Evolution is so illogical it has to be a conspiracy

a reply to: Quadrivium

Yes "macro" evolution is settled science. Genetic mutations sorted by environmental changes for tens of millions of years. Don't be confused by human made classifications of organisms. Constant change happens. More time + lots of environmental changes = long term evolution. There is nothing different or special about it.

originally posted by: tsingtao

originally posted by: vasaga

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: vasaga

Then we are in agreement then. Like I said evolution is real, god being real has no evidence for or against it. Evolution makes no claims against god and can even co-exist alongside god as a how life develops.

So what's your point?

Evolution is real regardless if god exists or not.

I disagree that random mutations and natural selection are solely responsible for all the diversity of life on this planet, especially in regards with 'primitive' creatures like sponges to 'complex' creatures like whales and butterflies.

I'll be leaving this here too:

i like that vid.

i'll watch one of his longer vids tonite.

Well, it's nice to see someone who's open-minded once in a while. That video is an excerpt from the presentation called "Where Mind and Matter Meet". You can find the whole thing on YouTube. Another good one from him is "As Above So Below".

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: vasaga

It's a simple question, Vasaga. Why is 20 million years not enough time for evolution of life at the time?

whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com...

Here's an article that explains this paper:

arxiv.org...

I believe this is the experiment that Quad referenced. The one that shows there is plenty of time for evolution. Or maybe it doesn't? If you've got better numbers, I'd be interested in seeing them.. or at least make some kind of argument.

I'll try to look at it later tonight, or tomorrow, IF I have time.

a reply to: Barcs
Settled?
According to evolution all life has a single common ancestor. A group of single celled organism.
As these branched out and speciated, they eventually became all we see around us.
As they become land animals and start speciating, during the Cambrian explosion, to become the multitude of land animals, where is the evidence?
Did one group speciate and come ashore first?
Several groups?
Thousands?
We should find evidence of this in the fossil record.
If this were the case where is the proof? Show me.

a reply to: Quadrivium

2 things that would really help your argument.

1. Use paragraphs instead of random one liner thoughts and questions. We have no clue what points you are trying to make, and what justifications you are using to make them. It would be much easier to read and respond to your posts.

2. Make an actual argument. You are asking stuff that that really has nothing to do with my posts, most of it can easily be looked up. Where is WHAT evidence? Please be more specific. The Cambrian explosion was in the oceans, by the way, it had nothing to do with land animals. The first land plants didn't show up until 500mya, which is 50-100 million years later.

The answer to your question is amphibians, who had the ability to survive both on land AND in the water.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: vasaga

It's a simple question, Vasaga. Why is 20 million years not enough time for evolution of life at the time?

whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com...

Here's an article that explains this paper:

arxiv.org...

I believe this is the experiment that Quad referenced. The one that shows there is plenty of time for evolution. Or maybe it doesn't? If you've got better numbers, I'd be interested in seeing them.. or at least make some kind of argument.

Interesting. I have one 'issue' with it. It's assuming there are mutations that do nothing, and mutations that give benefits. Where are the mutations that cause degradation or that are destructive?

originally posted by: vasaga

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: vasaga

It's a simple question, Vasaga. Why is 20 million years not enough time for evolution of life at the time?

whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com...

Here's an article that explains this paper:

arxiv.org...

I believe this is the experiment that Quad referenced. The one that shows there is plenty of time for evolution. Or maybe it doesn't? If you've got better numbers, I'd be interested in seeing them.. or at least make some kind of argument.

Interesting. I have one 'issue' with it. It's assuming there are mutations that do nothing, and mutations that give benefits. Where are the mutations that cause degradation or that are destructive?

Destructive die out. It can probably be assumed that the destructive traits fall under the "died of natural causes" label. The idea is to track what keeps an animal alive longer, not what may kill it quicker.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Destructive die out. It can probably be assumed that the destructive traits fall under the "died of natural causes" label. The idea is to track what keeps an animal alive longer, not what may kill it quicker.

It doesn't work that way. When you're trying to assess how progress has been made, you can't simply ignore the detrimental mutations.

I'll give a simple analogy. Let's say I have a dice, and let's say the number 6 is beneficial, 1 is detrimental, and the rest is neutral. This assumes the same chance for a mutation to be either detrimental or beneficial, which is a stretch in and of itself since there are more detrimental mutations than beneficial ones.
If I throw the dice 100 times, and I get a 6 around 15 times, and a 1 also around 15 times, think of the implications.

If I assume the number 1 which represents a detrimental mutation as neutral also, within those 100 changes, I got 15 beneficial mutations. Progress is definitely arguable.
If I assume the number 1 is detrimental (like it actually is), within those 100 changes, I might have gotten 15 beneficial mutations, but also 15 degenerative ones. Can we then really say that progress has been made?

This all happens before the animal gets a chance to die or and spread his genes or whatever. We're talking about mutations in the genes here. Not about which animal gets eaten afterwards that fails to spread his genes. This makes a huge difference in the end result. It either makes the progress a LOT slower, or even impossible.

originally posted by: tsingtao
i like that vid.

i'll watch one of his longer vids tonite.

I forgot to mention also, that is an example of intelligent design without having any direct relation to any God whatsoever.

a reply to: vasaga

If you have a few billion dice at your disposal the odds become a moot point.

a reply to: GetHyped

No matter how many dice you have, the ratio of beneficial and detrimental mutations stays the same.

a reply to: vasaga

And? The ones that live long enough to successfully reproduce are the ones that count.

>>
I might have gotten 15 beneficial mutations, but also 15 degenerative ones. Can we then really say that progress has been made?
>>

Yes of course. Because the beneficial mutations will sustain, have some benefit/advantage...the degenerative ones won't.
The "system" is AUTO CORRECTING itself, it would not even need an intelligence behind the dice-throw. At the end, the advantageous mutation will be the one remaining.

(Throw a bunch of rabbits in a field, 10 of them can run fast but 100s can not. Now add some large birds who are hunting the rabbits. Which rabbits would you think would have survived, given some +100s of years gone by...if you come back to the field where you released the rabbits? Those rabbits who had problems running...or the faster ones? "Progress" has been made and the species adapted well, even if the mutation itself was a random thing to occur.)

originally posted by: vasagaIt doesn't work that way. When you're trying to assess how progress has been made, you can't simply ignore the detrimental mutations.

I'll give a simple analogy. Let's say I have a dice, and let's say the number 6 is beneficial, 1 is detrimental, and the rest is neutral. This assumes the same chance for a mutation to be either detrimental or beneficial, which is a stretch in and of itself since there are more detrimental mutations than beneficial ones.
If I throw the dice 100 times, and I get a 6 around 15 times, and a 1 also around 15 times, think of the implications.

But it is too hard to track that. I mean we can't know if a mutation directly caused the animal to die or not. The idea is to track the ones that are beneficial. It's generally implied that if it doesn't help it survive longer, it is neutral or a failed mutation. It's just the best way to look at the evidence.

Consider this, every generation mutates slightly from their parents. Only a select few mutate something beneficial to help them survive longer. Literally every mutation that doesn't help a species survive longer is a failed mutation.

If I assume the number 1 which represents a detrimental mutation as neutral also, within those 100 changes, I got 15 beneficial mutations. Progress is definitely arguable.
If I assume the number 1 is detrimental (like it actually is), within those 100 changes, I might have gotten 15 beneficial mutations, but also 15 degenerative ones. Can we then really say that progress has been made?

Degenerative? What does that even mean? If it kills it, it is just a failed mutation.

This all happens before the animal gets a chance to die or and spread his genes or whatever. We're talking about mutations in the genes here. Not about which animal gets eaten afterwards that fails to spread his genes. This makes a huge difference in the end result. It either makes the progress a LOT slower, or even impossible.

I don't care how the animal died. The point is, that it didn't live longer to spread its genes. It's a failed mutation. End of story.

a reply to: vasaga

The study is about the beneficial mutations, since they are the ones that are still alive today on earth. The question that the study answered was, 'Is there enough time to account for the evolutionary diversity we see on earth today'. The detrimental are not ignored, they just don't play a role in the diversity of life today, aside from the creature dying out and making way for them. According to the scientific calculations, there is plenty of time for the results of mutations that we see on earth today. Some folks are so quick to mention "Cambrian explosion" but do not back up their argument with anything whatsoever aside from catch phrases like, "It was so sudden".

originally posted by: Prezbo369


This assumes that the evidence for both claims is equal, that there is as much evidence and as many reasons to believe creation as there is 'what-have-you', and there just isn't. Such an assumption shows a level of ignorance on the topic.

And you know this websites motto right?

As to whether there is the same AMOUNT of evidence for both sides of the coin....Why would that matter?

In a court of law just because I don't have an overwhelming amount of evidence against the plaintiff doesn't mean we can't convict him....If I have DNA the case is pretty well open and shut...regardless of how much "evidence" the defense wants to throw my way....

To assume that because you may have "more" evidence validates your ideologies more than one who has "less" evidence...WELL

Such an assumption shows a level of ignorance on the topic.

A2D

a reply to: Agree2Disagree

Science isn't a court of law (which is a very flawed system in the first place). Science is a method of fact gathering. Either the results of the experiments prove something, or they do not.

So yes, the side with the most evidence is usually right, especially when it's as lopsided as evolution vs creationism (which is not even a debate, nor are terms mutually exclusive, it's just a farce that creationists continue to perpetuate on this forum). The evolution side has DNA, the fossil record, the entire fields of biology and genetics. Creationism has ancient myths that are believed by faith. It doesn't have to be one or the other but to think creationism stands on equal footing as evolution or that it's just as valid is laughably absurd. There is zero objective evidence of any creation process or entity. There is zero evidence of any god. Absence of evidence doesn't prove anything, but the biggest issue is creationists attack evolution because of their faith. Denial of evolution in 2014, is akin to denial of gravity. It just doesn't add up. If creationists would stop attacking a field of science, and instead actually learn about it, they might actually learn something. Evolutionary biologists don't show up at church services protesting how wrong it is, so creationists should show them the same respect and realize that they are trying to figure out the answers. It is a genuine search for knowledge, while creationists think they already have it figured out and a good amount of them refuse to even acknowledge the evidence presented. I feel that is the biggest problem.

It's not about more and less evidence. It's about TONS of evidence VS no evidence, and even in a flawed court system where a jury ultimate decides your fate, the side with evidence wins. Evolution HAS the DNA evidence. It is not an ideology, it is a scientific theory. If you were comparing 2 perspectives or philosophies on spirituality you'd have a point, but you're essentially comparing proven science to a belief system which is completely illogical.

a reply to: Barcs

Sorry for any confusion barcs (Night shift and no sleep). The post made perfect sense to me lol. But I understand that you can not flip through the pages of my mind for the information. So......
Basically what I was saying is that the fossil record does not show macro-evolution. According to evolution, As luca speciated during the Cambrian explosion (or before) it devided into several different groups. One of the questions I had for you was: do you believe one group (amphibians) came ashore first, several groups or thousands of different groups?
Keep in mind, these groups or group became all the land life we see around us today. When these groups started moving onto land and slowly started changing into different genus they had to leave behind some fossils. I know fossils are rare but as these animals slowly changed to different genus we would see some sign of it, wouldn't we?
Also, I understand that all it takes is a google search but there is no discussion if we just look for other's answers. I enjoy the discussion, in my opinion, we learn more by bouncing our ideas off of one another.
Quad

a reply to: Quadrivium

Okay, thanks. I understand perfectly now. You are looking for specific fossils that show the early transition from sea to land.

4.bp.blogspot.com...

Here's a pretty good one that's based on the main fossils found. Obviously we don't have every single one, but it seems pretty obvious that they slowly changed, especially when you look at Tiktaalik and Acanthostega.

chem.tufts.edu...

This goes into greater detail.

en.wikipedia.org...

This link has all of the "transitional" fossils, but I highlighted the section for Amphibians to reptiles. I couldn't find a better list for them.

originally posted by: NoRulesAllowed
>>
I might have gotten 15 beneficial mutations, but also 15 degenerative ones. Can we then really say that progress has been made?
>>

Yes of course. Because the beneficial mutations will sustain, have some benefit/advantage...the degenerative ones won't.
The "system" is AUTO CORRECTING itself, it would not even need an intelligence behind the dice-throw. At the end, the advantageous mutation will be the one remaining.

(Throw a bunch of rabbits in a field, 10 of them can run fast but 100s can not. Now add some large birds who are hunting the rabbits. Which rabbits would you think would have survived, given some +100s of years gone by...if you come back to the field where you released the rabbits? Those rabbits who had problems running...or the faster ones? "Progress" has been made and the species adapted well, even if the mutation itself was a random thing to occur.)

Maybe. But remember, this whole discussion started regarding the cambrian explosion. Rabbits that run faster or slower and get eaten or not, still don't explain how a lot of new functions were formed during the cambrian explosion. It only explains how a group of rabbits over time become faster.

a reply to: Quadrivium

Here we have not just transitional fossils between one species to the next, but the whole pattern of this foraminifera phylum laid out in great detail.

Evolution at sea
Complete Fossil Record from the Ocean Upholds Darwin's Gradualism

Paleontologists made the prediction that a transitional form between modern fishes and modern amphibians must exist. A shining example of an evolutionary prediction is the discovery of Tiktaalik.

Discovery of new Tiktaalik roseae fossils reveals key link in evolution of hind limbs

What is especially cool about Tiktaalik is that the researchers, Edward B. Daeschler, Neil H. Shubin and Farish A. Jenkins, predicted that they would discover something like Tiktaalik. These paleontologists made the prediction that such a transitional form must exist in order to bridge the gap between fish and amphibians. Even more, they predicted that such a species should exist in the late Devonian period, about 375 million years ago.

Are there any comparable (or indeed any) creationist predictions which have been verified?

So they spent several years digging through the earth on Ellesmere Island in Northern Canada, because geological and paleontological evidence suggested that exposed strata there was from the late Devonian. They predicted that, according to evolutionary theory, at this time in history a creature should have existed that was morphologically transitional between fish and amphibians. They found Tiktaalik - a “fishopod,” beautifully transitional between fish and amphibians.

Here's the evolutionary timeline fromwiki: supported by the fossil record.

In its 4.6 billion years circling the sun, the Earth has harbored an increasing diversity of life forms:

for the last 3.6 billion years, simple cells (prokaryotes);
for the last 3.4 billion years, cyanobacteria performing photosynthesis;
for the last 2 billion years, complex cells (eukaryotes);
for the last 1 billion years, multicellular life;
for the last 600 million years, simple animals;
for the last 550 million years, bilaterians, animals with a front and a back;
for the last 500 million years, fish and proto-amphibians;
for the last 475 million years, land plants;
for the last 400 million years, insects and seeds;
for the last 360 million years, amphibians;
for the last 300 million years, reptiles;
for the last 200 million years, mammals;
for the last 150 million years, birds;
for the last 130 million years, flowers;
for the last 60 million years, the primates,
for the last 20 million years, the family Hominidae (great apes);
for the last 2.5 million years, the genus Homo (human predecessors); for the last 200,000 years, anatomically modern humans.

Let's look at the evolution of mammals:
You can start here at REPTILOMORPHA:
en.wikipedia.org...

SYNAPSIDA are descendants of reptiliomorphs:
en.wikipedia.org...

THERAPSIDA are descendants of synapsids:
en.wikipedia.org...

CYNODONTIA are descendants of therapsids:
en.wikipedia.org...

MAMMALIFORMES are descendants of cynodonts:
en.wikipedia.org...

MAMMALS are descendants of mammaliaformes:
en.wikipedia.org...

THERIA are descendants of mammals:
en.wikipedia.org...

EUTHERIA are descendants of therians:
en.wikipedia.org...

All descendants of eutherians are still eutherians (which are still therians, which are still mammals, which are still mammaliaformes, which are still cynodonts, which are still therapsids, which are still synapsids, which are still reptiliomorphs).

We have gone from reptilian ancestors to placental mammals (which includes you and me and bears, but not alligators and kangaroos). In the process we see:

* the jaw is transformed from a three bone structure to a single bone structure,
*the teeth are transformed into different types,
*the skull bones are transformed to create arches,

I have seen a great deal of compelling evidence, all of it pointing to evolution. I can't tell you where your journey through that evidence should take you. All I can do is encourage you to keep looking, with an open mind.
I hope this makes it clearer for you.

Barcs and flyingfish,
That's A LOT of info. Gonna take a bit to go through it. I have a side job to do today for a client but I will try and get back to you as soon as possible. Luckily most of the info looks repetitive so far. That should cut down on the reading .
Quad