evolution, where is the evidence???!!! I see none

Originally posted by shaunybaby
if you want me to I'll throw in my guess.

Go ahead, we are all just speculating here until real scientific openminded scientists do some dna testing and more research.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
There's nothing to suggest this sub-species is the consequence of inter-breeding.

This is true. Same as there is no evidence of evolution.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
It seems like a close relative, but one that has lived and evolved in complete isolation from other apes. Inter-breeding is speculation, through environmental differences, similar species seem to have evolved very differently, the sub-species somewhat being at the top of the food chain. Even gorillas aren't known to be such predatory apes, so I think what we have is a seperate species, and not a hybrid.

18 months is not enough time to evaluate wether or not this new species and the chimps and gorillas have ever interacted or not.

Even though gorillas are not known to be predatory apes is not a factor here the reason being that when you take two different species of apes and mate them in the wild then we have no idea what the out come is going to be. It could take some of the mothers characteristics and mix them with the fathers and together have something so different from both of them.

Lets say that you had no insight on god/religion. You were never taught by your parents, a preacher , through school or through a book about there being a god or religion. Would you still beleive in creationism or a god for that matter? What other hard evidence would you have if you eliminated all that was drilled into your head from youth about creationism?

Originally posted by Stari
Same as there is no evidence of evolution.

Completely false statement.

Originally posted by Stari
Even though gorillas are not known to be predatory apes is not a factor here the reason being that when you take two different species of apes and mate them in the wild then we have no idea what the out come is going to be. It could take some of the mothers characteristics and mix them with the fathers and together have something so different from both of them.

When have they taken two species of ape and inter-bred them in the wild? Your hybrid theory is so speculative, yet you're willing to use it as your proof that evolution is false. So basically because you 'think' that this new species is because of chimps and gorillas inter-breeding (for which there is zero evidence) you can therefore falsefy any claims of evolution in the entire world and universe..

Originally posted by shaunybaby

Originally posted by Stari
Same as there is no evidence of evolution.

Completely false statement.

I meant that there is no proof of evolution in this story, not in the entire concept of evolution. You took what I said out of context.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
When have they taken two species of ape and inter-bred them in the wild? Your hybrid theory is so speculative, yet you're willing to use it as your proof that evolution is false. So basically because you 'think' that this new species is because of chimps and gorillas inter-breeding (for which there is zero evidence) you can therefore falsefy any claims of evolution in the entire world and universe..

Isn't speculative what we are ALL doing here? There are so many links missing in the evolutionary tree that all scientists can do is speculate about evolution. I am not using this story to prove that the over all of evolution is false I am saying that because of this story we cannot rule out hybridization as an answer to new species.

Originally posted by Stari
I meant that there is no proof of evolution in this story, not in the entire concept of evolution. You took what I said out of context.

Didn't know the statement was refering to the news story.

Originally posted by Stari
Isn't speculative what we are ALL doing here? There are so many links missing in the evolutionary tree that all scientists can do is speculate about evolution.

When scientists say 'Man and apes share a common ancestory', they are not merely speculating.

Originally posted by Stari
I am not using this story to prove that the over all of evolution is false I am saying that because of this story we cannot rule out hybridization as an answer to new species.

I guess we should probably have more ligers running around (the animal made when a lion mates with a tiger).

The problem with hybridization being the answer to new species, is that it doesn't explain how simple life would have began billions of years ago. So evolution would still need to play a role to get to the point where there are two different species that could mate and produce a hybrid.

This hybrid theory doesn't really belong on this thread though as we're discussing evolution. However, hybridization could easily be a topic on it's own.

Originally posted by shaunybaby

I'll have to look up that law in physics, would be better if you quoted the 'actual' law name, and perhaps the names of the planets.

Let's see if I can remember. I used to be HUGE on astronomy. Venus spins the opposite direction as well as either Uranus or Neptune (but i'm pretty sure its Uranus). School's out for the summer dude/lady, you think I remember the vocabulary for physics? Do you not belief the law that makes things rotate in the same direction? Use some logic please, this is no place for BS (btw, trying to turn that last sentence around on me is BS). Also if the universe began as the same "dot" of matter, then all of the matter would have to be evenly spaced out. Is it? Didn't think so (i.e galaxies, star clusters).

Originally posted by shaunybaby

Different gravitational pulls and pushes could easily affect planet rotation and so on.

OMG that is the most un-thought of idea I have ever heard of. Do you have ANY idea of the force required to REVERSE the rotation of a PLANET?? OMG, NOTHING can "easily" affect the rotaion of a planet. A PLANET! A PLANET! btw, Uranus is FAR larger than Earth. One of the biggest actually, so can you really imagine big 'ol Jupiter or Saturn coming by Uranus and smashing it good? Uranus is too far away to be affected by Jupiter's or Saturn's gravity, and if the big bang is true than Uranus formed in that spot and never could have been affected by those planet's gravity.

Originally posted by shaunybaby

This has nothing to do with evolution also.

The big bang was invented to accomodate the "origin of species", so yes, it is related. If the big bang did not happen, then the "origin of species" could not possibly happen.

[edit on 30-7-2007 by Motion-Man]

Originally posted by I See You
Lets say that you had no insight on god/religion. You were never taught by your parents, a preacher , through school or through a book about there being a god or religion. Would you still beleive in creationism or a god for that matter? What other hard evidence would you have if you eliminated all that was drilled into your head from youth about creationism?

When were you born? 1952? Because since I was born Evolution has been "drilled" in my head. In kindergarten, we learned about dinosaurs and "prehistoric animals" (that's how we learned to read). Saturday-morning cartoons always had a caveman/cavelady. Throughout the elementary school years, evolution was taught as a subject in science (learning evolution maybe for 2 months, then on to the next subject). In high-school evolution was and is a primary science subject to be taught, and you are critized by your teachers for denying it.
Macro-evolution does not exist.

Originally posted by Motion-Man
Do you not believe the law that makes things rotate in the same direction? Use some logic please, Also if the universe began as the same "dot" of matter, then all of the matter would have to be evenly spaced out. Is it? Didn't think so (i.e galaxies, star clusters).

For one, it can't be a law if there are things that disobey it. So maybe you could use some logic here. What does this have to do with evolution?

No I wouldn't expect everything in the universe to be perfectly space out at even distances. Why would we expect the universe to be evenly spaced out? Evolution doesn't state it should be.

Originally posted by Motion-Man

OMG that is the most un-thought of idea I have ever heard of. Do you have ANY idea of the force required to REVERSE the rotation of a PLANET??

Who said anything about 'reversing' the rotation?

Originally posted by Motion-Man
The big bang was invented to accomodate the "origin of species", so yes, it is related. If the big bang did not happen, then the "origin of species" could not possibly happen.

Who's talking about the big bang? You're on about a law in physics that states everything should rotate in the same direction, yet not everything obeys this law, hence it can't even be a law.

Originally posted by Motion-Man
Saturday-morning cartoons always had a caveman/cavelady.

Technically Flintstones are people living with dinosaurs, which would actually be more in fitting with some sort of young earth creationist believer.

Originally posted by Motion-Man
Throughout the elementary school years, evolution was taught as a subject in science (learning evolution maybe for 2 months, then on to the next subject). In high-school evolution was and is a primary science subject to be taught, and you are critized by your teachers for denying it.

So rather than being open minded, you just 'deny' all the evidence?

Originally posted by melatonin
I presented facts.

You've presented some facts which we already knew conceptually, not proof of evolution. There is a chasm of a difference.

Originally posted by melatonin
Facts about natural selection working very well - which you said it didn't.

As I've said, sometimes. Sometimes it is a driving factor, sometimes is it not. It is not an omnimechanism.

Originally posted by melatonin
Facts about new mutations and genes - which you tend to deny exist.

I did not deny they exist, rather you've chosen to ignore the issues with mutations being selected against both gametically and phenotypically. These induced mutations do not seem to pass through to successive generations. Why is that?

Originally posted by melatonin
Genome data have revealed great variation in the numbers of genes in different organisms,

True.

Originally posted by melatonin
which indicates that there is a fundamental process of genome evolution: the origin of new genes.

Assumption.

Originally posted by melatonin
However, there has been little opportunity to explore how genes with new functions originate and evolve.

Perhaps.

Originally posted by melatonin
The study of ancient genes has highlighted the antiquity and general importance of some mechanisms of gene origination, and recent observations of young genes at early stages in their evolution have unveiled unexpected molecular and evolutionary processes.

Do tell!

Originally posted by melatonin
Morphological novelty...

Cephalopods are a diverse group of highly derived molluscs, including nautiluses, squids, octopuses and cuttlefish. Evolution of the cephalopod body plan from a monoplacophoran-like ancestor1 entailed the origin of several key morphological innovations contributing to their impressive evolutionary success2. Recruitment of regulatory genes3, or even pre-existing regulatory networks4, may be a common genetic mechanism for generating new structures. Hox genes encode a family of transcriptional regulatory proteins with a highly conserved role in axial patterning in bilaterians5; however, examples highlighting the importance of Hox gene recruitment for new developmental functions are also known6, 7. Here we examined developmental expression patterns for eight out of nine Hox genes8 in the Hawaiian bobtail squid Euprymna scolopes, by whole-mount in situ hybridization. Our data show that Hox orthologues have been recruited multiple times and in many ways in the origin of new cephalopod structures. The manner in which these genes have been co-opted during cephalopod evolution provides insight to the nature of the molecular mechanisms driving morphological change in the Lophotrochozoa, a clade exhibiting the greatest diversity of body plans in the Metazoa.

Mechanisms such as? I hear 'recruitment' but I don't see it. How about F2 generations? F3?

Originally posted by melatonin
That's all we need; a constant supply of new variation and genes for natural selection to act on. Add this to millions of years, and macroevolution is possible. Until you show a barrier,

I've actually listed several barriers that are STILL unaddressed both phenotypically, gametically, and genetically. These days, all I'm doing is repeating myself.

Originally posted by melatonin
the evidence for common descent, along with a mechanism for new genetic novelty and selection to account for the evolutionary change over time, will suffice.

Sorry, it's not that easy

Originally posted by melatonin
And if you knew the scientific method and approach,

Which I've demonstrated knowledge of and exactly where evolution falls short of meeting it. Shall I do it again? How many times would be sufficient for you?

Originally posted by melatonin
you would know that now we have presented a theory with mechanism and evidence (natural selection, novel variation, descent with modification, common descent), what we do is try to falsify. And experiments/observations attempt this everyday, and have done for over 100 years. Still standing though.

You've proposed mechanisms for evolution, but have not substantiated them.

Originally posted by melatonin
Evolution is in many ways a historical science, and follows the scientific method just as it should. Darwin produced a hypothesis from observations, people have tested his hypothesis and the predictions it makes, it has been modified when required, it still has not been falsified. It has a working model with mechanism, it makes predictions, it is testable and falsifiable. That's science baby!

Your statement is incorrect. There is no working model, no predictions, and not testable.

Originally posted by melatonin
I suppose you also suggest that, because we haven't observed a mountain range like the himalayas form in our lifetime, plate tectonics can't account for the himalayas.

It appears you're making the same error Darwin did. Geological formation does not equate to biology.

Originally posted by melatonin
I suppose we have microuplift (that which we observe - a few mm at a time) and macrouplift (the really big movement we can't observe, but which we say is made up of lots of little uplifts over long periods of time). Yeah, maybe the hand of some omnipotent magic elf moulded it instead...

cheers.

You have provided as much evidence for an omnipotent magic elf as you've presented for evolution here.


[edit on 30-7-2007 by saint4God]

Originally posted by shaunybaby
When I say 'It didn't HAVE to be right' what I mean is that when Darwin first came up with the idea, if the idea didn't make sense then it wouldn't have caught on. The fact that it did catch on, and there is now an absolute vast amount of evidence on the subject, shows that evolution does stand on it's own two feet.

I agree it did catch on, which is fine for an idea. I don't agree that it does stand on it's own two feet however.

Originally posted by shaunybaby

Originally posted by saint4God
Is that not what this discussion is about? What is the mechanism for transpeciation?

From the fossil record we can see species that existed, and no longer exist,

Yes, extinction happens.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
and also new species that now exist that didn't previously exist.

Are you sure about that?

Originally posted by shaunybaby
What you're suggesting, if there is no possible way of transpeciation occuring, is that every single species here today has always been here.

We don't know. But, we know we shouldn't make assumptions either way.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
However, you only need to look back to the dinosaurs to notice how different species were back then. Some are still around, sharks, crocodiles etc, are decendents of the dinosaurs. We also have a vast number of new species today, that weren't around 65 million years ago.

Again assumption. Again I'd like to know what the mechanism is.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
Does this not show transpeciation is possible?

Making a conclusion based on a limited scope of discovery do not 'create' facts.

Originally posted by DarkSide
The theory of evolution has nothing to do with the big bang, the universe, and planets.

I agree, it's off-topic and not related to the discussion.

Originally posted by Stari
Go ahead, we are all just speculating here until real scientific openminded scientists do some dna testing and more research.

Be careful labeling scientists "openminded". We are no more or less openminded than any other human being.

Originally posted by I See You
Lets say that you had no insight on god/religion. You were never taught by your parents, a preacher , through school or through a book about there being a god or religion. Would you still beleive in creationism or a god for that matter? What other hard evidence would you have if you eliminated all that was drilled into your head from youth about creationism?

Irrelevant. Lets say that you had no education on evolution. You were never taught by your parents, a teacher, through school or through a book about there being evolution. Would you still believe in evolution? What other hard evidence would you have if you eliminated all that was drilled into your head from youth about evolution?

The topic is about evolution. If you'd like to pose the questions in the format posted here, then it applies. Otherwise, it does not.

Originally posted by saint4God
I don't agree that it does stand on it's own two feet however.

It has done for 150 years.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
and also new species that now exist that didn't previously exist.

Originally posted by saint4God
Are you sure about that?

Saint, you're one of the species that didn't previously exist, yet now does exist. This is evidence for new species. Species that didn't previously exist, yet now do exist. This is clear evidence that speciation occurs in our natural world.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
However, you only need to look back to the dinosaurs to notice how different species were back then. Some are still around, sharks, crocodiles etc, are decendents of the dinosaurs. We also have a vast number of new species today, that weren't around 65 million years ago.

Originally posted by saint4God
Again assumption. Again I'd like to know what the mechanism is.

Where have I assumed anything?

Humans weren't around 65 million years ago, hence we are a new species. This shows speciation. The arrival of new species, that we know didn't previously exist, is evidence for speciation.

Originally posted by saint4God
Making a conclusion based on a limited scope of discovery do not 'create' facts.

I didn't say I was creating facts. Take a long deep breath and a step back and come in with an open mind Saint.

65 million years ago there were no humans, the same as there were no humans 200 million years ago. Yet, today there are humans, this shows that new species can come in to existance, which is turn shows speciation is very likely and very possible.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
Technically Flintstones are people living with dinosaurs, which would actually be more in fitting with some sort of young earth creationist believer.

I've never watched a single episode of Flintstones. Sadly, I've had peasant-vision all my life ("peasant-vision" is the 2 channels everyone gets for free).

Originally posted by shaunybaby
So rather than being open minded, you just 'deny' all the evidence?

I see no evidence to deny. The brainwashing didn't get through my head. Sorry.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
You're on about a law in physics that states everything should rotate in the same direction, yet not everything obeys this law, hence it can't even be a law.

How about... the law exists, and not everything was spinning in the same direction in the beginning. That seems more logical than denying a law that has been proven and is very obvious.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
For one, it can't be a law if there are things that disobey it. So maybe you could use some logic here. What does this have to do with evolution?
No I wouldn't expect everything in the universe to be perfectly space out at even distances. Why would we expect the universe to be evenly spaced out? Evolution doesn't state it should be.
Who's talking about the big bang?

I'm sorry if you don't want to hear about how the Big Bang is false. And I'll stop posting about it. But you must see how the Big Bang and evolution are connected. It's all evolution, Evolution of the Universe. The Big Bang supposedly happened first, right? So if that is false, then the rest of the theory must be scrapped. If Someone goes back in time and kills your grandmother, you won't exist. So if the the Big Bang never happened, then the solar system didn't come from a swirling mass of hot gases, Earth didn't start out as a rock with organic soup, the soup didn't evolve, man never happened, and I would have never posted this. But I see you don't want to hear about the basics that the advanced rides on.

[edit on 30-7-2007 by Motion-Man]

Try this link.

Shauny, there is no point. A while back I had a similar discussion with Saint. It generally went "show me the mechanism'" then I would present the mechanisms we all know are part of ToE, then Saint would say "show me the mechanism", then I would repeat, and so on and so forth, ad nauseum.

I think it went on for 3 or 4 pages. I'm sure we all have better things to do, heh.

Be careful labeling scientists "openminded". We are no more or less openminded than any other human being.

ROFLcopter...


[edit on 30-7-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by Motion-Man
I'm sorry if you don't want to hear about how the Big Bang is false. And I'll stop posting about it. But you must see how the Big Bang and evolution are connected. It's all evolution, Evolution of the Universe. The Big Bang supposedly happened first, right? So if that is false, then the rest of the theory must be scrapped.

Sheesh, where do people get this stuff?

Motion-Man, the Great Elf in the sky could have created the universe, the earth, and even the first organisms and the theory of evolution could still be true.

They are only linked by those who don't understand them.




[edit on 30-7-2007 by melatonin]

melatonin, it's not about people who CAN'T understand, it's about people who WON'T.

That's why they don't get it. They don't want to. It would mean the sky fairy is make believe and the paradigm shift is just too much for some people to face.

I don't even see fence-sitters on this anymore, just people who understand and accept science, and those who cling to their ancient, contradictory, violent, error-ridden desert manual.

Originally posted by Motion-Man
I see no evidence. The brainwashing didn't get through my head. Sorry.

We barely even learnt about evolution. I can't recall learning about it at primary school or even middle school. Then maybe we might have done it for about 6 weeks during high school, and I can't recall there even being any evolution-type questions in the exams. Evolution is the rational explanation to the puzzle and how everything in the world fits, for me.

There is however plenty of evidence, otherwise we never could have proven micro-evolution.

Originally posted by Motion-Man
How about... the law exists, and not everything was spinning in the same direction in the beginning. That seems more logical than denying a law that has been proven and is very obvious.

What does this have to do with anything? I've not denied the law in physics, I've questioned what this has to do with the topic.

Originally posted by Motion-Man
I'm sorry if you don't want to hear about how the Big Bang is false.

No appology neccesary. This is not the topic at hand, feel free to discuss this on a forum thread marked 'Big Bang Theory'.