Modern proof of evolution.

originally posted by: Bone75
Define species.

I already posted this, but here ya go again:
Stanford article regarding species definition

Even scientists debate about where exactly to draw the line.

I guess if you wanted to be really particular about it you could say the genetic and physiological difference between the average person and dwarfs and giants is enough to declare them separate species. But pretty much every scientist in the world would disagree with you.

Or, you could define it super broadly like Masterjayden to include Neanderthals...but again, pretty much every scientist in the world would disagree with you.

I guess you could say a cat and a bird are the same species if it floats your boat...but I think even non scientists would disagree with you on that one.

originally posted by: Aazadan
That's you making decisions in your environment, not you environment affecting you. In terms of evolution it would be more along the lines of, if 100% of our diet suddenly became meat, then the humans most adapted to eating meat would pass along more genes, and eventually there would be more humans that are closer to carnivores.

The speed at which evolution takes place is proportional to how quickly you reproduce though. So animals like humans which reproduce slowly (elephants too) will evolve much slower than something like a virus which reproduces every 20 minutes.

I even read some article a while back about how we've evolved to eat cooked meat. If for some reason fire ceased to exist, then humans that are predisposed to digest raw meat more easily would dominate the gene pool.

Or, if suddenly humans were no longer the apex predator and there was some critter hunting us we would start naturally selecting for traits that would help us avoid that predator. Like how prey animals typically have eyes on the side of their head- so see danger coming more easily. We're clearly predators because our eyes face front. Maybe if this hypothetical predator was airborne our eyes would 'drift' to the top of our head over the course of many generations.

originally posted by: GetHyped
Ok, I'll make it even easier: what is your explanation for the variety of lifeforms on this planet? Did they all appear at once? If so, when?

I can't believe no one's answered you with "Because God wanted it that way."

I mean, come on, low hanging fruit.

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: GetHyped

If genetic change sorted by natural selection isn't responsible for biodiversity, how do you explain all of the different species, past and present?

Define species.

Wow, you really are bending backwards to avoid the question.

Ok, I'll make it even easier:

Fine... let's do this.

what is your explanation for the variety of lifeforms on this planet?

I believe God created primary lifeforms and we've evolved/gone extinct from there. I do not believe that we are the descendants of rodents or that elephants and hippos are they descendants of whales, etc.

Did they all appear at once?

No. Vegetation first, then sea creatures and birds, then land dwellers, then us.

when?

A long, long time ago.

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: GetHyped

If genetic change sorted by natural selection isn't responsible for biodiversity, how do you explain all of the different species, past and present?

Define species.

Wow, you really are bending backwards to avoid the question.

Ok, I'll make it even easier:

Fine... let's do this.

what is your explanation for the variety of lifeforms on this planet?

I believe God created primary lifeforms and we've evolved/gone extinct from there. I do not believe that we are the descendants of rodents or that elephants and hippos are they descendants of whales, etc.

Did they all appear at once?

No. Vegetation first, then sea creatures and birds, then land dwellers, then us.

when?

A long, long time ago.

well clearly, that ends the debate and invalidates decades of research. good on you. still leaves the question of how god happened. who or what created god?

originally posted by: Bone75
I do not believe that we are the descendants of rodents or that elephants and hippos are they descendants of whales, etc.

Have you looked into it though??? Because the evidence for it is some of the best researched and most complete there is.



Evolution of whales

originally posted by: TzarChasm

well clearly, that ends the debate and invalidates decades of research. good on you.

Well that was easy.

still leaves the question of how god happened. who or what created god?

We did, then He created us, but that's a subject for a whole nother thread, so let's just stick to evolution okay.

originally posted by: Bone75

We did, then He created us, but that's a subject for a whole nother thread, so let's just stick to evolution okay.

Yeah. I wouldn't want to have to try and explain that either.

a reply to: mOjOm

Yeah it's basically semantics and the same thing, but you're confusing people when you say it that way that's why people don't understand..

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: Bone75
I do not believe that we are the descendants of rodents or that elephants and hippos are they descendants of whales, etc.

Have you looked into it though??? Because the evidence for it is some of the best researched and most complete there is.

Evolution of whales

The physical evidence says that whales and hippos are very similar in both anatomy and DNA, but it takes a leap of faith to suggest a bunch of hippo-like creatures decided to go for a swim and never came back because they turned into whales.

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: Raggedyman

I don't have to hold my feet to the fire LL

That must make things easier for you.

I am not claiming religion is a science.

Right. You submitted that religion doesn't have proof earlier. We are on the same page there.

I am asking for the evidence

Noted. I already addressed that. I don't care that you don't believe in evolution. Other people here are expressing some interest in educating you. Personally I think you should enroll in some courses at your community college.

I want proof elephants evolve into whales

...if not community college then look into MOOC. Plenty of related courses for free.

So you can't explain the empirical evidence, that's understandable, no one can.
It doesn't exist
All the moocs courses, all the college courses, none can, neither can you
That's my point

Yours like mine is a religion, faith, belief by choice, evolution is not a scienve

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: Bone75
I do not believe that we are the descendants of rodents or that elephants and hippos are they descendants of whales, etc.

Have you looked into it though??? Because the evidence for it is some of the best researched and most complete there is.

Evolution of whales

Great video, awesome assumption
Apart from the pictures can you show me the empirical evidence
Not the assumption, the wild guesses, someone's imaginations, can you show the evidence.
I would even accept a fossil record

If that's the best it's very poor, very poor imdeed

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: GetHyped

If genetic change sorted by natural selection isn't responsible for biodiversity, how do you explain all of the different species, past and present?

Define species.

Wow, you really are bending backwards to avoid the question.

Ok, I'll make it even easier:

Fine... let's do this.

what is your explanation for the variety of lifeforms on this planet?

I believe God created primary lifeforms and we've evolved/gone extinct from there. I do not believe that we are the descendants of rodents or that elephants and hippos are they descendants of whales, etc.

Did they all appear at once?

No. Vegetation first, then sea creatures and birds, then land dwellers, then us.

when?

A long, long time ago.

well clearly, that ends the debate and invalidates decades of research. good on you. still leaves the question of how god happened. who or what created god?

Tha is the most pathetic of all arguments atheists can offer
This thread is about the validity of evolution, because evolution is being rocked to its core, the argument turns from evidence , science, and truth to attacking religion, not the subject

Let's leave religion out and deal with the science or lack thereof for evolution

TC is always arguing this strawman because the poor tsar has been battered with the lack of scientific evidence so many times he has learned not to argue for science. He turns to attacking strawmans

a reply to: Raggedyman

I posted a chart of the evolution from one species to another and your response was "cool pics of frogs".


Don't believe, that's fine. Refuse to acknowledge evidence, that's fine too. But in a couple hundred years elephants without tusks will be the norm and elephants with tusks will be a thing of legend (IF there's even any elephants left)....because that's how evolution works.

originally posted by: ladyvalkyrie

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Micro evolution and macro, I want proof elephants evolve into whales

A mama elephant isn't just going to spontaneously poop out a whale baby.

But...
let's say there's some environmental factor- lack of food- that pushes elephant populations to the coast. And lets say there's a food source in the shallows. Then the individual elephants who happen to be born with mutations that somehow benefit them in the water would be more likely to survive longer and breed with each other. Lets say elephants with longer trunks are more likely to get caught and killed by predators, so over the course of multiple generations shorter trunks are selected for. In deeper water there is less predators and more food, so the populations continue to expand into deeper water. Excess skin on the legs and shorter, fin like appendages allow them to be more successful in their new aquatic environment. Over hundreds and thousands of years the population would much closer resemble a whale than what we currently know to be an elephant. And, as Lucid Lunacy stated, there would eventually be a point where the difference between the two would be so great that the new aquatic line would be unable to breed with the original terrestrial line. Thus, at that point it's a new species.

Evolution is a series of incremental changes. It doesn't happen overnight. Especially if we're talking about the development of a new species. My OP gives a pretty clear example of a specific trait being selected for. Since it's one trait and not a change into a whole new species we're able to observe it in a lifetime.

Unsuccessful traits are selected against in a similar fashion. Albino animals are so rare because they're easily spotted by predators. So they're not around to breed and increase the instance of a recessive gene like that in their population.

Another human example that has both pros and cons: Sickle cell. Black people are more likely to suffer from sickle cell. Their ancestors hailed from more tropic regions where mosquitos carrying malaria are. Sickle cell helps protect against malaria, so it was a trait that was selected for. Not on purpose, of course, but individuals that carried that mutation survived longed than individuals coming down with malaria. But sickle cell also causes all sorts of other health problems, so it's not always as cut and dry as "good trait more of this" "bad trait less of that". Sometimes mutations help in one area but cause problems in another.
Sickle Cell

Let's just say that rumplestiltskin is a true story.
If it's a true story there must be evidence

If whales were once elephants, hippos whatever, there must be evidence

To say 'let's say" is not a part of the scientific method, sorry. It's day dreaming

Sickle cell link proves what exactly and how, it's a strawman argument

originally posted by: ladyvalkyrie
a reply to: Raggedyman

I posted a chart of the evolution from one species to another and your response was "cool pics of frogs".

Don't believe, that's fine. Refuse to acknowledge evidence, that's fine too. But in a couple hundred years elephants without tusks will be the norm and elephants with tusks will be a thing of legend (IF there's even any elephants left)....because that's how evolution works.

I can post a chart of a monkey evolving into a man riding a Harley, doesn't mean that men will evolve with Harley motorbikes between their legs

A picture or chart with drawings does not constitute empirical evidence for evolution
If we had the same chart and it was backwards, showing de evolution, would that be scientific evidence to you.
Serious question

The scientific method is repeatable, observable and testable
Do you understand that staement

originally posted by: ladyvalkyrie
a reply to: Raggedyman

I posted a chart of the evolution from one species to another and your response was "cool pics of frogs".

Biologists offer over twenty definitions of the term ‘species’ (Hey 2001). These definitions are not fringe accounts of species but prominent definitions in the biological literature. Philosophers also disagree on the nature of species. Here the concern is the ontological status of species. Some philosophers believe that species are natural kinds. Others maintain that species are particulars or individuals.

Shouldn't there be over 20 versions of that same chart?

a reply to: Raggedyman

I honestly weep for you. For either being a troll or being susceptible to uneducated youtube bloggers. Evidence is everywhere for you to research yourself. It's up to you to better understand a subject. People have put it on a plate for you and even provided you crayons to keep you entertained.

I know it's fun for you but if you happen to reproduce your kids might end up like you. Which isn't fair on humanity. Disprove it with facts, not where's the empirical evidence (like you know what that actually means) when it is sourced and placed in front of you to educate yourself.

Please don't reproduce as a request from 1 human to another.

a reply to: GemmyMcGemJew

When your "science" is full of "sometimes this" and "almost always that", then it's not science, it's pseudoscience.

originally posted by: ladyvalkyrie

originally posted by: GetHyped
Ok, I'll make it even easier: what is your explanation for the variety of lifeforms on this planet? Did they all appear at once? If so, when?

I can't believe no one's answered you with "Because God wanted it that way."

I mean, come on, low hanging fruit.

I can't believe 10 pages and you can't show any evidence outside of a drawing of frogs for evolution
Low hanging fruit?