Is Darwin's Theory Of Evolution True?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Techno2000 said:
Your assumptions about what evolution looks like are too narrow. You assume that so-called “transitional” forms would have to look weird. In fact transitional forms are just as suited to their environment as the forms that preceded them, and not much different from the forms that they lead to. You are asking for something that looks weird, when no such thing needs to exist to have evolution.
Click to expand...
So that means they should find even more fossils showing this.
[/quote]

Not necessarily. The fossil record is very incomplete. Drawing conclusions from what we don’t find is not well-founded. Besides, the fossil record does show transitional species. Look for example at the detailed fossil record of the animals leading to the whale. They were transitional species.
 
I wasn’t aware of a challenge, just saying that speciation by DarwinIan evolution is not hybridization.

I also was wondering if they were still in existence as to whether or not they were able to reproduce, because that would mean that there were at least two which were the same.

Don’t mean to move any goalposts, I just imagine that in speaking about evolution most people would be concerned with the evolutionary processes…I didn’t realize there was some challenge presented you.
 
Kei said:
I wasn’t aware of a challenge, just saying that speciation by DarwinIan evolution is not hybridization.
Click to expand...
If it leads to a viable, reproducing new species, it is a form of Darwinian evolution, although not the only form. I mention just to counter the argument that observed variation never leads to new species. It is true that countering one argument against evolution does not prove evolution. But it does disprove a particular argument against it.
I also was wondering if they were still in existence as to whether or not they were able to reproduce, because that would mean that there were at least two which were the same.
Click to expand...
According to this article, the new species were able to reproduce with others of their own kind. So they were not sterile hybrids that could only exist by pairing older species. They were self-sustaining, satisfying all the requirements of a truly new species.

Again, I don’t claim that this is the most general form of Darwinian evolution. It is a special case. But it is a special case that shoots down one of the most common arguments against evolution - that species never produce new species.
Don’t mean to move any goalposts, I just imagine that in speaking about evolution most people would be concerned with the evolutionary processes…I didn’t realize there was some challenge presented you.
Click to expand...
Well, we do have a kind of argument going here where each side makes claims that challenge the other side’s view. That’s how most arguments proceed, isn’t it? (Not that there is anything wrong with that…)
 
But being able to reproduce with their own kind does not mean that there were others of their own kind.
Essentially, I am asking if there were two of their own “kind”, and if so, that leaves me wondering the specifics of this experiment. Do you have any papers I could look at?
 
Last edited:
Kei said:
But being able to reproduce with their own kind does not mean that there were others of their own kind.
Essentially, I am asking if there were two of their own “kind”, and if so, that leaves me wondering the specifics of this experiment. Do you have any papers I could look at?
Click to expand...
It was not an experiment. It was an observation of something that happened in the wild. Yes, man brought several of these species to America, but after that, they spread on their own - and formed hybrids on their own. Most hybrids are sterile, and therefore not new species. But these were found in numbers large enough to be found in the wild, and so it was not just one “manufactured” plant. It was speciation taking place in the wild, leading to a successful population of a new species.

I don’t have any citations beyond the one I gave.
 
The problem is that species is a man made definition. I am eagerly awaiting the rewrite of what a species is epigenetically and genetically.
 
Except they found an older one in Europe, Poland I think. 18 million years older.
 
Last edited:
A book suggestion:

Undeniable: How Biology Confirms Our Intuition That Life Is Designed by Douglas Axe.
 
Techno2000 said:
Do you believe this is how it happen ?
Click to expand...
OK, Techno. I’m going to try something here. Just a story about a small island somewhere. I’ll tell you about it and you can agree with what I have said or not. If you disagree, then tell me why. If you agree, I will continue the story and see where it gets us. Sounds reasonable? Right. So let’s begin.

I want you to imagine an uninhabited island somewhere. And on the island lives a small bird that looks to all intents and purposes like a chicken. In fact, we’ll call it a chicken. And like quite a few breeds of chicken, this one can hardly fly. A lot of flapping will just get it barely off the gound. Sound reasonable?

Then a boat stops at the island looking for fresh food. When they leave, they have left behind a few small dogs.

Now the dogs like chicken. And so they start hunting them. And are relatively easy to catch because they can’t fly and don’t run very fast. Are we all good so far? Nothing I’ve said sounds unreasonable?
 
Bradskii said:
40.png
Techno2000:
Do you believe this is how it happen ?
Click to expand...
OK, Techno. I’m going to try something here. Just a story about a small island somewhere. I’ll tell you about it and you can agree with what I have said or not. If you disagree, then tell me why. If you agree, I will continue the story and see where it gets us. Sounds reasonable? Right. So let’s begin.

I want you to imagine an uninhabited island somewhere. And on the island lives a small bird that looks to all intents and purposes like a chicken. In fact, we’ll call it a chicken. And like quite a few breeds of chicken, this one can hardly fly. A lot of flapping will just get it barely off the gound. Sound reasonable?

Then a boat stops at the island looking for fresh food. When they leave, they have left behind a few small dogs.

Now the dogs like chicken. And so they start hunting them. And are relatively easy to catch because they can’t fly and don’t run very fast. Are we all good so far? Nothing I’ve said sounds unreasonable?
Click to expand...
No, but next you are going to say that they had to evolve to fly away from the dogs…right?
 
Last edited:
There’s not much to say.

Most likely: Dogs eat the chickens. I believe it is a myth that chicken bones are deadly, so no more chickens. No more dogs.

Maybe: Dogs were neutered. Chickens outlast dogs.

Maybe: Dogs eat slow chickens. Faster smarter chickens are not eaten and mate. A new chicken “species” is born.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Beep beep.
 
Last edited:
edwest211 said:
Of course, it’s so obvious… or not.
Click to expand...
The dogs would be chasing the chickens and catching and eating them for millons of years until they can slowly evolve to fly away…doesn’t make sense .
 
Obviously, if there were genes that coded for chicken brain speed. Those chicken brains that produced more of whatever neurotransmitter, or neuron growth stimulant, or whatever else might be involved, would have been the outcome of information, in the form of a genome, that was passed on from speedy parents to their offspring.

That genome would in pretty much all cases, pre-exist. No evolution here in terms of a greater complexity, that might ultimately explain how plants and animals would have come about simply as a result of random chemical changes, from one-cell ancestors.

As the Nature article quoted by Buffalo above demonstrated, gene deletion looks to be a major driver of speciation. Biological entropy, devolution rather than evolution may be a better explanation for diversity in species.

Except in childhood and adolescence, physically we wind down. Life teaches us that physical mutations result in bad things, not something amazingly superior. Stay out in the sun too long smoking cigarettes is not going to raise one’s IQ or quicken one’s stride. It’s the other way around.

People or their families chose who they will marry, natural selection so 200,000 BCE.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top