What is evolution, not what some think

a reply to: flyingfish
Nice little rant, but you are completely wrong or you do not understand the first thing about evolution.
Evolution does not deal with the origin of life but what came after.
So which is it, wrong or ignorance?

ETA:
Which of my "ideas" have been proven demonstrably wrong?

a reply to: Quadrivium

I was addressing this post.

For you to believe in the theory of evolution, as a whole, takes more faith than for me to believe in God.

I was not talking about abiogeneses, I was addressing evolution, science denial and your fallacious argument of evolution faith. It would seem your completely wrong and completely lack reading comprehension.

a reply to: flyingfish
Hmmmm, perhaps you would like to start at the top of the page and work down. It may help put things into context instead of going off of one post. Like it or not, there are parts of the theory that have to be taken on faith as they are guess work at best. Notice I only said parts.
Even in the post you commented on I said "the theory, AS A WHOLE,".
So what "ideas" of mine have been demonstrably wrong? I really am curious.
Quad

a reply to: Quadrivium

I think krazyshot even said that philosophy has no place in science. That view point is absolutely wrong in my opinion. Philosophy actually helps one perform "good science".

Philosophy has a place, but it doesn't override scientific data. The evidence points where the evidence points. They aren't going to make a theory and then dismiss it because it has too many details 100 years later. Philosophy only plays a role in the very early stages of development in a theory or hypothesis. Again, it's about having the simplest explanation based on the evidence and observations without adding unnecessary steps. Where in modern evolutionary synthesis are unnecessary steps added to over complicate it? Do you have examples?

Third, I did not suggest that the theory of evolution was "unreliable because it was too complex" what I actually said was "In my honest OPINION that, as a whole, the theory has become bloated and no longer constitutes a 'good' theory". That is my honest opinion. As we learn more, it does not become any clearer. In most cases the opposite is true. I gave, as an example, the term species and how it is has many different meanings now. You gave the simple biological definition, yet even that is not so simple depending on how the organism reproduce.

You say that you didn't infer that it's unreliable because it's too complex, and then immediately follow up with it's bloated and is no longer a good theory. That's virtually the same thing, and it's not even true. As we learn more, it becomes MUCH MUCH clearer. The evolutionary picture is exponentially clearer now, than it was 50 years ago, and compared to when Darwin's time, it is night and day. The term 'species' has nothing to do with it. Please explain why you think the term 'species' has a different meaning and what that meaning is in science. I was only aware of the one scientific biological definition of the word. Is there another that isn't a layman's term?

Fourth, Let's look at L.A.C. again or the lack there of. You stated in one of your post to me something like "Quad, we are talking almost 600 million years here". This is my point in a nut shell. How can we possibly know what happened 600 MILLION years ago.

Do you have another simpler explanation based on the data? We don't need to know exactly what happened. Evolution has been prevalent throughout the rest of history of life on earth. It isn't a huge leap of logic to think it happened then as well. The evidence isn't plentiful for that time period, but it is there. I'm just wondering what you are expecting? This is why I say you are nitpicking. You are looking at ONE time period and claiming that because we haven't found a lot from the period that it's a problem for evolution. It is not and probably one day we'll learn more about it.

Cladistic classification has helped figure out what fossils go where but what is Cladistic? In layman's terms, it's a guess. They form a hypothesis on comparison. Even so they still have not pinpointed ONE L.A.C. of any species in any genus.

It's not a guess and that's not the reason why evolution is accepted. It's about seeing UNIQUE characteristics in both species to connect them. Since evolution has already been established, it's certainly not a leap of logic to suggest that creatures who share unique characteristics are related. It would be different if there was no other evidence for evolution aside from that, but there's a crapload. Evolution does not hinge on that one factor. They have found common ancestors within a genus. The fruit fly experiment clearly demonstrated that. The common ancestor was the original fruit fly, which was segregated into 2 groups that became 2 different species. The 2 groups changed after thousands of generations and clearly have that common ancestor, because we saw it happen.

Is homo heidelbergensis not a common ancestor for humans and neanderthals?
Is homo erectus not a common ancestor for florensius and habilis (and homo sapiens, neanderthals, denisovans)?
Is Tiktaalik not a common ancestor for amphibians and many fish??

The problem with Last common ancestor is that it's relative depending on which 2 species you pick. The ancient tree gnewt is widely known as the common ancestor for the majority of primates.

What do we use to explain how most every phylum of animal shows up in a geological flash during the Cambrian yet new phylum since then are pretty much nonexistent even after "five major extinction events".
Does Punctuated Equilibrium explain it? Nope.

The environment. It was drastically different back then and probably more conducive to quicker changes, with a quicker changing environment. But again, why precisely is 20 million years not enough time? You haven't given me any data, only your astonishment that it happened. I've provided a detailed mathematical research paper that explains exactly how there is plenty of time for evolution. 20 million years is a long time, despite you calling it a "flash". With that logic you could say humans appeared in a flash, or that mammal appeared in a flash. Evolution doesn't even follow a set time table. It is dependent on environmental changes.

It is when speculations and assumptions get passed off as "good science" that I have a problem.

Do you have an example of speculations and assumptions that get passed off as good science? Please show me the peer reviewed research paper that draws its conclusion from assumptions.

What I meant is that we find fossils from the early Cambrian all over the globe. We do not see where life generated in one specific area and dispersed.

We do see that almost all of it came from the ocean. Again, it's extremely rare to find precambrian fossils, so pinpointing that exact location (when it was likely all over the ocean), is difficult, but again, not knowing that one part of evolution doesn't falsify it or suggest problems. It's like saying that the complexity of DNA suggests it couldn't have arisen naturally. That's simply not true. If precambrian life was found in a recent fossil strata or a human fossil was found in a Triassic strata it would do that or at least falsify the dating mehods. But this has never happened. Again, lack of knowledge in a certain part of our evolutionary history doesn't make it wrong. It just means there is more to be learned about that period. This is why I say, let he scientists do their job instead of nitpicking them with layman's terms and generalizations like the statement above.

Does that mean that all the soft bodied life, in the ocean(s) of that period, all started branching off and evolving hard bodies at precisely the same time? How?

No that's not what it means. It means that both hard bodied AND soft bodied creatures were around at the same time and that some disaster or big environment change happened which caused the hard bodied creatures to survive over the softies. Again, this isn't rocket science. Remember at that time, life was very simple, most even single celled, so genetic mutations had a bigger effect.

I just don't see why you guys nitpick evolution. Why not gravity? We still don't fully understand that and there are gaps of knowledge.

a reply to: Barcs
Barcs, just wanted to drop in and let u know that a response is forthcoming. Working the next few days then I should have time.
Quad

in a nutshell:

evolution does not exist

originally posted by: Starbucks

in a nutshell:
evolution does not exist

This is ATS.
Crack open the nutshell and let your explanation fall out.

there is no macroevolution there is no microevolution.

evolution can only go one way degradation towerds death.
If things left unchecked by watchers to correct mistakes of evolution then all livings will die. the mutation in dna is a universal mistake in copying dna it is at .004 or 4 mutations in 1000 generation (25 years for humans, few seconds for some germs).

mutations increase in unhealthy environment creating mutants that end up dying.

the watchers are intelligent beings doing intelligent design. they are assigned by the master designer God.
the wonders maker

What if God uses evolution to create what he wants?

Our universe seems to have a number of laws. Many of these laws can be proven with math. ie How fast will a lead ball be traveling if it is dropped from a 100 foot tower just before it hits the ground.

Why would God create a Universe when some things can be explained by math?

Then he suddenly chooses to populate this universe with man that was instantly created

I think that there is a great deal of beauty in the Universe and that if God created this system that he though things out way in advance so that it all worked.

Also if you read Genesis the creation that is described sounds a lot like the big band theory to me.


O

originally posted by: Quadrivium
For you to believe in the theory of evolution, as a whole, takes more faith than for me to believe in God.

Just like Mark Lowry, I don't HAVE that much faith.

I would be an Athiest too if I had that much faith... ~ Mark Lowry

Darwin's 'theory' is so full of holes that it becomes obvious what the real 'faith' is...

"What is it evolution based upon? Upon nothing whatever but faith, upon belief in the reality of the unseen—belief in the fossils that cannot be produced, belief in the embryological experiments that refuse to come off. It is faith unjustified by works." ~ Arthur N. Field.

"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone." ~ paleontologist T.L. Moor

Macro evolution and Microevolution are imaginary things in the mind of a proponant of Darwin the Chimp's ideas.

originally posted by: Starbucks
there is no macroevolution there is no microevolution.

evolution can only go one way degradation towerds death.
If things left unchecked by watchers to correct mistakes of evolution then all livings will die. the mutation in dna is a universal mistake in copying dna it is at .004 or 4 mutations in 1000 generation (25 years for humans, few seconds for some germs).

mutations increase in unhealthy environment creating mutants that end up dying.

the watchers are intelligent beings doing intelligent design. they are assigned by the master designer God.
the wonders maker

Admittedly, some mutations may be harmful to an organism, and thus would lead to death, but that organism (more often than not) would not reproduce as much (or at all) anyway due to its shorter lifespan, so that harmful mutation would not easily be carried on to future generations.

HOWEVER, not all mutations are harmful to the organism. For example, a mutation of simple multi-celled creature that caused it to be born with one of its nerve cells being sensitive to light could be an advantage. By knowing that a predator may be near by sensing changing light levels, that creature may live longer than the rest of its species without the light-sensitive mutation.

Because it lives longer, it would be able to reproduce more, and have more offspring than the members of the species without the mutation. There is a good chance that some of its offspring would inherit the genetic code for this light-sensitive cell from its parent, and also have the same predator-sensing advantage its parent had. So now the offspring would live longer than the rest of its species, and they would be able to have more children. In this manner, the number of individual organisms of this species with the light-sensitive cell would increase exponentially over the generations.

Soon (over generations), its possible that half of the species' population could have this light-sensing advantage, and the would be living longer than the ones without. Eventually (over time and generations) the light-sensing individuals would be the almost only ones left of the species -- and that light-sensing cell would be a regular characteristic among that species.

So in that respect, the mutation was an advantageous one, and led to the individuals who carried on the genetic code for the light-sensitive being able to live longer to have more offspring, and over generations, the descendants with the light-sensitve cell (which originally came about due to a mutation) would eventually become the standard of the species.

a reply to: Murgatroid

I notice you like to poke your head into these threads every now and then and insult evolution by calling it "darwinism" or some other outdated nonsense. This isn't 1850, it's 2014. You shouldn't argue against theories using the level of knowledge from 150 years ago.

There isn't a single piece of objective evidence that points to god or creator entity.

There are mountains of evidence in favor of evolution.

God requires faith, evolution merely requires acknowledging scientific discovery. You need to stop using the fallacy of appeal to authority. It doesn't prove anything.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

how do you know it was a mutation and was not created like this?

how did neanderthal dna is highest in haplogroup k ( frensh, Melanesians, Chinese Han) .
Both Neanderthal and Frensh and blond melanesians share red hare mutation. Neanderthal and europpeans share Lactose intolerance mutation. finally blue eyes mutations?

the fact thousands of apes remains found in any given pit a million year ago while ancient humans only a finger for dinosivan, a skeleton for Peking man, etc.

why advanced species like genus homo died out after living 7 million years leaving only one man Adam as a bottle neck in recent history. while current chimps have branches of most recent common ancestors dating back millions of years.

All these evidence elimiate Evolution leaving Creationism (proven existant in GM genetic modification by intelligent design of humans) as the only explanation for the origin of species.

a reply to: Starbucks

You've spammed the exact same post across 10 THREADS already. Not only is that against the T&Cs of this website but you've been answered multiple times across multiple threads.

neanderthal are a branch of haplogroup K which is a branch of Y chromosomal Adam the MRCA most common recent ancestor of all current humans.

originally posted by: Starbucks
how did neanderthal dna is highest in haplogroup k ( frensh, Melanesians, Chinese Han) .
Both Neanderthal and Frensh and blond melanesians share red hare mutation. Neanderthal and europpeans share Lactose intolerance mutation. finally blue eyes mutations?

the fact thousands of apes remains found in any given pit a million year ago while ancient humans only a finger for dinosivan, a skeleton for Peking man, etc.

why advanced species like genus homo died out after living 7 million years leaving only one man Adam as a bottle neck in recent history. while current chimps have branches of most recent common ancestors dating back millions of years.

All these evidence elimiate Evolution leaving Creationism (proven existant in GM genetic modification by intelligent design of humans) as the only explanation for the origin of species.

This post right here is proof you haven't got the faintest idea what you're talking about. Lactose intolerance is not a mutation, it was our natural state. The tolerance for lactose, referred to as Lactase persistence, is the mutation and exists primarily in people who have a significant amount of European ancestry. Humans are not made to be drinking cows milk, they're designed to drink their own mothers milk and only until theyre dome weaning. As they got closer to maturity, humans would become more ad more intolerant of ANY type of milk. lactose persistence means that the enzyme that allows us to continue drinking milk stays with us into adulthood. It has been found that C−13910 (C at position -13910 upstream of the gene LCT) and G−22018 (G at position -22018) are related to lactase non-persistence while the T−13910 and A−22018 are related to lactase persistence. You truly are clueless and can't be bothered to engage in the most basic due diligence. I've seen 6th graders put together a better presentation of facts than you have. I was dead serious when I told you last week to let me know where you live so I can sign you up for a library card. You seriously need one in the worst way.

lactose intolerance means you can not drink mother milk hence death.
the original mutation (before it was diluted by marriage with people who dont have it) meant sure death for infants lose the milk by diarrhea.

the current lactose intolerance is but 20% of the original muation.
the people of the original mutation had to feed their infants on blood hence the vampires.
the lactose intolerance mutation appeared 5000 years ago in central asia in a woman (katia the kat woman Katura or Katusha the mother of russians or mother russia).

how did it happen in neanderthal too.
what is the probability that 50 miutations happened in a gene of same area?
one in gadzillion.
same for blue eye mutation happened in central asia in europpean ancestors.
red hair red skin happened in Melanesians (blonde melanesians) who are the ancestors of europpeans, both of haplogroup k.
yet again these two more mutations (each composed of several mutations in the same gene on same chromosomes)
happeneing in both neanderthals and europpeans (or haplogroup K , frensh Han and Melanesians), what is the mathematical probabilty for that??
one in gadzillion gadzillion generations (25 gadzillion gadzillion years ie before the big bang by gadzillion and a half gadzillion years!)

unless both nean and europpeans (or haplogroup K) were the same people (red hair red skin blue eyes lactose intolerant)

originally posted by: Starbucks
lactose intolerance means you can not drink mother milk hence death

Show me evidence of babies being born this way. You're beyond full of it. I wouldn't rule it out that it could possibly happen on occasion but the fact of the matter is that ALL humans are born with the enzyme that allows for milk to be digested. This enzyme gradually disappears and generally by puberty is entirely gone. The mutation found primarily in people with significant European genetics has developed a mutation for lactase persistence which simply put means the enzyme continues to be active well into or for the duration of your adult life. The onus is upon YOU to cite a source that attests to your claims. But youre too busy copying and pasting the same post in multiple threads to be bothered to check sources.