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

@BillW,

I would have prefered a real answer, you know, a logical answer as to why you disagree. Got one?

@gungasnake,

We are all individuals with subjective perception of what we accept as real. I try to base my belief on logic. If I can see "proof and/or evidence" for my belief, I will believe in it until evidence proves it wrong. That's one reason I do not believe in any god(s).

0 Replies

@gungasnake,

If you can disprove the evolution of Darwin's finches, I'd like to see it.
Also, evidence for evolution of homo sapiens. http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence

3 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

I would have prefered a real answer, you know, a logical answer as to why you disagree. Got one?

It was a real, logical answer to comedic fiction. Get real!

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

What is the difference between the evolution of darwins finches and the selective breeding of dogs? Neither is proof of macroevolution being driven by random mutations.

1 Reply

@BillW,

Quote:

Yea also, when he that is a fool walketh by the way, his wisdom faileth him, and he saith to every one that he is a fool.
- Solomon

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:
Yea also, when he that is a fool walketh by the way, his wisdom faileth him, and he saith to every one that he is a fool.
- Solomon

Don't talk of yourself that way. You are stupid and misguided, but not really, really bad. Uhhh, maybe on the other hand, mmmmmm, nevermind.

0 Replies

@brianjakub,

You must first understand the Darwin finches.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

The claims involving finches involve microevolution, which nobody disputes. But the theory of evolution is about macroevolution, not microevolution.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

Also, evidence for evolution of homo sapiens. http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence

The idea of humans evolving from hominids is not tenable. For any hominid to have evolved into humans, that hominid would have to have:
• Lost his fur while ice ages were going on.
• Lost almost all of his night vision while surrounded by predators which could see very nicely in the dark.
• Lost almost all of his sense of smell while trying to survive as a land prey animal.

That third item would have been more or less instantly fatal for a land prey animal. Aquatic mammals, of course, do not really require a keen sense of smell…

1 Reply

@gungasnake,

Quote gunga:

Quote:

The idea of humans evolving from hominids is not tenable. For any hominid to have evolved into humans, that hominid would have to have:
• Lost his fur while ice ages were going on.

You have that backwards. Homo Sapiens or predecessors lost their fur while all of them still lived in Africa, when they stopped climbing trees in the forest and moved into the hot African grasslands. The Homo Sapiens started becoming somewhat hairier when they moved out of Africa up North, thereby demonstrating that your hairy ideas prove the opposite of what you think they do.

Quote:

• Lost almost all of his night vision while surrounded by predators which could see very nicely in the dark.

Your timing is off. Australopithecus might have made a tasty meal for the local predators, but by the time Homo Sapiens came on the scene the genus Homo was at or very near the top of the food chain. Half a million years ago Homo was already using razor sharp stone tips for his spears, which changes the power equation between Man and Beast very much in Man's favor. Fact is, predators were figuring out that they were better off leaving us alone. Note the following:

Quote:

A collaborative study found that human ancestors were making stone-tipped weapons 500,000 years ago at the South African archaeological site of Kathu Pan 1 -- 200,000 years earlier than previously thought.

Science Daily

Quote:

• Lost almost all of his sense of smell while trying to survive as a land prey animal.

We weren't a prey animal, by the time we became Homo Sapien we were top of the heap. Even now, people in undeveloped parts of the world seek out any predators that kill or attack a human and kill it with their sharp spears. Which means the only predators left now and probably for hundreds of thousands of years mostly figured out to steer clear when THEY smelled US. The genus Homo, and probably Australopithecus as well, devoted their energies to getting larger brains capable of devising more deadly hunting weapons. It turned out to be a much better survival strategy than wasting precious resources on keeping their sense of smell sharp.

3 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

The Darwin finches are a simple thing to understand. It is an example of natural selective breeding through isolation. The changes in the animals probably weren't even mutations but, just selectively choosing traits that already existed in the DNA. So if you can't prove any new information was added by genetic mutations , why do you use this as proof that random mutations are the driver for directing the new information flow into the DNA to cause macroevolution? Please explain your answer. You have pointed out that you are well educated and successful. I am sure you had to be able to show you clearly understood the course work and how the information supported your decisions in your career. Could you please explain to me how darwin's finches support your decision to believe that random mutations are capable of being the initial driver behind all macroevolution?

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

Forgive my intrusion but this...

Quote:

random mutations are the driver for directing the new information flow into the DNA to cause macroevolution

...looks meaningless.
The simple principle that 'the contextually fittest mutations survive at the expense of the survival of others and selectively breed accordingly', seems sufficient for macroevolution. There is no claim required for the phenotype affecting the genotype (i.e. for 'new information afecting the genes'), nor for a concept of 'directive cause' to be involved. This is straw man stuff !
As far as CI's response to Gunga was concerned, your question seems superfluous ...indeed most communications with Gunga are futile !

1 Reply

@Blickers,

Sounds reasonable to me, but it might be based on personal ignorance of human history.

0 Replies

@Blickers,

Quote:

You have that backwards. Homo Sapiens or predecessors lost their fur while all of them still lived in Africa...

Wrong. Cro Magnon needles are common, while nobody has ever found a Neanderthal needle. That is because a creature with a 6" ice-age fur coat does not require needles. And the Neanderthal died out something like 25K years ago, long after anybody ever moved out of Africa, even if the out-of-Africa thing were anything other than a fairytale...

Vendramini Neanderthal:

http://www.themandus.org/old_website/thumbnail_neanderthal_montage-framed-small.jpg

1 Reply

@gungasnake,

Quote Blickers:

Quote:

You have that backwards. Homo Sapiens or predecessors lost their fur while all of them still lived in Africa...

Quote Gunga:

Quote:

Wrong. Cro Magnon needles are common, while nobody has ever found a Neanderthal needle.

So? I'm talking about Homo Sapiens, not Neanderthals. Neanderthals are not Homo Sapiens, they are Homo Neanderthalis. And their Homo Heidelbergensis ancestors left Africa for Europe and Asia somewhere between one million years ago and 700,000 years ago. Homo Sapiens left Africa in two waves, 65,000 years ago and 45,000 years ago. It would not be surprising to find that a Homo line that was in the cold weather for 700,000 years or so has heavier hair or fur than a late arriving Homo line, (modern humans), that only entered the cold weather 65,000 years ago at the earliest. And the late arriving Homo line-Homo Sapiens-in Europe has heavier hair or fur than the African Homo Sapiens living today. Once again, the evidence you provide supports both evolution and the Out-Of-Africa Theory, which you were attempting to disprove.

PS: Another thing, Neanderthals wore hides. From a paper by Sorenson of Roskilde University, Denmark:

Quote:

Lithic remains from the Eem include awl-like points suited for making holes in skin material (found e.g. at the Stuttgart-Untertürkheim site; Wenzel, 2007), as well as knife-like blades suited for cutting strips of animal skin, that could be inserted and weaved through the holes, in order to convert plain furs into fitting clothes.

Source

So your vision of buck naked Neanderthals prancing merrily through the European snowdrifts is a little off.

1 Reply

@Blickers,

Quote:

It would not be surprising to find that a Homo line that was in the cold weather for 700,000 years or so has heavier hair or fur than a late arriving Homo line, (modern humans), that only entered the cold weather 65,000 years ago at the earliest.

Does that coincide with the ice age?

0 Replies

@fresco,

Quote:

The simple principle that the contextually fittest mutations survive at the expense of the survival of others and selectively breed accordingly, seems sufficient for macro evolution

I agree with that statement. Whether evolution is directed by random mutations or intelligently selected mutations the statement above is always true. Your statement supports ID and random mutations equally. Natural selection cannot tell the difference between ID and random mutations. Natural selection cannot tell the difference between ID and random mutations.

Quote:

there is no claim required for the phenotype affecting the genotype

you are correct if all CI was talking about was microevolution. But I do believe he was talking about evolution in general including macro evolution of things like new organ systems including digestive systems, Eyesight, or Hearing. How do you end up with macro evolution without phenotype affecting genotype?

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

could you elaborate on what you mean by "guiding the mutations of DNA in the act of sexual reproduction by manipulating protein"?

. It is in the embryonic stage when cells are the most easily affected to make the most change in the outcome of the organism. That is why embryonic cell research is such a controversial topic. We know there is very little difference in the way embryos of different organisms look. It looks like it takes very small changes in the initial embryo to make a vast changes in the organism. The same is true with the proteins in our brain, With very minute changes in the way a few protein molecules are reacting in a person's brain One man can change whether the twin towers stay standing in New York or fall down by a simple hand movement in the cockpit of a jet airliner. And both places in the protein molecules in our brain and the protein molecules in a pack six protein huge changes can be brought about with out anybody being able to detect how and why they are happening.

There is theological support to that when God talks about marriage in the Bible. He is involved in the consummation of a marriage, and the creation of a family. What God has united no one is to divide. The terminate the new life or the marriage. That's where God does his best work, in consummation.

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

OK, I'd have understood if you'd said 'the process of sexual reproduction' instead of 'the act'.

1 Reply

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know