Author Topic: Evolution Explained  (Read 35778 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12543
  • Darwins +301/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolution Explained
« Reply #348 on: February 14, 2012, 05:59:06 PM »
What would count as a transitional fossil, to you?

Gotta know what it is you're asking for, first.
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline rhocam

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 62
  • Darwins +0/-13
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Evolution Explained
« Reply #349 on: February 14, 2012, 06:20:12 PM »
why are you asking this? Evolution made up its own rules and claims it falls under science. Now use science to defend your theory

The laws of science are various established scientific laws, or physical laws as they are sometimes called. "Laws" differ from hypotheses, theories, postulates, principles, etc., in that laws are an analytic statements, usually with an empirically determined constant. A theory may contain a set of laws, or a theory may be implied from an empirically determined law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_science

I will again claim that evolution is not science it is a belief system, one that took out God and put nature in His place.
Try it, read the genesis account with nature instead of God and there is your faith.

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7312
  • Darwins +170/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: Evolution Explained
« Reply #350 on: February 14, 2012, 06:21:16 PM »
I am waiting. evolution is built by you. so defend it now. Where are your transitional forms, The gradual transition needed by darwinism? I didn't make the theory of evolution. I am challenging it. So take me beyond speculation and presumption then.
Where is the "crocoduc" as you mock me with. Or give me good reason to beleive that amoeba to men is possible!!

If science is observable, where is your evidence?

I will respond to this and only this

Every single fossil ever found, is transitional.  Every single one.  I'm done watching you make this thread into a joke and a mockery of actual science, so start engaging properly, or find yourself moderated for trolling.

Jetson

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12543
  • Darwins +301/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolution Explained
« Reply #351 on: February 14, 2012, 06:26:14 PM »
why are you asking this?

To make sure that you know what you're asking when you're asking for transitional fossils.  So far, it looks like you don't know what you mean.  If you don't know what you mean, then it's pointless to answer your question, because you're question means nothing to you.

So, what would you consider to be a transitional fossil?
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Online wright

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1997
  • Darwins +85/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "Sleep like a log, snore like a chainsaw."
Re: Evolution Explained
« Reply #352 on: February 14, 2012, 06:51:46 PM »
I am waiting. evolution is built by you. so defend it now. Where are your transitional forms, The gradual transition needed by darwinism? I didn't make the theory of evolution. I am challenging it. So take me beyond speculation and presumption then.
Where is the "crocoduc" as you mock me with. Or give me good reason to beleive that amoeba to men is possible!!

If science is observable, where is your evidence?

I will respond to this and only this

Here's the thing, rhocam: you're being asked to clarify what you call "evolution" and "transitional fossils" because so often critics of evolutionary theory have completely wrong or conveniently vague ideas of what they're attacking. To avoid a lot of wasted back-and-forth and goalpost shifting, it's useful to define just what is being talked about in the first place.

For instance, you do realize that a "crocoduck" type chimera is a creationist parody, and is not in fact predicted by evolutionary theory? I don't mean to be insulting, but many supporters of creationism seem to think such creatures have to exist for evolution to be valid. When in fact, quite the reverse is true: if such fossils existed, it would be evidence against evolution and for special creation.

So without a more solid idea of what you're asking for, it's quite likely that the evidence I present is going to be rejected. Nonetheless, for the sake of any lurkers who might find it useful, here we go...

First, what is a transitional fossil? Here's a definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil

And in a sense, all fossils are "transitional", in that a given species is not static but constantly responding to its changing environment and the pressures of natural selection. Even species like the coelacanth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelacanth, which has persisted in its current form for some 400 million years, shows evidence of change in the fossil record.

Here's a link to a site showing a number of fossil lineages that include some transitions. Please note the statement at the top:
Quote
In short, transitional fossils are best thought of as being close relatives of the species which actually link two groups. They may have lived at the same time as those actual links, or they may not have (this confuses many people). As long as these problems are borne in mind, transitional fossils give a rough indication of what evolutionary changes were occurring. But don't be misled into thinking that fossils are the only evidence for evolution. They're not even the strongest evidence for evolution.
-- (A few) transitional fossils

http://transitionalfossils.com/
Live a good life... If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. I am not afraid.
--Marcus Aurelius

Offline Cyberia

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 907
  • Darwins +35/-0
Re: Evolution Explained
« Reply #353 on: February 14, 2012, 07:08:06 PM »
Every single fossil ever found, is transitional.  Every single one.  I'm done watching you make this thread into a joke and a mockery of actual science, so start engaging properly, or find yourself moderated for trolling.

Jetson


Thank you.  +1
Soon we will judge angels.

Offline Brad the Bold

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 106
  • Darwins +17/-0
Re: Evolution Explained
« Reply #354 on: February 14, 2012, 07:50:31 PM »
I am waiting. evolution is built by you. so defend it now. Where are your transitional forms, The gradual transition needed by darwinism? I didn't make the theory of evolution. I am challenging it. So take me beyond speculation and presumption then.
Where is the "crocoduc" as you mock me with. Or give me good reason to beleive that amoeba to men is possible!!

If science is observable, where is your evidence?

I will respond to this and only this

So your mind is made up, exactly as it was when you came. You've now entered the defiant phase of your tenure here. Where you challenge all comers to knock the chip off your shoulder of faith. I'm calling it. I predict you will rant about our lack of proof for about a dozen or so more posts, then summarily declare victory over the godless and disappear, never to be heard from again.

So until then, we are at an impasse.

I could point you to my post about the recent discoveries regarding the development of cetaceans in the early Eocene some 50 million years ago.

But what does it get me? I don't think you even accept that there was an Eocene, much less Eocene whale ancestors.  So what is the point in me describing them to you?

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6750
  • Darwins +817/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • If you are religious, you are misconcepted
Re: Evolution Explained
« Reply #355 on: February 14, 2012, 09:06:35 PM »
Okay, rhocam, listen to this. There is a lot of evidence for evolution that doesn't involve fossils. Since we can't seem to have an intelligent conversation about stuff dug out of the ground, lets try something else.

Evidence for evolution comes from a variety of other sources.

First of all, the various (not just evolution) physical sciences have made discoveries that include evidence for evolution. Physics, chemistry, genetics, archaeology, geology, anatomy, the various biologies, medicine, All have found things that point to evolution. And, if you read nothing else in this post, read this: None of those discoveries makes any of the other discoveries impossible to explain. Also, none of those pieces, if taken away from the body of evidence, makes the theory go away. Each adds. And none contradict.

As Dawkins has said, we would know evolution is true even if we'd never found a single fossil. Finding them is a bonus. Every one we've found helps to confirm the other sources of the theory. And expand on those findings.

Other sources? Genetics, DNA sequencing, proteins, molecular variance patterns, endogenous retroviruses. That's from biology. Human anatomy (and other anatomies) have provided us with atavisms (throwbacks) and vestigial structures, among others. Geography has found that continental drift is entirely consistent with the distribution of both extinct and living organisms. Fossils once adjacent drifted apart for millions of years and found on different continents today are obviously more than 6,000 years old or the bible would obviously have a lot of earthquake stories. Endemisms, unique species found in small areas but not very far from similar but different species, separated by water or other geographies. If bird A is found only on island A, bird B, closely related species-wise, is only found on island B, and bird C, again closely related but yet another species, is only found on island C, and those islands are close to each other, that is evidence. That there is no bird D on the other side of the planet that is closely related to the other three is considered telling.

Marsupials are only found in Australia and Indonesia, except for the possum, which is found only in the Americas. However, South America and Australia used to be joined, and similar older marsupial fossils have been found on both continents. The ones that went the way of Australia had the advantage of living in a place where no non-marsupial predators survived. Hence they had a chance to blossom and flourish. The poor marsupials left in South America had to put up with lots of big things with big teeth, and hence they fared worse. Only the possum survived.

The only predators indigenous to Australia? Marsupials. Which evolved after the separation.

Then we have things like antibiotic and pesticide resistance, studied by agricultural types. And best explained by evolutionary forces. Lactose intolerance, studied by medical types and best explained via evolutionary changes. Nylon eating bacteria. Where the heck did they come from? Interspecies fertilization can only occur between species closely related. Donkeys and horses can make mules, but mice and elephants can't make elephants.

This is very consistent with evolution.

The recurrent laryngeal nerve is a darned good way to prove we weren't intelligently designed. It runs from the brain to the pharynx. It helps our brain tell us when to swallow. It's the longest cranial nerve, even though it only has to go a few inches. Because it goes down through the neck, then down to the heart where it goes around the dorsal aorta and then, and only then, does it go back up to the larynx. In humans and most other mammals, no biggie. But it has to do the same thing in giraffes, which ins even though it only needs to go less than a foot, because of the roundabout routing it is over 14 feet long in an adult giraffe.

Why? This same nerve exists in fish, which had no neck. They started it. As other critters evolved away from fish, they didn't bother redirecting the nerve (it's not like any of this is planned) and the routing in mammals is universal. It's almost like we're, you know, all related.

The above is a presentation of some general and some more specific examples of other, non-fossil evidences for evolution.

Please show me where fake science was used in any of those studies. No, make it all of those studies. If I'm going to do your homework for you, the least you can do is take an essay exam.
Jesus, the cracker flavored treat!

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7312
  • Darwins +170/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: Evolution Explained
« Reply #356 on: February 14, 2012, 09:10:36 PM »
PP - you have the patience of a sai...oh, never mind.   ;D

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6750
  • Darwins +817/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • If you are religious, you are misconcepted
Re: Evolution Explained
« Reply #357 on: February 14, 2012, 09:17:31 PM »
I didn't mean to post it. My finger slipped. That's a chapter from my new book, Being Dumb for Dummies. I think it's pretty good, but I'll have to redact the informative parts from the book itself.

Oh, and we should give folks like rhocam a little slack. They have so little to work with.

Edit: added another snide remark.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2012, 10:23:24 PM by ParkingPlaces »
Jesus, the cracker flavored treat!

Offline jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5239
  • Darwins +598/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Evolution Explained
« Reply #358 on: February 14, 2012, 10:58:33 PM »
No you are not showing transitional forms. you are showing ammonites and telling me they are transitional forms.
Speculation based on presumption that is ALL EVOLUTION IS
Fixed your quote for you, first off.

Second, nope, evolution is a solid theory based on real evidence verified by repeated experimentation.  Not "speculation based on presumption", which is only your ignorance on the subject talking.

So, you want transitional forms?  Look at any organism, and you will see a transitional form.  It is in transition from the species that preceded it to the species that will follow it.  Look at dog breeds; the ones on different ends of the scale (for example, chihuahuas and great danes) are practically different sub-species now, because they cannot interbreed successfully.  That's evolution in action.  Or go look at the various species found on Australia, which has been pretty much separate from all the other landmasses for long enough that you have species that literally didn't exist anywhere else on the Earth until they got spread around by humans.  Exactly as evolutionary theory predicts would happen, if you separate precursor organisms and let them develop separately.

why are you asking this? Evolution made up its own rules and claims it falls under science. Now use science to defend your theory
No, it didn't.  Evolution was developed as part of the broader field of biology.  It did not "make up its own rules"; creationists such as you are trying to make up different rules for it because it contradicts the neat and tidy creation story that you believe in.  The problem is, that neat and tidy creation story is based on an effort to explain how things started which is based on pure ignorance (not divine knowledge passed down from on high), and because it is, it essentially contradicts every field of science.  Or do you think that Genesis is compatible with astronomy, geology, chemistry, physics, etc?

Quote from: rhocam
The laws of science are various established scientific laws, or physical laws as they are sometimes called. "Laws" differ from hypotheses, theories, postulates, principles, etc., in that laws are an analytic statements, usually with an empirically determined constant. A theory may contain a set of laws, or a theory may be implied from an empirically determined law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_science
Again, you've demonstrated that you can quote Wikipedia, but you still haven't demonstrated that you really understand what you're quoting.

Quote from: rhocam
I will again claim that evolution is not science it is a belief system, one that took out God and put nature in His place.
Try it, read the genesis account with nature instead of God and there is your faith.
Nope, not in the slightest.  It is statements like these which so clearly demonstrate your utter ignorance on the subject.  I don't "believe" in evolution; I have no "faith" in it.  My acceptance of it is based on the fact that it makes sense based on the evidence we have.  The fact that organisms change as they live, the fact that some mutations breed true and confer a survival advantage on their successors, the fact that you can trace organisms through the fossil record that grow more alike as you go further back.  And there are many more things; those are what I can easily list from memory alone.

And you, who knows so little about evolution that you blow it off as a faith-based belief system, that you accuse innumerable scientists of multiple disciplines of lying and conspiring in order to prop it up without even one single real fact to back your accusation up...you look at two thousand years of human history and conclude that there have been no evolutionary changes, even though we have clear and evident proof that there have been evolutionary changes in human beings in the past (where else did the different "races" come from?  They didn't just "magically" appear).  If you actually understood science in its own right, you'd go and investigate this for yourself, instead of calling evolution a lie and a sham based on your religious beliefs and your ignorance about the actual subject that you're denouncing.

Offline rhocam

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 62
  • Darwins +0/-13
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Evolution Explained
« Reply #359 on: February 15, 2012, 12:16:36 AM »
A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a lifeform that exhibits characteristics of two distinct taxonomic groups. A transitional fossil is the fossil of an organism near the branching point where major individual lineages (clades) diverge. It will have characteristics typical of organisms on both sides of the split, but because of the incompleteness of the fossil record, there is usually no way to know exactly how close it is to the actual point of divergence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil

Natural law, or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis), is a system of law which is purportedly determined by nature, and thus universal.[1] Classically, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature and deduce binding rules of moral behavior. Natural law is contrasted with the positive law (meaning "man-made law", not "good law"; cf. posit) of a given political community, society, or nation-state, and thus serves as a standard by which to critique said positive law.[2] According to natural law theory, the content of positive law cannot be known without some reference to natural law (or something like it). Used in this way, natural law can be invoked to criticize decisions about the statutes, but less so to criticize the law itself. Some use natural law synonymously with natural justice or natural right (Latin ius naturale)[citation needed]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

These outcomes of evolution are sometimes divided into macroevolution, which is evolution that occurs at or above the level of species, such as extinction and speciation and microevolution, which is smaller evolutionary changes, such as adaptations, within a species or population.[135] In general, macroevolution is regarded as the outcome of long periods of microevolution.[136] Thus, the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one – the difference is simply the time involved...In this sense, microevolution and macroevolution might involve selection at different levels – with microevolution acting on genes and organisms, versus macroevolutionary processes such as species selection acting on entire species and affecting their rates of speciation and extinction.[138][139][140]
 
A common misconception is that evolution has goals or long-term plans; realistically however, evolution has no long-term goal and does not necessarily produce greater complexity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

"microevolution and macro evolution might invlove selection at different levels". No duh. Yet you see in the explanation the claim that all is needed in time. Huh? Looks like a case of someone covering their butt.

All fossils are transitional fossils? (if you assume evolution to be true) All the other sciences point to evolution? (only if you assume evolution to be true)
What happens to Scientist who do not toe the party line claiming "evolution is true". They are thrown out and mocked. Why, because like I claimed earlier, evidence that doesn't support evolution is discarded. You only keep the parts that agree with you.

Filling in the gaps is speculation. Yet you do it and call it science. You look at the evidence and speculate what should have happened to fill in the gaps. I claim there were no gaps. God created each species. There is no need for stop gaps.

I quote Emile Zuckerkandl "The general foundations for the evolution of 'higher' from 'lower' organisms seems so far to have largely eluded analysis". eluded analysis.  How can you make a theory out of something you can't even analyze?

I quote Japanese mathematical biologist Motoo Kimura "The natural theory asserts that the great majority of evolutionary changes at the molecular level, as revealed by comparative studies of proteins and DNA sequences, not by Darwinian selection but by random drift of selectively neutral or nearly neutral mutations."
Let me explain the importance of this. If what this scientist claims is true, then Darwinism is false. Do you explore the possibility of this? No he is written off. (didn't toe the line)

What a lie. and you all believe it. But I guess like you argued earlier, I am only a christian because I was born in North America. Therefore you must be evolutionists because you went to school in North America?

Offline Rustybeatz

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 93
  • Darwins +3/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Evolution Explained
« Reply #360 on: February 15, 2012, 12:27:02 AM »
I don't know a whole lot about this but if evolution is 100% false then why has it been able to make so many predictions and provide much insight into things like genetics and vaccines?  There has to be SOMETHING to it in order for it to help in so many ways. 

Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3082
  • Darwins +280/-3
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
Re: Evolution Explained
« Reply #361 on: February 15, 2012, 12:31:35 AM »
I claim there were no gaps. God created each species. There is no need for stop gaps.

You can claim anything you want, Rhocam, but it's meaningless to postulate "God" as a cause unless you can empirically demonstrate that such an entity exists.  Can you? 
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3082
  • Darwins +280/-3
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
Re: Evolution Explained
« Reply #362 on: February 15, 2012, 12:36:16 AM »
I don't know a whole lot about this but if evolution is 100% false then why has it been able to make so many predictions and provide much insight into things like genetics and vaccines?  There has to be SOMETHING to it in order for it to help in so many ways.

Indeed.  Evolutionary theory, particularly in its pharmacological and immunological applications, saves lives.  Religion generally just promises to save some hypothetical future life for which there's no actual evidence.

Quite frankly, I think we need the ToE much more than we need religion.
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12543
  • Darwins +301/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolution Explained
« Reply #363 on: February 15, 2012, 01:38:35 AM »
A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a lifeform that exhibits characteristics of two distinct taxonomic groups. A transitional fossil is the fossil of an organism near the branching point where major individual lineages (clades) diverge. It will have characteristics typical of organisms on both sides of the split, but because of the incompleteness of the fossil record, there is usually no way to know exactly how close it is to the actual point of divergence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil

And in the case of Ammonoids, we have a detailed fossil record of exactly that.  We also have a record of progressive change from older to more recent forms, in that their septa (the connection line between their internal shell-dividers and the outside of the shell) become steadily more complicated.

"microevolution and macro evolution might invlove selection at different levels". No duh. Yet you see in the explanation the claim that all is needed in time. Huh? Looks like a case of someone covering their butt.

This comment of yours makes no sense.  Probably because you don't understand what "selection at different levels" means or what it would entail.

All fossils are transitional fossils? (if you assume evolution to be true) All the other sciences point to evolution? (only if you assume evolution to be true)
What happens to Scientist who do not toe the party line claiming "evolution is true". They are thrown out and mocked. Why, because like I claimed earlier, evidence that doesn't support evolution is discarded. You only keep the parts that agree with you.

Actually, a lot of the scientists who found flaws with the ToE earned their reputations in the course of exposing those flaws and correcting them.  That's how science works.

The key is that those scientists were suggesting a more accurate model in its place.  They were not claiming that the Earth is flat, or that it is 6000 years old, or that it was poofed into existence last Thursday.  A person criticizing the science of evolution is only one side of the coin.  The other side includes the details of what the person believes actually happened.  If their beliefs are patently ridiculous, such as the idea that the universe was created from nothing 6000 years ago, then their critique will be dismissed.  And why shouldn't it be?  The idea's been thoroughly disproven, by pretty much every field of science.

Filling in the gaps is speculation. Yet you do it and call it science. You look at the evidence and speculate what should have happened to fill in the gaps. I claim there were no gaps. God created each species. There is no need for stop gaps.

"God created each species" has no explanatory or predictive power.  It is an empty phrase, devoid of meaning.  It is utterly useless, scientifically speaking.

I quote Emile Zuckerkandl "The general foundations for the evolution of 'higher' from 'lower' organisms seems so far to have largely eluded analysis". eluded analysis.  How can you make a theory out of something you can't even analyze?

Since evolution makes no distinction between "higher" and "lower" organisms, the quote doesn't make a lot of sense on its own.  Context would be appreciated.  As for your comment on it - what can't even be analyzed?  Your grammar makes it unclear.  Evolution certainly has been anlyzed.  In laboratories.  In animal breeding programs.  In genetics.  In observations of species in the wild.  So it'd be interesting to know whether Emile was lying, misinformed, saying something other than what you've taken him to say, or if he even made that statement in the first place.

Please cite the work of Emile Zuckerlandl's that you got this quote from.

I quote Japanese mathematical biologist Motoo Kimura "The natural theory asserts that the great majority of evolutionary changes at the molecular level, as revealed by comparative studies of proteins and DNA sequences, not by Darwinian selection but by random drift of selectively neutral or nearly neutral mutations."

Yes, the vast majority of changes aren't going to get selected for or against.  Most mutations are neutral.  They don't affect traits.  If they don't affect traits, then they won't be subject to selection pressures.

Let me explain the importance of this. If what this scientist claims is true, then Darwinism is false.

What he said is true, but nothing about what he said implies what you say it does.  Traits are still subject to selection pressures.  He never claimed otherwise.  And would be wrong if he did - 5000+ years of agriculture attest to the ability to select for traits and create new breeds.

Do you explore the possibility of this? No he is written off. (didn't toe the line)

Written off?  By whom?  Sounds odd, so let's see...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motoo_Kimura
Quote from: Motoo_Kimura Wiki page
HonorsGenetics Society of Japan Prize, 1959[6]
Weldon Memorial Prize, Oxford, 1965[6]
Japan Academy Prize, 1968[6]
Order of Culture, 1976[6]
Chevalier de l'Ordre Nationale de Merite, 1986[6]
Asahi Shimbun Prize, 1987[6]
John J. Carty Award of the National Academy of Sciences in evolutionary biology, 1987[12]
Royal Society, Darwin Medal in 1992; Foreign member, 1993.[1][13]

Doesn't sound like someone who got written off to me.  Apparently, though, according to you, he was written off for not holding to some party line or other.  Care to explain what happened when he got written off?  A news article will do.

What a lie. and you all believe it. But I guess like you argued earlier, I am only a christian because I was born in North America. Therefore you must be evolutionists because you went to school in North America?

You don't exactly know what science is, do you?
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5239
  • Darwins +598/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Evolution Explained
« Reply #364 on: February 15, 2012, 01:44:31 AM »
"microevolution and macro evolution might invlove selection at different levels". No duh. Yet you see in the explanation the claim that all is needed in time. Huh? Looks like a case of someone covering their butt.
And what it actually is, is a case of someone taking Wikipedia articles as literal, absolute truth.  Wikipedia is, at best, a starting point.  It does not contain all or even most of the information on a subject, and sometimes it can be unintentionally misleading.  If you want more concrete and reliable info, you need to read what the scientists themselves write, not the snippets contained in Wiki articles.  And that doesn't mean quote mining - taking individual sentences out of context without even providing the source you got it from, because anytime you have only a single quoted sentence without a reference to the rest of the article or book, it's pretty clear that someone picked that sentence out deliberately to convey a particular idea, whether or not it has anything to do with what the person actually said or even if it's actually true in the first place.

Quote from: rhocam
All fossils are transitional fossils? (if you assume evolution to be true) All the other sciences point to evolution? (only if you assume evolution to be true)
What happens to Scientist who do not toe the party line claiming "evolution is true". They are thrown out and mocked. Why, because like I claimed earlier, evidence that doesn't support evolution is discarded. You only keep the parts that agree with you.
They're not thrown out and mocked because they "don't toe the party line".  If they're thrown out and mocked, it's because they aren't actually doing real science.  Because they're ignoring or discarding evidence which they don't agree with, because they aren't following the scientific method, because they're simply making stuff up, or whatever.

Quote from: rhocam
Filling in the gaps is speculation. Yet you do it and call it science. You look at the evidence and speculate what should have happened to fill in the gaps. I claim there were no gaps. God created each species. There is no need for stop gaps.
That you claim there are no gaps and that God created each species is not just speculation, it is ignorant speculation, wishful thinking masquerading as rational thought.  Do you not realize that every single branch of science has gaps that have not been filled?  Science is about filling the gaps with knowledge based on evidence, not in pretending that the gaps don't exist because of the oh-so-convenient "explanation" that "God did it".  Everything discovered through any branch of science has come about because of people who are not satisfied with "God did it" as an explanation.

Quote from: rhocam
I quote Emile Zuckerkandl "The general foundations for the evolution of 'higher' from 'lower' organisms seems so far to have largely eluded analysis". eluded analysis.  How can you make a theory out of something you can't even analyze?
Okay, you quoted Emile Zuckerkandl.  What's your source?  You didn't have any problem providing Wikipedia links at the beginning of this post, so why did you not do the same here?  This stinks of quote mining.  When I Googled this, I found several links to creationist web sites which, unsurprisingly, used the exact same quote in the exact same way, to attempt to cast doubt on evolution that appeared to come straight from a major biologist.  I also found the original source of this quote, an article printed in a biology journal,  The appearance of new structures and functions in proteins during evolution.  Unfortunately, the part where the quote actually comes from requires a subscription to that particular journal, but given the nature of quote mining and the overall context of the paper, it's clearly evident that Zuckerkandl was not actually saying what creationists would like him to have said.  In fact, that has all the earmarks of a preface statement, to be followed by an explanation of how he actually did analyze it.

Quote from: rhocam
I quote Japanese mathematical biologist Motoo Kimura "The natural theory asserts that the great majority of evolutionary changes at the molecular level, as revealed by comparative studies of proteins and DNA sequences, not by Darwinian selection but by random drift of selectively neutral or nearly neutral mutations."
Let me explain the importance of this. If what this scientist claims is true, then Darwinism is false. Do you explore the possibility of this? No he is written off. (didn't toe the line)
Again, a quote from a noted evolutionary biologist, with no citation of the actual source.  But the devastating irony here is that your ignorance of this subject caused you to pick a quote which badly damaged your own assertions.  Note the part after "not by Darwinian selection":  "but by the random drift of selectively neutral or nearly neutral mutations".  You stopped reading a bit too quickly, I think.

This quote is from "The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution."  First off, you should note that your quote is slightly wrong, as the quote actually begins with "The neutral theory..."  Second, the paragraph continues, "The theory does not deny the role of natural selection in determining the course of adaptive evolution, but it assumes that only a minute fraction of DNA changes are adaptive in nature, while the great majority of phenotypically silent molecular substitutions exert no significant influence on survival and reproduction and drift randomly through the species."

Quote from: rhocam
What a lie. and you all believe it. But I guess like you argued earlier, I am only a christian because I was born in North America. Therefore you must be evolutionists because you went to school in North America?
This is nonsense.  However, thanks to your efforts here, I can now demonstrate that you are either ignorant of the actual facts regarding evolution, or you are lying about them to give your own beliefs credence.  Right now I'm leaning towards ignorance, given that last quote you picked.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2012, 01:46:06 AM by jaimehlers »

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6750
  • Darwins +817/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • If you are religious, you are misconcepted
Re: Evolution Explained
« Reply #365 on: February 15, 2012, 01:47:38 AM »
A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a lifeform that exhibits characteristics of two distinct taxonomic groups. A transitional fossil is the fossil of an organism near the branching point where major individual lineages (clades) diverge. It will have characteristics typical of organisms on both sides of the split, but because of the incompleteness of the fossil record, there is usually no way to know exactly how close it is to the actual point of divergence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil

Natural law, or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis), is a system of law which is purportedly determined by nature, and thus universal.[1] Classically, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature and deduce binding rules of moral behavior. Natural law is contrasted with the positive law (meaning "man-made law", not "good law"; cf. posit) of a given political community, society, or nation-state, and thus serves as a standard by which to critique said positive law.[2] According to natural law theory, the content of positive law cannot be known without some reference to natural law (or something like it). Used in this way, natural law can be invoked to criticize decisions about the statutes, but less so to criticize the law itself. Some use natural law synonymously with natural justice or natural right (Latin ius naturale)[citation needed]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

These outcomes of evolution are sometimes divided into macroevolution, which is evolution that occurs at or above the level of species, such as extinction and speciation and microevolution, which is smaller evolutionary changes, such as adaptations, within a species or population.[135] In general, macroevolution is regarded as the outcome of long periods of microevolution.[136] Thus, the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one – the difference is simply the time involved...In this sense, microevolution and macroevolution might involve selection at different levels – with microevolution acting on genes and organisms, versus macroevolutionary processes such as species selection acting on entire species and affecting their rates of speciation and extinction.[138][139][140]
 
A common misconception is that evolution has goals or long-term plans; realistically however, evolution has no long-term goal and does not necessarily produce greater complexity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

"microevolution and macro evolution might invlove selection at different levels". No duh. Yet you see in the explanation the claim that all is needed in time. Huh? Looks like a case of someone covering their butt.

All fossils are transitional fossils? (if you assume evolution to be true) All the other sciences point to evolution? (only if you assume evolution to be true)
What happens to Scientist who do not toe the party line claiming "evolution is true". They are thrown out and mocked. Why, because like I claimed earlier, evidence that doesn't support evolution is discarded. You only keep the parts that agree with you.

Filling in the gaps is speculation. Yet you do it and call it science. You look at the evidence and speculate what should have happened to fill in the gaps. I claim there were no gaps. God created each species. There is no need for stop gaps.

I quote Emile Zuckerkandl "The general foundations for the evolution of 'higher' from 'lower' organisms seems so far to have largely eluded analysis". eluded analysis.  How can you make a theory out of something you can't even analyze?

I quote Japanese mathematical biologist Motoo Kimura "The natural theory asserts that the great majority of evolutionary changes at the molecular level, as revealed by comparative studies of proteins and DNA sequences, not by Darwinian selection but by random drift of selectively neutral or nearly neutral mutations."
Let me explain the importance of this. If what this scientist claims is true, then Darwinism is false. Do you explore the possibility of this? No he is written off. (didn't toe the line)

What a lie. and you all believe it. But I guess like you argued earlier, I am only a christian because I was born in North America. Therefore you must be evolutionists because you went to school in North America?

I must warn you rhocam, your copy and paste keys are going to fall off pretty soon.

I've no idea why you stuck in that thing about natural laws. A bonus I guess.

You quote Emile Zuckerkandl (an atheist by the way), founder of the Journal of Molecular Evolution, as a supporter of "god did it?" He was a colleague of Linus Pauling, who was married to my cousin Ava, and both Emile and Linus were atheists through and through. They may have disagreed a bit with Darwinian evolution in the details, but both were supporters of the theory of evolution. I have no idea why the good Mr. Zuckerkankl appealed to you.

Then you quote Motoo Kimura, who proposed another way for evolution to occur. Note that he didn't propose that evolution didn't occur. (I've no idea what his religious stance was, but educated Japanese folks tend not to be christian, for obvious reasons.) He thought that evolution occurred via a different process than others were saying. His view is apparently pretty much accepted today. What he said was that the changes that occurred were neutral, and had nothing to do with the survival of the fittest. That doesn't mean, as much as you want it to, that evolution didn't occur. It just means that you misunderstand the wrong version. At least you know that now. That's progress.

Oh, and you said Mr. Kimura didn't toe the line, and he was written off. I know you don't like others using wikipedia, because it lessens the validity of your vapid research, but accodrding to that august web site:

Quote
"Though difficult to test against alternative selection-centered hypotheses, the neutral theory has become part of modern approaches to molecular evolution.

In 1992, Kimura received the Darwin Medal from the Royal Society, and the following year he was made a Foreign Member of the Royal Society. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motoo_Kimura)

Note that he was involved in molecular evolution. Which hasn't got damned thing to do with fossils. I know that confuses you, but it is possible. Before you cut and paste a wiseass quote from Jeffy out of a Family Circus comic, think about accepting that there are other sources of knowledge for you to attack, so should be taking notes instead of  googling "what in the f**k am I going to say now".

Note that I mentioned earlier that Darwin is credited with the original idea, but variations on his idea have arisen since. We supporters of evolution don't put as much pressure on Darwin to be right as you do. We have hundreds of thousands of pieces of information he did not have available when he wrote his work. So we know far more than he did. He had the right idea. The details were a bit off. It looks like Punctuated Equilibrium describes the rate of change far better than the slow smooth changes envisioned by Darwin. In case that whooshed over your head, I'll say it this way.

[rant]

DARWINISM ISN'T FALSE IF WE FIND OUT NEW THINGS THAT STILL SUPPORT EVOLUTION. DARWINISM AND EVOLUTION AS WE KNOW IT TODAY ARE NOT NECESSARILY THE SAME FRICKIN' EXACT THING. WHAT DARWIN SAID IN 1859 CANNOT POSSIBLY HAVE BEEN TOTALLY CORRECT, BECAUSE HE HAD NOWHERE NEAR THE AMOUNT OF INFORMATION NEEDED TO BE AS CORRECT AS WE CAN BE TODAY. YOU FUNDY'S KEEP HARPING ON THE POOR GUY, INSISTING HE HAD A DEATHBED CONVERSION AND SEEMING TO THINK THAT HE IS THE ONLY GOD DAMNED SOURCE OF INFORMATION IN THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE ABOUT EVOLUTION. BAD NEWS. WE'VE PROGRESSED,  BUT YOU GUYS HAVEN'T. WE CAN ONLY TAKE CREDIT FOR THE FORMER.

[/rant]

(Note to mods: Can we make that a feature?)

So you say "What a lie. and you all believe it." Apparently a lie, to you, is any combiantion of words used in such as way as to challenge your simplified and useless version of the universe and that makes you uncomforable. The concocting of such sentences has to be stopped even if you have to quote people out of context that don't agree with you in any way, shape or form.

Any response to my long post above where I told about the many other scientific findings that support evolution? The stuff that you think assumes evolution to be true before it is even discovered/researched, etc. The giraffes neck thingy. Any comments?

Note: Feel free to misquote me in your next effort to diss evolution. It'll be so much easier for me. I won't have to do your research for you because I'll already know the source. I would really appreciate it.

(No fair Azdgari! You finished before me. I hope you rot in a casket after you die! And you too jaimehiers. I called dibs on him first!  ;D)

Edit: rewrote a couple of things and fixed some typos. Couldn't do a damned thing about the color.
Edit: Found more things to fix. I shouldn't write when it's this late. But mainly because it bothers others here at the home. In the morning they'll be running over me with their wheelchairs.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2012, 02:19:16 AM by ParkingPlaces »
Jesus, the cracker flavored treat!

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12543
  • Darwins +301/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolution Explained
« Reply #366 on: February 15, 2012, 01:53:31 AM »
I do find it entertaining that we all finished our posts within 10 minutes of each other.  ;D
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6750
  • Darwins +817/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • If you are religious, you are misconcepted
Re: Evolution Explained
« Reply #367 on: February 15, 2012, 02:01:04 AM »
Methinks we need some collaboration software so we could work together on some of this stuff. That would be fun.
Jesus, the cracker flavored treat!

Online wright

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1997
  • Darwins +85/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "Sleep like a log, snore like a chainsaw."
Re: Evolution Explained
« Reply #368 on: February 15, 2012, 02:03:01 AM »

"microevolution and macro evolution might invlove selection at different levels". No duh. Yet you see in the explanation the claim that all is needed in time. Huh? Looks like a case of someone covering their butt.

You've been shown evidence of how the small, incremental changes predicted by evolutionary theory do add up to larger ones. Your turn: explain how "microevolution" cannot result in "macroevolution" over time. And provide evidence.

All fossils are transitional fossils? (if you assume evolution to be true) All the other sciences point to evolution? (only if you assume evolution to be true)
What happens to Scientist who do not toe the party line claiming "evolution is true". They are thrown out and mocked. Why, because like I claimed earlier, evidence that doesn't support evolution is discarded. You only keep the parts that agree with you.

Science is a self-correcting and competitive enterprise, rhocam. You really need to grasp this. Scientists compete for academic / research positions, grant money and getting experimental results published first, to name just three areas.

Especially now, there are millions of experts working in areas directly bearing on the Theory of Evolution (ToE). If there was evidence that could offer the ToE serious competition, there would be an explosion of interest; the prestige to be gained by rewriting the basis of modern biology would be immense.

Filling in the gaps is speculation. Yet you do it and call it science. You look at the evidence and speculate what should have happened to fill in the gaps. I claim there were no gaps. God created each species. There is no need for stop gaps.

Please be specific: what gaps? The gaps that you've shoved your god into as science has progressively shown he need not be invoked as an explanation? As Astreja said, you can claim this all you like. But without evidence to back it up, that's all it will ever be.

I quote Emile Zuckerkandl "The general foundations for the evolution of 'higher' from 'lower' organisms seems so far to have largely eluded analysis". eluded analysis.  How can you make a theory out of something you can't even analyze?

That is almost certainly a quote-mine, a sadly common creationist tactic of lying-by-omission. So we can be sure this isn't the case, please provide the original source and complete quote.

I quote Japanese mathematical biologist Motoo Kimura "The natural theory asserts that the great majority of evolutionary changes at the molecular level, as revealed by comparative studies of proteins and DNA sequences, not by Darwinian selection but by random drift of selectively neutral or nearly neutral mutations."
Let me explain the importance of this. If what this scientist claims is true, then Darwinism is false. Do you explore the possibility of this? No he is written off. (didn't toe the line)

It's not clear what you mean by "Darwinism", but Kimura's work does not throw the ToE into doubt. On the contrary, it is a refinement and expansion of the ToE into the field of molecular evolution.

What a lie. and you all believe it. But I guess like you argued earlier, I am only a christian because I was born in North America. Therefore you must be evolutionists because you went to school in North America?

I said before: I didn't expect you to accept the evidence. But that is not the fault of the evidence.

Be careful about making blanket statements. There are quite a few regulars here who have been educated and live outside the US. Not to mention the ToE is often "watered down" in public schools in the US due to the opposition of willfully ignorant people like you.
Live a good life... If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. I am not afraid.
--Marcus Aurelius

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12543
  • Darwins +301/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolution Explained
« Reply #369 on: February 15, 2012, 02:29:31 AM »
Late to the show, wright.  Tsk, tsk.
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Online wright

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1997
  • Darwins +85/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "Sleep like a log, snore like a chainsaw."
Re: Evolution Explained
« Reply #370 on: February 15, 2012, 03:01:54 AM »
Late to the show, wright.  Tsk, tsk.

Apologies.  :'(
Live a good life... If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. I am not afraid.
--Marcus Aurelius

Offline rhocam

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 62
  • Darwins +0/-13
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Evolution Explained
« Reply #371 on: February 15, 2012, 03:43:28 AM »
I am waiting. evolution is built by you. so defend it now. Where are your transitional forms, The gradual transition needed by darwinism? I didn't make the theory of evolution. I am challenging it. So take me beyond speculation and presumption then.
Where is the "crocoduc" as you mock me with. Or give me good reason to beleive that amoeba to men is possible!!

If science is observable, where is your evidence?

I will respond to this and only this

Every single fossil ever found, is transitional.  Every single one.  I'm done watching you make this thread into a joke and a mockery of actual science, so start engaging properly, or find yourself moderated for trolling.

Jetson


oooh, i'm scared, evolution is the mockery of science. allow me to illustrate

"It is the aim of science to establish general rules which determine the reciprocal connection of objects and events in time and space. For these rules, or laws of nature, absolutely general validity is required — not proven."

Albert Einstein, in Science, Philosophy and Religion, A Symposium, 1941.

the standard phylogenetic tree indicates that mammals gradually evolved from a reptile-like ancestor, and that transitional species must have existed which were morphologically intermediate between reptiles and mammals—even though none are found living today. However, there are significant morphological differences between modern reptiles and modern mammals. Bones, of course, are what fossilize most readily, and that is where we look for transitional species from the past.
Theobald, Douglas L. "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent." The Talk.Origins Archive. Vers. 2.83. 2004. 12 Jan, 2004 <http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/>

he·red·i·ty
? ?[huh-red-i-tee] Show IPA

noun, plural -ties. Biology .
1.
the transmission of genetic characters from parents to offspring: it is dependent upon the segregation and recombination of genes during meiosis and fertilization and results in the genesis of a new individual similar to others of its kind but exhibiting certain variations resulting from the particular mix of genes and their interactions with the environment.

2.
the genetic characters so transmitted.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Heredity

Evolution by means of natural selection is the process by which genetic mutations that enhance reproduction become and remain, more common in successive generations of a population. It has often been called a "self-evident" mechanism because it necessarily follows from three simple facts:
 Heritable variation exists within populations of organisms.
 Organisms produce more offspring than can survive.
 These offspring vary in their ability to survive and reproduce.
 
These conditions produce competition between organisms for survival and reproduction. Consequently, organisms with traits that give them an advantage over their competitors pass these advantageous traits on, while traits that do not confer an advantage are not passed on to the next generation.[87]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Mechanisms

These three staples of evolution cannot work at the same time. Therefore my statement regarding evolution and ignoring science stands.

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6210
  • Darwins +411/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolution Explained
« Reply #372 on: February 15, 2012, 03:57:24 AM »
I am waiting. evolution is built by you. so defend it now. Where are your transitional forms

Rhocam, you have been asked several times to clarify what you are asking for.  In your own words, please detail what you mean by a "transitional form". 

I want you to do this in your own words, without copy & pasting quotes, to begin to demonstrate that you understand what you are asking for.
 
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6210
  • Darwins +411/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolution Explained
« Reply #373 on: February 15, 2012, 04:00:55 AM »
These three staples of evolution cannot work at the same time. Therefore my statement regarding evolution and ignoring science stands.

In addition, I want you to explain, in your own words, what YOU believe the theory of evolution states.  Again, no with copy and paste.

By saying what you believe the theory is, I promise nobody will take it as admission that you believe it is true.  When you have explained the theory in your own words, you will then please highlight in which part of it you believe the errors or problems lie.
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline DumpsterFire

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 383
  • Darwins +61/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • The Flaming Duck of Death!
Re: Evolution Explained
« Reply #374 on: February 15, 2012, 06:44:59 AM »

 How can you make a theory out of something you can't even analyze?


Just thought I'd point out how utterly hypocritical this statement is from someone whose entire belief system is based on stuff that can't be scientifically analyzed.
Providing rednecks with sunblock since 1996.

I once met a man who claimed to be a genius, then boasted that he was a member of "Mesa".

Think for yourself.

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7312
  • Darwins +170/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: Evolution Explained
« Reply #375 on: February 15, 2012, 06:55:19 AM »
I am waiting. evolution is built by you. so defend it now. Where are your transitional forms, The gradual transition needed by darwinism? I didn't make the theory of evolution. I am challenging it. So take me beyond speculation and presumption then.
Where is the "crocoduc" as you mock me with. Or give me good reason to beleive that amoeba to men is possible!!

If science is observable, where is your evidence?

I will respond to this and only this

Every single fossil ever found, is transitional.  Every single one.  I'm done watching you make this thread into a joke and a mockery of actual science, so start engaging properly, or find yourself moderated for trolling.

Jetson


oooh, i'm scared, evolution is the mockery of science. allow me to illustrate

[snip]

These three staples of evolution cannot work at the same time. Therefore my statement regarding evolution and ignoring science stands.

rhocam,

What you are seeing in bold green indicates that you are getting direct attention from the forum moderators.  Usually, this amounts to reminders about forum rules, or general etiquette that you agreed to abide by when you registered. 

In your case, you are failing to provide any falsification of the Theory of Evolution, nor support for your opinion in any way.  And while it is OK to have an opinion that disagrees with the theory, it is not OK to continue posting a simple opinion, with no supporting facts or evidence, while other members are providing detailed and thoughtful, well supported replies.

As a member with opposing opinions on well established scientific principles, methods, and theories, it is actually your obligation to support your opinion, or simply step out of the conversation and admit that you simply disagree.  This will be the last in thread moderator reply from me, as it also detracts from the topic of the thread.

What happens next is up to you!  Feel free to PM myself, or any moderator with questions or concerns.

Jetson

Offline Brad the Bold

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 106
  • Darwins +17/-0
Re: Evolution Explained
« Reply #376 on: February 15, 2012, 07:56:40 AM »
I quote Japanese mathematical biologist Motoo Kimura "The natural theory asserts that the great majority of evolutionary changes at the molecular level, as revealed by comparative studies of proteins and DNA sequences, not by Darwinian selection but by random drift of selectively neutral or nearly neutral mutations."
Let me explain the importance of this. If what this scientist claims is true, then Darwinism is false. Do you explore the possibility of this? No he is written off. (didn't toe the line)

What a lie. and you all believe it. But I guess like you argued earlier, I am only a christian because I was born in North America. Therefore you must be evolutionists because you went to school in North America?

What Kimura is say is true. The great majority of mutation is not selected upon.

He does not say that there are no changes that are selected upon. Which is how you interpret it.

Here's an analogy of your reasoning.

Me: Statistical theory proves that the great majority of lottery tickets will not match any of the 6 numbers.
You: If what you say is true, no one will ever win the lottery.

But it turns out that that background of "random drift" in DNA outside of genes can be useful to establish evolutionary relationships. Since that rate of mutation progresses at a constant rate over long periods of time, mitochondrial DNA can be used to estimate the time that has passed since existing species diverged from a common ancestor.

Cool huh?