way - or, at least the way I'm interpreting what you're actually asking - and perhaps pointing out the discrepancies between how I understand your question and how you understand your question will allow this thread to progress.  Your question seems to be this:

"How can a number of microscopic, incremental, accumulated changes result in a macroscopic net change?  What mechanism exists that can produce a large macroscopic net change from a number of microscopic, incremental, accumulated changes?"

Offhand, I'd say you are probably right on, if not, very close.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #593 on: August 08, 2014, 03:06:28 PM »
So, what came first, the human or the ape?...or did they both evolve at the same time and, if so, from what ancestor?

Note that when you ask questions like this, BS, it is clear that you have read nothing on the subject. This is such basic stuff that your ignorance seems to indicate you don't know a damn thing about what you're arguing against.

If atheists were that ignorant about the bible, we wouldn't even know enough to have no belief.

Of course, more senseless accusations about my alleged ignorance on the subject. How original.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12698
  • Darwins +709/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #594 on: August 08, 2014, 03:08:15 PM »
It may seem logical to you and some others but not to everyone. In fact, there is a rather large group of earth's inhabitants that do not feel it is a logical conclusion at all...some might even be people more familiar with the ToE than you and I.

Logical is not a feeling.  Logical is the ability to explain.  You lack that.

We know that genes mutate. We know the rates.[1][2][3]  The mutations amount to changes and those changes eventually accumulate. 

Essentially you have a river of change the size of the Mississippi flowing at you.  Yet you insist that the water cannot make it to the ocean because it is river water and, as such, can never, ever, in a million, zillion years become ocean water. Okay.  So, where is the dam?

You should be able to explain what, exactly, makes that impossible.  You cannot just repeat, "some change is possible, but it will never become a different species!"   There must be some mechanism, and you have not proposed one. 

If you cannot answer the question, just say so.

 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_rate
 2. http://www.genetics.org/content/156/1/297.abstract
 3. http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2013/03/estimating-human-human-mutatin-rate.html
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1701
  • Darwins +114/-12
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #595 on: August 08, 2014, 03:15:22 PM »
Humans have not evolved from apes, humans are a type of ape.

Humans and other apes evolved together from previous apes.

In one post you indicate humans have not evolved from apes and then not too long after that you indicate that they evolved from previous apes.

Which is it?

Both are true. Different context.

First statement means humans are a type of ape, not something else.

Second statement means there are different types of ape.

I thought you would have grown out of all this nit picking nonsense of what should be obvious by now, but I suppose you just want to avoid the issue that humans and apes are a type of microevolution.

Why don't you just admit that you are suffering from confirmation bias and only accept microevolution when it suits you?
The Foxy Freedom antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6773
  • Darwins +821/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • If you are religious, you are misconcepted
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #596 on: August 08, 2014, 03:16:48 PM »
Humans have not evolved from apes, humans are a type of ape.

Humans and other apes evolved together from previous apes.

In one post you indicate humans have not evolved from apes and then not too long after that you indicate that they evolved from previous apes.

Which is it?

Its both. We both evolved form older apes, but many theists make the mistaken claim that evoluttion says that we evolved from the current apes.

Its apes all the way down, but not the apes you see in the zoo or the jungle today. We evolved our way, modern apes evolved their way.

This stuff is not that hard to google.
Jesus, the cracker flavored treat!

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #597 on: August 08, 2014, 03:22:55 PM »
Humans have not evolved from apes, humans are a type of ape.

Humans and other apes evolved together from previous apes.

In one post you indicate humans have not evolved from apes and then not too long after that you indicate that they evolved from previous apes.

Which is it?

Both are true. Different context.

First statement means humans are a type of ape, not something else.

Second statement means there are different types of ape.

I thought you would have grown out of all this nit picking nonsense of what should be obvious by now, but I suppose you just want to avoid the issue that humans and apes are a type of microevolution.

Why don't you just admit that you are suffering from confirmation bias and only accept microevolution when it suits you?

So, did humans evolve from a type of ape or not? Yes or no. I said they did and then you said they didn't and then you said they did. What kind of cornball argument are you making?

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #598 on: August 08, 2014, 03:24:55 PM »
Humans have not evolved from apes, humans are a type of ape.

Humans and other apes evolved together from previous apes.

In one post you indicate humans have not evolved from apes and then not too long after that you indicate that they evolved from previous apes.

Which is it?

Its both. We both evolved form older apes, but many theists make the mistaken claim that evoluttion says that we evolved from the current apes.

Its apes all the way down, but not the apes you see in the zoo or the jungle today. We evolved our way, modern apes evolved their way.

This stuff is not that hard to google.

I just don't understand all the stupid word games. Humans either evolved from apes or they didn't. I don't care if it was a 'type' of ape or not...if it was an ape then it was an ape. Ridiculous !!

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11224
  • Darwins +296/-38
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #599 on: August 08, 2014, 03:25:51 PM »
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1701
  • Darwins +114/-12
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #600 on: August 08, 2014, 03:31:06 PM »
Simple answer, yes, humans evolved from a type of ape into another type of ape.

There is no need to have a hissy fit because of two meanings of the word "from" as "derived from" or "away from". You know the answer is obvious. You are just dodging.
The Foxy Freedom antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #601 on: August 08, 2014, 03:33:55 PM »
And though you seem to seldom, if ever, read links aimed at enlightening you, I'll go ahead and post one on the above fish story for others who are actually interested.

http://apbiologynahs.wordpress.com/chapter-discussion-questions/chapter-1-finding-your-inner-fish/

Question #2 asks about the "major" Tiktaalik prediction that was confirmed. Wasn't this prediction refuted by some four legged prints found in Poland??

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #602 on: August 08, 2014, 03:35:01 PM »
Simple answer, yes, humans evolved from a type of ape into another type of ape.

There is no need to have a hissy fit because of two meanings of the word "from" as "derived from" or "away from". You know the answer is obvious. You are just dodging.

Yikes.

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6773
  • Darwins +821/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • If you are religious, you are misconcepted
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #603 on: August 08, 2014, 03:51:23 PM »
And though you seem to seldom, if ever, read links aimed at enlightening you, I'll go ahead and post one on the above fish story for others who are actually interested.

http://apbiologynahs.wordpress.com/chapter-discussion-questions/chapter-1-finding-your-inner-fish/

Question #2 asks about the "major" Tiktaalik prediction that was confirmed. Wasn't this prediction refuted by some four legged prints found in Poland??

There you go making assumptions about evolution (just kidding, you tell us we do it all the time)

The claim that the 397 million year old footprints disprove Tiklaalik may have merit, except they don't take several other possibilities in to account:

a) an earlier species may have adapted to walking on land, but died out. One that we have found no fossil record for. Or our fossil record, which we know is incomplete, is off because the transition may have happened sooner. The current claims that Tiklaalik is a transitional form are based on current data, and are subject to change if contradictory information comes to light.
b) the tracks may not be of a tetrapod. In fact, they may or may not be footprints.

There is no reason to doubt that the Tiklaalik is exactly what science says it is, and that it is the creature predicted based on the information available when the prediction was made. If we find older animals walking on land, that does not undo this, it merely means that it happened earlier but we don't know about it yet. An earlier animal is not at all inconsistent with evolutionary theory. We just don't know about it yet if it existed. Other than those possible footprints, which may or may not be being interpreted correctly. We just don't have enough information about them.

We know about Tiklaalik. We can see that it is a transitional form between older and newer critters. It did its job just fine. If someone else did the same thing 20 million years earlier, it isn't Tiklaalik's fault. And it doesn't hurt the theory of evolution one bit. If we find such a creature, we simply have new information to add to our already burgeoning stash.

More research is required. Except you want our scientists to all run down to the lab and start multi-million year long experiments, so we may not have the time to go out and dig around some more. Hence we may never have an answer. So sad.

« Last Edit: August 08, 2014, 03:54:06 PM by ParkingPlaces »
Jesus, the cracker flavored treat!

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1701
  • Darwins +114/-12
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #604 on: August 08, 2014, 04:12:12 PM »
BS,

Can we deal with the main issue now?

Can you admit that you are suffering from confirmation bias and only accept microevolution when it suits you? Birds but not apes?

Here is a chart with the dates of divergence of some of the different types of ape.



Note that the microevolution of apes is much more recent and much smaller than the microevolution of birds.

Also in this chart which includes genetic differences, the grouping is not human vs chimp and gorilla, but chimp and human vs gorilla. Bonobos are used as the base for comparison and are also similar to chimps.



For comparison, this bird-like creature dates back about 150 million years.



Why do you accept this huge "microevolution" of birds but not the much smaller "microevolution" of apes?
« Last Edit: August 08, 2014, 05:35:05 PM by Foxy Freedom »
The Foxy Freedom antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline JeffPT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2130
  • Darwins +255/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm a lead farmer mutha fucka
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #605 on: August 08, 2014, 05:26:58 PM »
I agree with the vast majority of your post. However, like others, you are taking what we have observed on a micro level and simply deducing that significantly larger and more complex biological changes can also occur.

If you accept that micro changes do occur, then can you accept that LOTS of micro changes can occur over long periods of time?  What would lots of micro changes over huge spans of time equate to? 

Tell me where, in the following scenario, that it breaks down for you...  This is completely hypothetical, and I have no idea if snakes were the ancestors of lizards, but I'm just trying to show you the point. 

Let's start with a snake that has a random mutation that give it a tiny outcropping of tissue on both sides of its body up near the head.  This is a micro change.  Almost imperceptible to the eye. And lets say that maybe this snake climbed a lot of rocks, and that little outcropping of tissue allowed him to get more leverage and climb higher than other snakes for food.  For this particular snake, this is an advantage over others of its kind, so this snake mates and has babies, and all those babies also have the small outcropping of tissue.  A few years go by, and eventually the snakes with the mutation far outnumber the ones that don't have it.  Then another snake is born.  This new snake had a random mutation that made that outcropping of tissue (that it already had) even bigger.  This is micro change number 2. This snake has an even bigger advantage than the first one, so it moves faster and higher on the rocks, and thus gets more food and breeds more than others.  before long, most of the snakes have this mutation as well.  Then a third one happens, then a fourth, then then a fifth and so on, always building on that little lump of tissue until eventually you've got what you could consider a limb.  Throughout the process you may have snakes with random mutations for smaller lumps, or wider lumps, or multiple lumps, but those that give the most benefit will give a survival advantage. 

The absence of a proper scientific study (using the scientific method) to demonstrate that this occurs renders whatever you deduce from the microevolutionary evidence as nothing more than speculation.

Its not speculation.  It's addition.  It is the only thing that CAN happen.  If you get tens of thousands of small changes, what else could possibly happen? 

Yes, because the ‘programming’ for those changes are already coded for. The part you are failing to demonstrate is how that coding in earlier forms of life went off in a different direction and started producing the enormous variation we see in today’s life forms.

It has everything to do with the environment.  Lets say there were 2 snakes that had the mutation I talked about above (say they were babies of the first snake).  If one of the snakes migrated to flat grasslands, the outcroppings of tissue that the random mutation brought about might not have given the snake an advantage over others of its kind, and therefore wouldn't make that snake any more likely to mate or find food.  Therefore, it would be one of those completely neutral mutations for that snake.  It is only when the mutation gives some sort of advantage over another individual that the mutation will spread through the species over time. 

We have no observed evidence of benefit gaining mutations that can produce macroevolution....that is, large scale biological changes (eg. snakes-from lizards, birds-from dinosaurs, etc).

We don't need them.  All we need is a process that can produce small changes, and a brain that can understand many small changes over large periods of time, will absolutely produce large changes. 

It really seems you're stuck on the word 'macroevolution'.  Fine, get rid of it.  What do you want to call the process where lots and lots of microevolution takes place? 

Most mutations are injurious which can only lead to what seems to be a ridiculous proposition that an organism randomly acquired a beneficial mutation

Are you denying that mutations can be beneficial? If no, then this is reasonable. 

which then, in turn, happened to be inherited,

Are you saying genetic mutations can not be inherited?  If no, then this step is also reasonable.

which then, in turn, was complimented by another beneficial mutation

Are you denying that mutations can be beneficial?  If no, then this step is reasonable.

which would then, in turn, be inherited

Are you saying genetic mutations can not be inherited?  If no, then this step is reasonable. 


and, again, be complimented by another beneficial mutation that somehow conferred an advantage to the organism. 

Each step, over and over again is possible.  Thousands of times over, yeah.  Wrap your head around millions of generations of birth and death. 

And, all along the way, the intermediate steps would have required that they produced an advantage that was selected for.

See my snake example above, yeah. 

Stop thinking in big terms.  Think little terms over long periods of time.  The process is right in front of you. 

Whenever events that are purported to occur in our best interest are as numerous as the events that will just as soon kill us, then intent is hard, if not impossible to assert. NDT

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2350
  • Darwins +438/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #606 on: August 08, 2014, 05:57:10 PM »
Its not speculation.  It's addition.  It is the only thing that CAN happen.  If you get tens of thousands of small changes, what else could possibly happen? 
As far as I can tell, that is essentially what BibleStudent is looking for evidence of.  He's looking for the scientific validation for (accumulation of small changes) = (big change).

"How can a number of microscopic, incremental, accumulated changes result in a macroscopic net change?  What mechanism exists that can produce a large macroscopic net change from a number of microscopic, incremental, accumulated changes?"

Offhand, I'd say you are probably right on, if not, very close.

I dunno BibleStudent.  I have to be honest - I'm surprised that this question is very close to your intended inquiry.  Insofar as I can tell, many small, incremental, accumulated changes leading to a big change is something that is self-evidently true.  It seems to be a self-evident fact.  If you need experimental validation of this, pick a random object and make lots of small changes to it.  Boom.  Big change.

I mean, the difference between a macroscopic change and a microscopic change is a question of scale, is it not?  Successive addition leads to bigger, ergo, successive addition of small thingies will result in a bigger thingie.  As in, bigger in scale.
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Offline natlegend

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1683
  • Darwins +70/-0
  • Polyatheist
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #607 on: August 08, 2014, 09:55:12 PM »
I've been reading this thread since about page 13, and I admit, I've skipped through the last few pages because it's all been very repetitive. So, just to chuck a spanner in the works, I'd like to ask Skep and BibStud what their take is on the following... (BTW, do check out this link, it's very cute...)

http://www.webpronews.com/cute-geep-baby-awes-and-bewilders-2014-08

Quote
...a pygmy goat for a dad and sheep for a mom (goat + sheep = “geep”).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheep%E2%80%93goat_hybrid

Quote
A sheep–goat hybrid (sometimes called a geep or toast in popular media) is the hybrid offspring of a sheep and a goat. Although sheep and goats seem similar and can be mated, they belong to different genera in the subfamily Caprinae of the family Bovidae. Sheep belong to the genus Ovis and have 54 chromosomes, while goats belong to the genus Capra and have 60 chromosomes. The offspring of a sheep-goat pairing is generally stillborn. Despite widespread shared pasturing of goats and sheep, hybrids are very rare, indicating the genetic distance between the two species.

What I'm wondering is, although the vast majority of these cases of sheep-goat mixing results in stillborn births, why does it occasionally work (yes, I realise the offspring are sterile and can therefore breed no further)? Theists often go on about 'kinds' of animals when they're butchering talking about evolution, but what constitutes a new 'kind' of animal? How far apart do the animals need to be in the animal kingdom before their offspring would satisfy theist requirements that indeed a new 'kind' of animal has been created?

I'm just really curious to hear people's take on this. I am by no means any sort of authority on evolution, so I really have no idea what's going on here.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Offline Ron Jeremy

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 567
  • Darwins +61/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #608 on: August 09, 2014, 03:37:29 AM »
Bible Student; there's a whole thread waiting for you to explain how creation happened. Why have you not posted yet?
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - An example of a clearly demonstrably false biblical 'prophesy'.

The biblical myth of a 6000 year old Earth is proven false by the Gaia satellite directly measuring star age.