Denial of evolution III

There are numerous "worthless" or vestigial parts on all sorts of creatures. A brief internet search reveals that some species of python use the spurs to stimulate ovulation in the female.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Take a stock of your own genome. It has a set of spot mutations which exist only in certain cells and no where else. There could be an argument made that the mutations aren't random as much as deterministic in a very complex manner, but random quantum effects have been shown to effect protein folding, so I'd say that there exists a certain amount of TRUE randomness in genetic mutations, as well as very complex deterministic ones.

Are you suggesting that the ability to communicate is a human-only trait? Communication, via symbolic verbal language, symbolic non-verbal language, or non-symbolic emotional displays are very common across the animal kingdom.

How likely is a it that a species of animal with a simple 'brain' managed to develop a symbolic communication system? Well, first we have to determine if they did so through conscious means or hard-coded unconscious means; the first is much less likely than the second. then we need to realize that the chances of either are infinitesimally small, but when repeated trillions of times a second across the galaxy over trillions of years, "really unlikely" becomes a near guarantee. The chances of you winning the lottery are worthlessly small, but the chances of *some person* winning the lottery are 100%.

You have mis-applied the theory of evolution beyond its boundries. Evolution deals with abiogensis to the same degree that astrophsyics describes why I perfer the color green.

This isn't even a poor arguement, it's a completely invalid one because of your erronous understanding of what the Theory of Evolution actually claims. This explains why it seems silly to you - the version of evolution in your mind *is* silly, and should be rejected.

The report I heard was on NPR http://www.npr.org/2010/12/31/132523398/What-Happens-When-Leaf-Cutters-Cant-Cut-It
The paper itself is appearently not available yet, but will be in the next issue of Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, and is authored by Robert Schofield of the University of Oregon.

It has been observed, in both the lab and in the wild. this is why the term 'Macro-evolution' is rarely used these days - there's nothing structurally different between macro- and micro-evolution; speciation just requires enough accumulated mutations such that interbreed stops.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

This is incorrect. I have a theory which says that I exist. I have another theory that you exist. I mainly base this on the premise that I exist, and the evidence that nothing other than humans like me write forum posts, and I have no memory of posting that for you.

This doesn't prove that you exist, because I can't prove that I exist. what this shows, is that my theory that you exist is well supported enough that I'm bothering to write this sentence with the expectation that you will read it.

Logic is also inherently incomplete. One cannot prove the correctness of logic with logic, therefor everything we do must rely on the perponderence of evidence, and not an appeal to proof. Absolute proof is a phantom when modeling the natural world.

Firstoff, there is evidence that the earth is round; tons of it. that doesn't mean it was proven to be round. Speciation has likewise been observed and recorded, and thus evolution is as "proven" as a round earth - there's tons and tons of evidence for it.

Evolution and a strict interpretation of the bible are incompatible. Many Christian sects don't view the message as inerrant; as such, Genesis can be alegory, and not in violation of the observed fact of evolution.

Being able to imaginge an anternative route for the creation of an organ isn't a falsifiablility test. To falsify evolution, you need to show that an organ could *not* have come about by evolution, thus showing the theory to be false. Have you read the Origin of Species? Darwin points out a number of obvious ways to falsify the theory right in the book; why not grab one and falsify the theory?

Why should a scientist be nuetral to a position backed by evidence when presented with a concept without backing evidence? There are an infinite number of possible stories about how the variety of life on this planet came about; are scientists supposed to place all of this stories on the same playing field of likelihood? Even the ones involving the green potato overlord and his minions of tele-bots?

Exactly.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I know I never said speciation.
I said macro evolution has never been observed. We have never directly observed the reconfiguration of one animal into a completely different creature.

An implicit theory will not effectively prove a contradiction.

If it was allegory then the detailed lineages of the bible are completely false and that would seem to effect a radical incompatibility.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The evolution of the moving goalposts. "Macroevolution" means evolution at the species level or above. We have directly seen speciation occur. To form a new genus, or even higher up the tree? Of course we haven't seen such an event, directly. How could we? This is a process that takes place over thousands to millions of years.

We have observed such events indirectly in the form of fossils. Many times over. Fossils do count as evidence, Saquist. Neither science nor the law ascribes to the nonsensical Saquist rules of science and the law.

 

Nearly have:

The Santa Catarina's Guinea Pig, Cavia intermedia, also known as the Moleques do Sul Guinea Pig is a guinea pig species from South America. It is found in Brazil on the small island of Moleques do Sul in the state of Santa Catarina. The island has a surface area of only 10.5 ha, the Guinea Pig's geographical distribution of only 4 ha is one of the world's smallest for a mammal. From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Catarina's_Guinea_Pig
{Note the tiny island is about 90% bare rocks – very little food –extreme environment pressure for 8000 years.}

“… We can know with certainity that the evolution of a new species of mammals (called preá) in only 8000 years has occurred at least once. …
For it to happen the gene pool was very tiny (not more than 40 animals); there were no predators who might eat the better adapted animal before it could reproduce; the entire population was under great stress for all of the 8000 years, literally on the edge of extinction, so any slight advantage was very significant aid to not being among those that starved to death. Obviously scientists were not observing 8000 years ago, but we are certain the sea level was lower then and that the tiny island these mammals live on now was part of a much larger island back then. Thus, back then they were an interbreeding part of a large population, which still exist, with little survival stress. Thus, when the sea level rose, we know they were isolated - an essential requirement for evolutionary divergence to produce a new species. …” Above from: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2208297&postcount=172
--------------
Below from: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2205207&postcount=83

“…There are approximately 40 little animals, called Preá in Portuguese, living on tiny island called Moleques do Sul, which is about 8 km separated for a much larger Island called Florianopolis that have been studied by Pontifica Universidade Católic under leadership of Sandro Bonatto.

About 8000 years ago, these two islands were one as the sea level was much lower. The tiny island is about the size of a football field and mainly rocks. But has some grass on ~10% of it.

These Preá are so inbreed that DNA tests (type used in Brazil to determine disputed paternity, at least) cannot determine any differences. They are about half the size of the main island animals they evolved from during 8000 years of separation. Smaller size was favored by selection because of the very limited food supply. They are the only mammals on the tiny island and have no predators. - I.e. population is limited only by the lack of food for more than 40 but probably has been slightly increasing as they evolved to be ever smaller each 1000 years. (Probably no more than 20 of them lived after the connection to the main island was cut off 8000 years ago by the melting ice.)

They are now a new species (Cavia Intermedia) but closely related to Cavia Magna of the main island. They are about the size and shape of a small rat, but with a face that looks much like a monkey, or even human, and fur covered (except the feet) with no tail. Head and back fur is brown and belly fur is whitish grey.

Until they were discovered it was not thought by experts that a population of only 40 animals max could survive for thousands of years. They have, no doubt, lived all that time on the edge of extinction and practiced incestual mating with no ill effects, at least for the last 6000 or 7000 years. They are all now genetic identical. The ill effected off springs of inbreeding were selected out long ago as all live hungry on the edge of extinction at least in the mild winters. (Perhaps, like bears, they store fat during the summers - just my guess, not mentioned in the paper.)

Their tiny island is part of a state park, now with special protection - only qualified researchers can legally visit, but some fishing boats do at times. The great fear is that one will leave a cat on the island. - Then this recently evolved new species will go extinct.

There is a photo of one being held, belly up, easily in the palm of a hand on page A14 of the Folio de Paulo of 18 March 2009. ... These preá are sooo cute, with their little quasi-human quasi-monkey faces* peering out from great spread of surrounding facial hair. I bet they would make great pets. For protection of the species I hope some of the researchers think so also and steal a few for breading on the mainland and eventual sale as pets, before some fisherman's cat eats them all in less than a month.

-----------
*The mostly hair free face is about the size of a lady's thumb nail, with no "snout." The eyes are slightly slanted, like an oriental's. If the nose has two opening, they are very close together. In photo the nearly flat nose and mouth look like an inverted T in a pink skin completely hairless area. I cannot be sure from the photo, but they appear to have only three strong toes. They are at the end of a a relatively long foot in the hind legs. - sort of like a rabbit's foot. I bet they do a lot of leaping hops over the rocks more than walking. The forelimbs are only half as large. They must have ears, but they are lost in the facial hair which makes their tiny heads appear to be almost as wide as their bodies. - No neck is visible.

-----------------

From post 131 of that thread:
“… The tiny red dot is where the preá are found (all 40 or 42 of them). The much larger island just north of their island is what I called the "bigger island." The "preá island" was connected to the bigger island until about 8000 years ago. …

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

If map is not showing go here: http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/136520/0
Then click on the global map at red square one page down (not on the smaller version on top left of first page)

The preá look somewhat like a normal gunnea pig but imagine that the face were flat (Nose snout pushed back. Nose and mouth directly under the eyes - more human like) with mouth, nose and eyes all closer together in tiny hairless spot and much more facial hair expaning outward especially to the sides. Perhaps their whiskers increased more than 100 fold in number and some emerge very close to the eyes. The face looks like the animal had stuck its tiny face thru a little window in mass of hair that completely hides its ears. I am just speculating of course, but perhaps that facial hair IS many whiskers - that would be useful for crawling thru natural tunnels or spaces between and under the rocks quickly in the dark without hitting your head. Most of their island is rocks. Thus the two main adaptaions externally visible are be smaller (to eat less) and have more hard contact sensors around your face.

 

This is just a new species, not a "completely different creature" (Saquist's words). Saquist said

Speciation events have been discussed in this thread. Saquist has moved the macroevolution goalposts so as to exclude speciation events, including the preá.

 

What is meant by "evolution"?
It can be understood by more efficient, better or superior?
The first was the bacteria?From there we "evolved"?
Last in the food chain is not also the bacteria?
The virus is not a masterpiece of simplicity and efficiency?
Our body is able to identify and create antibodies to viruses.
Human intelligence is capable of that?
I would not dare to guarantee, I know the mechanism that led to the diversification of life on earth.

 

Not at all. Speciation is a consideration of both macro evolution and micro evolution. It is transitory. Speciation does not represent the complete spectrum of macro evolution. The informal fallacy you've invoked would have the symbolic goalpost in the neutral zone. One foot in one territory and one foot in the other. The 50 yard line isn't the goalline area so speciation can not be a line of demarcation for the touchdown. Now some kickers can make a 57 yarder but to make that specific argument in the face of a general truth would be a fallacy of it's own even if every situation isn't represented by the by the generality.

 

No Speciation is a macro-evolutionary event, its defined as such:

http://www.life.illinois.edu/bio100/lectures/sp98lects/24s98macro.html
"The process by which new species are produced from earlier ones. This is the process of evolution at the species level or above."

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html
"macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means at least the splitting of a species into two"

http://www.suite101.com/content/macroevolution-and-speciation-a192483
"Macroevolution refers to the process of large-scale changes at or above the species level over long periods of time."

Well sure I guess we have not directly observed say changes in class like from fish to amphibian from amphibian to reptile, or the change in phyla from say apes to hominids. Now are you saying those events are in question? and why?

I just want to quote this silly analogy for posterity sack.

 

Two questions for Saquist:

If not from evolution, where did the “completely different” creatures (like man & monkey vs. a catfish) come from?

Do you reject the idea that man and monkey had a common ancestor a long time ago?
(I assume that you think man and monkey, despite nearly identical DNA, are “completely different” creatures, but if that assumption is wrong, tell me.)
I'm trying to understand your idea of “completely different creatures" with specific examples, but if you can define that concept it would help.

You seem to have clearly agree that what we call evolution can produce creatures with many difference,* but not “completely different creatures."

* So different that they cannot inter breed.

 

The recombination of one existing creature into an entirely new creature directly, without intermediary steps of transition and clear ancestry, would be evidence for creation, not evolution.

 

Yes, animals can clearly adapt.
However I'm careful not to jump to conclusions on apparent similarities. There is still so much we don't know. Belief is one thing, that's benefit of choice. An absolute is a high standard that shouldn't be relegated by the most accepted.

 

'True' Randomness can never be shown as pseudorandomness is always an alternative.

Peace be unto you

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Originally Posted by Billy T
Two questions for Saquist:

(1) If not from evolution, where did the “completely different” creatures (like man & monkey vs. a catfish) come from?

(2) Do you reject the idea that man and monkey had a common ancestor a long time ago?

Not even an attempt to answer either of the specific questions!

(1) Should I conclude you have no alternative to evolution (question 1) but just don't want to admit that?
AND
(2) That your have no well defined idea what you mean by “completely different creatures."
i.e. That phrase is just a meaningless "duck and weave" phrase you throw out to confuse and avoid answering other questions with?

SEE, WHEN YOU DON'T ANSWER DIRECT, SPECIFIC, QUESTIONS THAT RAISES MORE AND REDUCES YOUR CREDITABLITY.

 

I am 50-50 on the subject.

Which is the main problem evolution has...organisms evolving outside of they're own species.

 

Not a problem at all if evolution is the ONLY alternative. So I'm still asking if you have ANY alternative to evolution as the cause of there being now men, monkeys and catfish?

In case your are confused as to the form of an answer it is either:

No, evolution is the only explanation available that I know of.
OR
Yes XXXXXXX seems to me to be at least equally probable.

The question: Did man and monkey have a common ancestor long ago has three possible answers:

Yes, No, & I don't know, but admit their DNA being nearly identical is support for the "yes" answer.

Please try to answer my two questions - don't give me a third "duck and weave" reply.

 

No confusion.

Nearly identical?

Is proof of commonalities but not a common ancestor. Also you really should take into account DNA (Human Genome Project\Mapping Human Genome) is factual and known but you cannot disregarding what is unknown. Not in a supernatural sense but in a biological sense.

 

nor a clear answer to either question. Try again.

I don't remember the exact percentage of common DNA, but does it really matter if it is 97% or 98% instead of 99% ?

Agreed nearly identical DNA does not prove a common ancestor, but if there is no other reason given or even suggested, one is forced to conclude that a common ancestor is highly likely.

One can equally well say "one cannot disregard the unknowns" that only make it seem the Earth is in orbit about the sun but with that POV, nothing can be known.
After all, like evolution, that Earth orbits the sun, is only something scientist well versed in biology or gravity etc. have concluded and is in conflict with what I see every day.

 

Well your answer wouldn't score you a point in a dart game or throwing horseshoes because you came 98% close.

 

Perhaps not, if that is the rules of the game, but one could very strongly conclude that I was aiming for the target. If there is some other than "evolved from common ancestor" theory then it must also explain why it produces a "near miss" from identical DNA.

Again what is the alternative to evolution that can cause the observed nearly identical DNA?

For some the alternative is "God created the different and separate creatures as the are now and were in the past," except for minor adaptations but to trick / mislead scientists, he/she made it seem like they evolved from a common ancestor.