What is the evidence for evolution?

a reply to: michaelbrux

coming from someone who studied anthropology, they and I were all studying evolution and the evidence in favor of it. You do realize that gravity is also a Theory don't you? I seriously doubt you're going to climb to the top of a tall building and jump off because its "just a theory"

While we're on the subject-

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.

When used in non-scientific context, the word “theory” implies that something is unproven or speculative. As used in science, however, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. In the scientific method, there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/or measured, and theories, which are scientists’ explanations and interpretations of the facts. Scientists can have various interpretations of the outcomes of experiments and observations, but the facts, which are the cornerstone of the scientific method, do not change. www.livescience.com...

a reply to: michaelbrux

gotcha.... you don't actually have any interest in a legitimate discussion or learning anything, you're just here to troll the thread. good to know...

but because I'm too dumb to know when to quit, I'll add one last comment. It likely wasn't so much convergent evolution as it was a combination of natural selection with human assistance. If a certain cow was producing milk that could be more readily digested it was far more likely to e kept in the herd than it was to be slaughtered for meat. those cows were the ones who were ale to pass down their genes as they had a longer life span. As for the comment about evolutionary change causing humans to stop drinking milk, were talking about a rather volatile period in human history with environment and climate in flux after the LGM... they needed to make the most of the resources available to them. it's not really hard to grasp if you had taken the time to learn anything about evolution after the age of 15.

a reply to: peter vlar

i'm a modeler and simulator...so i'm interested in the isolation and identification of a specific linked process between biological organisms and the environment that cause the changes.

the link would probably not only be physical, of the 5 major senses.

surely you realize there would have to be a link?

your last example, the milk, suggests that changes occurred as a result of consuming cows milk. a physical link.

what would cause a change such as camouflage?

originally posted by: michaelbrux
i'm going to state clearly what I think Evolution is:

biological organisms have an innate process that is connected/linked to environmental processes and contributes to their long term survival by causing beneficial iterative changes in the organism in response to changes in its environment; the study of that innate process or the process itself is Evolution.

now...you tell me what is evolution in one or two sentences.

In the biological sciences, evolution is a scientific theory that explains the emergence of new varieties of living things in the past and in the present; it is not a "theory of origins" about how life began. Evolution accounts for the striking patterns of similarities and differences among living things over time and across habitats through the action of biological processes such as natural selection, mutation, symbiosis, gene transfer, and genetic drift. Evolution has been subjected to scientific testing for over a century and has been (and continues to be) consistently confirmed by evidence from a wide range of fields.

a reply to: michaelbrux

Do you even understand what the hell his (and my, we have both done it) wer talking about. We (Homo sapiens ) moved from hunter gatherer subsistence, where starvation was a constant threat, to animal (and plant) domestication. Where we could have sustenance from the lactations of the cow. So milk, butter, ghee etc.

We are talking about a human gene mutation taking hold. Its also better for the cow, we'd just kill and eat them as the only way to gain sustenance.

Like I said, why so belligerent? You can't actually refute what we've said, so you are using logical fallacy.

a reply to: michaelbrux

What causes changes to become predominant? Survival for one. Humans who did not have to eat the cow to find sustenance had a portable food source.

Campoflage? Come now, you are not that dull. "you can't see me" is a better way to hunt OR avoid being eaten than "look at me guys"

a reply to: peter vlar

thats not a troll response.

its strange that the evolutionary response would be what you stated.

I suppose the cow saw some benefit in its own survival by becoming of greater use to humans, but still you could see where producing milk less beneficial to humans could have been at least an equally expected evolutionary response.

you guys are too sensitive. my writing style is what it is, its all i have to work with.

a reply to: michaelbrux

not only would I not deny it, I implicitly stated that one of the variables that affected evolution was both ecology and environmental niche. a good example I like to use is the difference between an arctic fox and a kit fox. Each is highly specialized to their particular niche. Both are clearly foxes, members of the canidae family and they can breed freely with each other. switch their environments however and neither would survive long at all.

a reply to: peter vlar

okay then...all of the processes that are being studied in evolution are of a physical nature (thank you)...i was under the impression that you guys were talking about a process at the cellular level or higher. you know... a more refined inquiry.

sorry about that last sentence....anyway...what you described sounds more like Adaptation.

a reply to: michaelbrux

Its not your writing style that is the problem its the ignoring of any evidence being brought up OR the selective rebuttal. "How does it benefit the cow?" I've answered that. But honestly? A human mutation does not have to benefit it, we eat to survive. Please test this if you wish, and report back. I hear some gurus in India claim they do not need anything but sunlight to live.

a reply to: michaelbrux

the cow doesn't see a benefit and doesn't will a change on a molecular level. its about random changes. the ones who were more beneficial to the humans who kept them, survived longer and were more able to spread those genes whereas the less beneficial cows would have become dinner. Its similar to how wolves were guided by their human companions for millennia to come the multitudes of dog breeds we see today.

a reply to: michaelbrux

I'm not sure why I keep replying because you're being selective in what you're reading. I' clearly described several times now how we can use the rate of mutations on a genetic level to look back in time if you will, to see when certain traits came into existence, when certain lineages diverged and when certain species became heir own identifiable species or sub species.............

a reply to: Noinden

I'm aware of the evidence you are posting...the study of Evolution is all about physical interactions. by comparison to other ways of understanding our world...its somewhat crude.

that's all I'm saying and everything I'm reading supports this view...for all practical purposes Evolution is useful and should be taught to all students.

I'm not trying to make it something its not...its just that it falls short and doesn't offer anything on the following topics:

why four legs, why six, why eight...why wings, why fins, why nothing at all?

but surely there is a reason and accurate answer...its just that Evolution isn't capable of providing it.

a reply to: peter vlar

you're answering because you enjoy the topic.

did evolution teach you that Neanderthals died off?

Kick the author of that study.

a reply to: michaelbrux

Evolution would say nothing about Neanderthals dying off, because would be the preview of palaeontology. You really need to work out what evolution is about.

Also there are no Neanderthals left. Many of us carry their genes, possibly some Denisovian ones too (depending on where we are from). But that is a few % of our genome, unless we are sub-Saharan Africans (none of either species in them).

You are building straw men to knock down here. Its a sign of loosing.

You've avoided honest debate of this evidence we've both brought out. You misconstrue or purposely misinterpret it (who gives a damn if our ability to digest milk benefits the cow (it does)? Its not the cows mutation after all).

You have shown zero inclination to wish to engage on the more technical talk on evolution. I'll go into the genetics if you want. WHen I get home and rebuild my lap top system.

What exactly ARE you reading? No seriously bring the source. Also why so hostile to evolution. WHat is your reason. My side is I've seen the evidence. I've contributed to some of it (genetics work I've done).

You are either ignorant or feigning it over how evolution works. We've pointed out its useful for looking into the past. Looking forward is divination. That's not a science.

As has been pointed out, we don't understand gravity yet (hello gravatons where are you>????). I doubt you reject that theory? We know more about evolution than gravity and its a newer theory.

So I return. Why so hostile?

a reply to: michaelbrux

Neanderthal as a separate species are no longer with us and though small bands of them were still thriving in Gibraltar and Portugal as well as parts of Spain, their habitat had been greatly reduced until they, as a seperate subspecies of the genus homo ceased to exist. Europeans, Asians and some North American paleo Indians brought some of those genes across Berringea to the Western Hemisphere so in a way they are still alive through us. It was part of my work in grad school so I'd prefer not to kick myself right now. Whatever science teacher in your high school gave you anachronistic information... Them I'd like to kick a few times.

a reply to: peter vlar

Perhaps our friend is of a certain age? To be fair when I was going through Highschool in the 1980's that was what was known. But still perhaps someone was from Kansas It would explain the hostility to evolution

i don't deny that you have shown me the elements of the process of evolution. thank you for the 20th time. i asked a few questions and you have shown me Evolution.

Evolution is crude when compared to other things, I was expecting it to be something else and its not that something else, nor does it desire to become something more.

Evolution cannot answer any questions regarding biological organisms for the the first couple of Billion years and had to wait until a diverse and abundant living world appeared before it could begin to answer questions; and it doesn't know where any of this is headed.

its like the Iranians had to wait for the Americans to build and lose a drone before it could build a better drone.

Evolution is the science of bootleggers and reverse engineers; not the science of creators.

originally posted by: michaelbrux
Evolution is crude when compared to other things

Other things? such as?

Can you can show a process that can produce the wonders and beauty at the level of living organisms?

I was expecting it to be something else and its not that something else, nor does it desire to become something more.

....evolution does not desire anything, its a process not a consciousness....

Evolution cannot answer any questions regarding biological organisms for the the first couple of Billion years and had to wait until a diverse and abundant living world appeared before it could begin to answer questions; and it doesn't know where any of this is headed.

There wouldn't be a 'diverse and abundant living world' without evolution, and again evolution isn't an individual nor an agent.

its like the Iranians had to wait for the Americans to build and lose a drone before it could build a better drone.

Evolution is the science of bootleggers and reverse engineers; not the science of creators.

There were things such as elephants and hippo's before evolution began?

Or do you mean to say that evolution began once the first living cell appeared? because that's true.

But there wasn't anything to copy or bootleg before the first living cells emerged, certainly no geese or jellyfish etc etc.

And evolution isn't a science in that context, it's a process that we use science to observe and study.