Do you believe in evolution?

[Dan123]

What knowledgeable source did English come from? What knowledgeable source do new words like “quantum” or “bootylicious” come from?

 

[Dan123]

So, do parents always bring forth offspring of the same species as them?

Depends on how you want to classify hybrids like ligers I suppose.

But hybrids aside yes. And in most forms of life those offspring are genetically different than their parent(s) as well. Agreed? What do lots of small changes lead to?

 

[rossum]

Mutations that are beneficial in one environment are damaging in another.

Yes. Polar bears have white fur because white fur is beneficial for camouflage in the Arctic. Further south, where there is much less snow, bears do not have white fur because it is deleterious. In between some animals, such as foxes and rabbits, have white fur in winter and brown fur in summer. Natural selection has adapted them to an environment that changes with the seasons.

I believe (or hope) Rossum understands that and has changed his viewpoint now.

My view is unchanged: your sources’ knowledge of evolution is insufficient.

Evolutionists need to explain how bacteria evolved into humans via this random process - and that has been an impossible task so far.

It is not impossible, we have a great deal of detail. Start with Eukaryotes and their Origins which covers the origin of eukaryotes from bacteria. I assume you are aware that humans are eukaryotes – we have mitochondria.

 

[Noose001]

What knowledgeable source did English come from? What knowledgeable source do new words like “quantum” or “bootylicious” come from?

Certainly not from primitive, common ancestor.
An existing language can expand, change or used to create another language.

 

[Bill_B_NY]

I refuted your position and you did not respond to that other than to attack me on a personal basis.

Your response finally?

My view is unchanged

If you would PM me your real name, I will pray for you regularly. If not, I’ll just pray for rossuum - asking God’s blessing and help for you, in your needs.

the origin of eukaryotes from bacteria.

Should be easy to demonstrate. I’ll wait for that.

 

[Noose001]

Depends on how you want to classify hybrids like ligers I suppose.

But hybrids aside yes. And in most forms of life those offspring are genetically different than their parent(s) as well. Agreed? What do lots of small changes lead to?

We are talking about viable offspring.

If parents can only have offspring of the same species as them, then there should only be one species in the entire world.

Genetic difference, especially for sexual organisms is not exclusively as a result of mutation but DNA hybridization from two parents. White and black will give grey, doesn’t necessarily mean a mutation.

Small genetic changes will never result into new species as per your admission that every offspring is of the same species with the parent(s). Wherever you choose to draw the line, you’ll have to separate parents and their off spring.

 

[Dan123]

Certainly not from primitive, common ancestor.
An existing language can expand, change or used to create another language.

Lots of animals have simple (by human standards) communication. Why would that be ineligible to be expanded on?

You saying ‘certainly not’ seems to only indicate you can’t imagine it happening, therefore it couldn’t have.

 

[Noose001]

Lots of animals have simple (by human standards) communication. Why would that be ineligible to be expanded on?

Not simple but gene controlled.

You saying ‘certainly not’ seems to only indicate you can’t imagine it happening, therefore it couldn’t have.

But how is the transition from gene controlled communication to learning?

I can’t imagine because it an impossibility seeing the complexity of the human language.

 

[Dan123]

Small genetic changes will never result into new species as per your admission that every offspring is of the same species with the parent(s). Wherever you choose to draw the line, you’ll have to separate parents and their off spring.

Taxonomy systems work on populations not individuals. You’re missing the forest for the trees.

So we agree small changes can occur, okay fine lets start there.

If I take two random groups of dogs and put them in separate areas, one where being a large dog is beneficial, say food is up high or something, and one where being a small dog is beneficial, say the food is all underneath furniture, and I let them live there and breed for generation after generation, when we returned would we expect to see the average size of the completely random groups to now be influences by the conditions of their environment?

 

[rossum]

If you would PM me your real name, I will pray for you regularly.

If your God is omniscient then you do not need my real name, God will know who I am.

Should be easy to demonstrate.

OK, so you appear not to even want to read the link I posted. The site software shows how many times a link has been clicked, and the link in my post has not even been clicked once.

You can lead a horse to water…

 

[Dan123]

But how is the transition from gene controlled communication to learning?

I can’t imagine because it an impossibility seeing the complexity of the human language.

I said awhile ago it’s more an emergent property of intelligence. You could be a lot less intelligent than you are and still be able to use simple concepts expressed in simple words/grunts/noises.

Not simple but gene controlled.

Genes didn’t teach my dog to sit. Teaching young humans is basically the same as teaching dogs, except the humans are usually a bit slower to learn.

 

[Noose001]

Taxonomy systems work on populations not individuals. You’re missing the forest for the trees.

But mutations work on individuals and not populations.

If I take two random groups of dogs and put them in separate areas, one where being a large dog is beneficial, say food is up high or something, and one where being a small dog is beneficial, say the food is all underneath furniture, and I let them live there and breed for generation after generation, when we returned would we expect to see the average size of the completely random groups to now be influences by the conditions of their environment?

As per your earlier admission, i don’t see a new species arising because all the offspring will always be of the same species as the parent. If we have to draw a line and identify a new species at any given moment within those generations, then we shall have separated parents and offspring as different species.

 

[Noose001]

I said awhile ago it’s more an emergent property of intelligence. You could be a lot less intelligent than you are and still be able to use simple concepts expressed in simple words/grunts/noises.

This is very easy to disprove and is so common that a deaf person (intelligent and with the capacity to speak) will not speak a language simply because they did not get a chance to learn one.

A dog’s design will allow it to sit whether you teach it or not. Try a snake.

 

[o_mlly]

A static environment is not required, merely that the rate of change is not too fast.

If the range of investigation is eons then the environment is not stable. Evolution requires eons.

Polar bears have white fur because white fur is beneficial for camouflage in the Arctic.

Actually the polar bear’s fur is transparent. The brown bear retains the functionality to produce pigment. The evolved polar bear lost that function.

 

[Dan123]

But mutations work on individuals and not populations.

Fair enough. If you have an offspring with a mutation that causes them to have a 6th finger on each hand, are they a new species?

As per your earlier admission, i don’t see a new species arising because all the offspring will always be of the same species as the parent. If we have to draw a line and identify a new species at any given moment within those generations, then we shall have separated parents and offspring as different species.

Well good news, we don’t have to draw that line at a given moment.

As to the question would it be reasonable to expect one of the groups to be larger than the randomized group we started with, and the other to be smaller?

This is very easy to disprove and is so common that a deaf person (intelligent and with the capacity to speak) will not speak a language simply because they did not get a chance to learn one.

You’re shifting goal posts from language to spoken language, but fine. Have you actually looked into whether deaf people can learn to speak?

 

[rossum]

Evolution requires eons.

No. Europeans evolved resistance to the plague in about 300 years. What level of smallpox resistance do Native Americans have to smallpox now? That must have evolved in less than 600 years.

Plants are already evolving resistance to Roundup, which was only introduced in the 1970s That is 30 years.

Evolution can be either fast or slow.

 

[o_mlly]

Europeans evolved resistance to the plague in about 300 years. What level of smallpox resistance do Native Americans have to smallpox now? That must have evolved in less than 600 years.

Plants are already evolving resistance to Roundup, which was only introduced in the 1970s That is 30 years.

Evolution can be either fast or slow.

Microevolution, the adaptive changes intraspecies, can be fast. No one argues otherwise. Brown bear, polar bear, grizlar bear are all observed. Macrovevolution, microbe to man, is an eons long hypothesis. Over eons, natural selection is random.

Nothing evolves in the sense of something coming into being. The polar bear may be said to have devolved from the brown bear in losing the pigmentation function. The ancestral Europeans and Native American Indians that survived the epidemics already had the ability to resist the germs and successfully reproduced.

 

[rossum]

Over eons, natural selection is random.

Over eons it has no fixed direction. It is not random, but follows the prevailing local environment. Some of the environment is random: meteorite strikes. Some of the environment is fixed: gravity. Some of the environment changes non-randomly as with the Great Oxygenation Event, which was not random but was caused.

 

[Noose001]

Fair enough. If you have an offspring with a mutation that causes them to have a 6th finger on each hand, are they a new species?

No. I think we agree that if parents will always be of the same species as their offspring then we should have a single species. What other options do we have?

Well good news, we don’t have to draw that line at a given moment.

As to the question would it be reasonable to expect one of the groups to be larger than the randomized group we started with, and the other to be smaller?

Unfortunately for evolution, the definition of a species draws a very clear line.

As to the answer, yes. The dominant gene will be expressed regardless and the recessive gene will also be expressed at every opportunity.

You’re shifting goal posts from language to spoken language, but fine. Have you actually looked into whether deaf people can learn to speak?

The prerequisite of having the capacity to learn is a brain and deaf people have brains.

Your arguments about language will end up being empty anyway because there’s no data to support them. On the contrary, what is known and what is supported is that human language is acquired from knowledgeable source and we can only go back in time as far as an original knowledgeable source (insert God here).

 

[Bill_B_NY]

You can lead a horse to water…

There’s no water there, as you admit.
I want to drink from a lab demonstration. Don’t give me some evolutionary imagination. I’ve read enough of it already. Years later, they come up with a different hypothesis.
Lenski tried at least:

Twenty-five years later the culture — a cumulative total of trillions of cells — has been going for an astounding 58,000 generations and counting. As the article points out, that’s equivalent to a million years in the lineage of a large animal such as humans.
… There have been no mutations or series of mutations identified that appear to be on their way to constructing elegant new molecular machinery of the kind that fills every cell.
Lenski’s Long-Term Evolution Experiment: 25 Years and Counting | Evolution News

You can’t even demonstrate bacteria to eukaryotes. But you expect us to accept bacteria to human - on the very same lack of evidence.