Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

@Setanta,

Quote:

Therefore, a random mutation may in fact be a quite common occurrence-

if it's so common, I wonder how cockroaches and horseshoe crabs have managed to avoid it for 450,000,000 years?

3 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Of coarse, but many believe humans were created by god. +
The fact is, humans created many gods.

and, still are.......

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Atlantic Horse shoe crabs have almost no fossil record beyond about 20 million years. Theyare part of the remaining classes of a group related to the Eurypterids . While we call em "living fossils" it doesnt mean they arent subject to the same mutations as other species.
Arthropods in generl seemed to have evolved little(Perhaps its because the marine or estuarine environments are fairly limited in their variqbility.

Ive never used a cockroach as an index fossil so I really have no idea about what their ancestors may have looked like during the Paleozoic

0 Replies

@Setanta,

That was proven by Charles Darwin with his finches in the Galápagos Islands. Since the environments on the islands are different, the finche's beaks evolved to take advantage of the food source on each island. When I visited many decades ago, they had a Charles Darwin Research Center on the island.
http://www.ecoventura.com/what-is-the-charles-darwin-research-station/

0 Replies

2017 has been a banner year for discovering how totally wrong we were/are about the evolution of humans. If the facts in this article don't convince you of that, you don't really believe in science.

https://evolutionnews.org/2017/09/fossil-footprints-from-crete-deepen-controversy-on-human-origins/

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Perhaps you should have mentioned that the article was produced by a group whose mission is 'to advance Judeo-Christian culture'.
'Science' does NOT involve ID as a relacement for the 'null hypothesis'. Only proto believers do. The only scientific procedure implied by a counter example is to look for 'an alternative' testable hypothesis thereby excluding ID.
....but you are not going to accept that are you...too much at stake!

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:
Therefore, a random mutation may in fact be a quite common occurrence-
if it's so common, I wonder how cockroaches and horseshoe crabs have managed to avoid it for 450,000,000 years?

It's probably not variation they are avoiding but selection. Or selective pressures simply align with their current morphology.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

2017 has been a banner year for discovering how totally wrong we were/are about the evolution of humans. If the facts in this article don't convince you of that, you don't really believe in science.

https://evolutionnews.org/2017/09/fossil-footprints-from-crete-deepen-controversy-on-human-origins/

None of the new information related to human evolution in any way conflicts with the basic underlying principle of evolution which is simply, descent with modification.

When pointing out details within the evolutionary process it's important not to conflate that with any type of conflict with the underlying principle.

2 Replies

@rosborne979,

fresco beat me to it. When I aw the list of writers I wondered whether the Diwcovery Intitute has just published under some new covers and DAYUM, they are!!.

Well maybe they gonna get down and start publishing their "Intelligence behind all this biology" hypotheses.

I see Dr Behe is still there.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

2017 has merely celebrated the doubling of the amounts of Homo sp fossils found in the last few yers. Its also been a year when the concept of Hominin evolution needs to provide a better understanding of WHERE our great great.... grandaddies evolved beyond Olduvai. Johansenn said that in the early 80's

0 Replies

@farmerman,

The "About" section of Evolution News leads to the Discovery Institute, which leads to a statement of philosophy which conflicts with basic scientific principles.

Clearly it is disingenuous if not outright dishonest to portray yourself as purveyors of scientific information when your basic philosophy is in direct conflict with scientific principles. A deeper investigation of their staff history makes it even more clear that their goal is anything but scientific.

I find it revealing however that groups of this type still use this method of deception to try to get their point across, for it is implicit acknowledgement of the inherent force and value of science itself as the only path toward rational understanding of the world.

"Science is the tool we use to prevent ourselves from being deceived, by others or by ourselves." I don't recall who said that, but I found it to be the most succinct statement of why the scientific method continues to be so valuable to humanity.

1 Reply

Jeez you guys are predictable. 'I just knew it had to be them.
Note that I said 'the facts' in the article. I don't hear anybody refuting them.

Ros, I agree that there are two different aspects of evolution at play here, but if we got so much of the 'recent' history of evolution wrong, what does that say about the likelihood of errors in what we know about evolution a hundred times further in the past.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Ros, I agree that there are two different aspects of evolution at play here, but if we got so much of the 'recent' history of evolution wrong, what does that say about the likelihood of errors in what we know about evolution a hundred times further in the past.

Nothing really. There is a big difference between adding detail to an existing body of knowledge and finding a core conflict with the general principle. Remember, the basic underlying idea behind biological evolution is very simple and broad, it's descent with modification. And there have never been any discoveries which conflict with that.

1 Reply

How Science works:

http://theconversation.com/ancient-footprints-in-crete-challenge-theory-of-human-evolution-but-what-actually-made-them-83412

"
The fact is that human footprints and foot function vary enormously between steps as a consequence of the complexity of our anatomy and ability to make choices from a large range of functional strategies to maintain stability. Human foot pressure, which is the way force is applied over the sole of the foot to the ground, overlaps with that of orangutans and pygmy chimpanzees, and probably even more with that of gorillas. So in some circumstances a human foot could look like that of a gorilla.

If all 50 of the Trachilos prints were made freely available to other scientists as high resolution laser scans, we would have a decent sample to assess their variability and compare them to other fossil and recent footprints and foot pressure records. And indeed, the researchers behind the study told The Conversation they are aiming to release all their data at some point.

This would give us a good chance of saying who made them. As it stands, they could as well be those of gorillas – which separated from us over 10m years ago – as those of a member of our own human lineage such as Oreopithecus or Orrorin.
"
Science is based on theories that evolve from facts. When new discoveries are made - theories change. But, change only occurs as the all questions raised are resolved based on these new facts.

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

They succeed because many people of religion do not want to contradict what their religion has taught them, and they want to rationalize information about science that agrees with what they have been taught. The big fear is that their life long beliefs will be shattered if they accept science over their religious' teachings. Many are not able to cross that line.
What amazes me most is the simple fact that the bible is full of errors, omissions and contradictions, but they seem to ignore those in the belief that a) god created this universe, b) god gave his only begotten son for our sins, c) god is love, and d) we can spend eternity in heaven if we believe in the savior.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Having no reason to accept that your claim is true, I'm not going to rise to your creationist, idiotic bait. Read what I wrote again--any mutation which confers a reproductive advantage will be preserved.

You're such a witless god-botherer, which is not, of course, any surprise.

1 Reply

I've pointed this out to Leadhead before when he's tried to slip "Evolution News" bullsh*t in here. As Roswell points out, that crap website is straight out of the Discovery Institute, and only provide feeble talking point for creationists. As Roswell has also pointed out, you can find the smoking gun on their "About" page:

Quote:

Evolution News & Science Today (EN) provides original reporting and analysis about evolution, neuroscience, bioethics, intelligent design and other science-related issues, including breaking news about scientific research. It also covers the impact of science on culture and conflicts over free speech and academic freedom in science. Finally, it fact-checks and critiques media coverage of scientific issues.

The articles published at Evolution News are copyright by Discovery Institute and/or the respective authors and shouldn’t be republished without permission. For permission to reprint, contact [email protected].

0 Replies

By the way, Leadhead, why should you expect subtle, you snide son-of-a-b*tch? I'm just calling a spade a spade. Given the BS you've peddled about your political ideology, you should applaud that.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Thats kinda information-free Bullshit. I began my discussion with you with a recommendation thqt you become aware of the recent complex multivariate model that was presented in This past March' s American Scientist magazine. It looked at the contingency of evolution through time. It tested whether evolution would "repeat itself" in manner similar to the path it had taken.

Don't you mean the May - June issue with the article entitled "Replaying Evolution"?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

What amazes me most is the simple fact that the bible is full of errors, omissions and contradictions, but they seem to ignore those in the belief that a) god created this universe, b) god gave his only begotten son for our sins, c) god is love, and d) we can spend eternity in heaven if we believe in the savior.

You seem to be one of the more confident people posting that your beliefs in evolution are correct. I would also suspect that you have a much greater vocabulary than most of the people telling the story of Genesis which, began as an oral traditional told for generations, before being written down. Could you give me your version of the big bang or evolution that you would pass down to your adult children orally. Remember, you can't look anything up, and you can't refer to any written sources. (not even farmer) Now, after not reading a line from anything for 20 years, (except maybe talking to farmer) who (to make this a legitimate test wouldn't be allowed to read anything for 20 years either) do it again. So, are you willing to at least try the first draft?

2 Replies

Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know