Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle,

You said, “Numerous experiments on live organisms consistent with evolution have been cited in this thread. It s an extrapolation of what has been observed, but so is the half-life of radium.”

MY RESPONSE: An extrapolation is also an inference , and science is full of it. For example, they say that the temperature at the center of the sun is 15 Million Celsius. Can you verify it? I bet you and your thermometer will melt before you even come close to the surface of the sun. Do you therefore call it fact?

I call it a good scientific theory. We don’t generally call anything a fact in science. All theories are subject to being falsifiable. Therefore we shouldn’t call any scientific theory a fact.

I don’t know about you. But I would call it calculated datum , rather than fact.

OK, so we are in agreement there.

So is the half-life of radium. But the theory of evolution is an inference that did not result from any calculation.

A numeric calculation is not a necessary part of a scientific theory.

It was pure hypothesis so improbable that it could not be proved.

Be careful about using words having to do with probability. There is a real science of probability, and treating it the same as an intuitive feeling does a disservice to this richly developed and useful theory.

In fact, calculations based on probability calculus show that if chance alone were at play, then you could hardly produce a living cell.

Show me the calculations and I will show you how the science of probability theory is being misapplied.

What is the probability that by random mutations alone you will be able to drive evolution to produce the first insects (arthropods)?

Irrelevant, since evolution does not posit that random mutations alone drove any significant evolutionary change.

Evolutionists are so embarrassed they don’t even want to talk about it.

I have not seen any indication the evolutionists are embarrassed. If this sort of thinking is how you approach science then it is no wonder that you have trouble understanding evolution.

The truth is, those experiments on live organisms may serve to illustrate an extremely minute aspect of evolution.

Just as observations of radium decay serve only to illustrate extremely minute decay, yet we confidently extrapolate to what will happen in 1600 years.

 

[buffalo]

Google the “No True Scotsman” logical fallacy. This is a classic example of it.

rossum

I am sticking with it. Scientism disregards the formal and final cause. That limits the ability of science to get to the truth.

 

[Techno2000]

Depends on the animal.

Which living fossil would you like to discuss?

So, the snapping turtle’s environment did change much from millions of years ago, till now in this day and age ?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Vonsalza:

Depends on the animal.

Which living fossil would you like to discuss?

So, the snapping turtle’s environment did change much from millions of years ago, till now in this day and age ?

Apparently it did not change in any way that made his particular form uncompetitive.

 

[rossum]

That is not an evidence for the theory of evolution, but an illustration of one of the mechanisms of evolution. Your example, as well as the evolution of antibiotic resistance, have been trumpeted by many evolutionists as evidence of evolution.

Evolution is defined as “change in the genetic makeup of an interbreeding population over time”. Antibiotic resistance is an good example of that; the resistant alleles increase in the population and the non-resistant alleles decrease, hence changing the genetic makeup of the population of bacteria over time.

True evolution …

Another example of the “No True Scotsman” logical fallacy. If your “True evolution” differs from the standard scientific definition of evolution then it is irrelevant. If it does not differ then it is redundant. Evolution already has a well known scientific definition; anything that does not conform to that definition is not evolution.

Take, as an example, the evolution of the eye. How did it actually develop? We can agree that the eye started to improve from the time it gave power to an animal to see (although very slightly). But it only gave this advantage after the eye had been optically constructed and linked by nervous cells to a sensitive optical center in the brain.

You are incorrect here. There are single celled protists that are light-sensitive and can react to different levels of light, such as Euglena. They have no brain, no nerve cells and can only sense light or dark. That is what the eye developed from. Jellyfish have nerves, but no brain, and have light sensitive eyes-spots. Brains only came later, probably with the development of bilateria: the majority of bilateria have a brain of some sort.

You should also know that some plants are light-sensitive and do not have eyes. Sunflowers can track the sun and many flowers open in the day and close at night. There are a lot of different ways for living organisms to sense and react to light and many of them are simpler than eyes.

Now, how do you explain the simultaneous appearance of the elements necessary for vision as long as vision did not exist?

See above. We have living examples of the different stages, and they occur in the correct order for evolution; jellyfish appeared before the first bilateria for example.

Evolution is good at adding complexity to originally very simple systems. Do not be mislead into thinking that current complexity was always present. A single-celled protist can be sensitive to light even though it lacks almost all of the complexity we see in the modern tetrapod or cephalopod eye. Basically it has a patch of a light sensitive chemical and an opaque shield for direction; that is all that is needed to start with. The rest evolved later.

rossum

 

[Techno2000]

Techno2000:

Vonsalza:

Depends on the animal.

Which living fossil would you like to discuss?

So, the snapping turtle’s environment did change much from millions of years ago, till now in this day and age ?

Apparently it did not change in any way that made his particular form uncompetitive.

But, he did have to go through millions of years of evolution for him to become the “snapping turtle”…right ?

 

[rossum]

So, it was just “living fossils” that lived in a environment…what did they eat ?

Your “just” is grossly incorrect. They lived in an environment; at no point were they alone in that environment.

They ate food, or they photosynthesised, depending.

rossum

 

[Bradskii]

Take, as an example, the evolution of the eye. How did it actually develop?

This is not credible. Honestly, it is not in any way credible.

To find out how eyes evolved, all you had to do was type ‘how eyes evolved’ into Google. Then you would have had a wealth of information which you could have then gone on to discuss. You could have rejected all of it, some of it or you coukd have investigated further.

But to ask ‘How did eyes develop?’ as if that was an argument in itself simply shows your ignorance of the subject.

Now how about you take some time out to find exactly how it is proposed that eyes (in many different forms) developed and then come back to talk about it. There are those like rossum who have the patience of Job when it comes to answering dumb questions that posters cannot or will not spend any time finding out the answers for themselves. Despite the fact that they don’t listen to the answers.

How about you buck the trend and learn something about that which you disparage. It’ll be a first and you will gain a lot of credibility. A property which none of the other naysayers posess.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Techno2000:

Vonsalza:

Depends on the animal.

Which living fossil would you like to discuss?

So, the snapping turtle’s environment did change much from millions of years ago, till now in this day and age ?

Apparently it did not change in any way that made his particular form uncompetitive.

But, he did have to go through millions of years of evolution for him to become the “snapping turtle”…right ?

That depends on what you consider the starting point .

 

[buffalo]

Here: Nylon eating bacteria .

rossum

It is an adaptation, aka micro-evolution Japanese researchers saw it adapt to this new food source in 9 days. The particular strain of bacteria can digest toluene, naphthalene, camphor, salicylates and alkane, which are some interesting foods. It is still bacteria.

Why? It already had the ability to degrade nylon from a pre-existing esterase.

 

[buffalo]

Which Bible verse contains the word “evolution”?

It Reveals Creation.

 

[Techno2000]

I know it’s incorrect to think that environment conveniently stayed the same for millions of years just to afford the snapping turtle the opportunity to become a living fossil.

 

[Techno2000]

Techno2000:

LeafByNiggle:

Techno2000:

Vonsalza:

Depends on the animal.

Which living fossil would you like to discuss?

So, the snapping turtle’s environment did change much from millions of years ago, till now in this day and age ?

Apparently it did not change in any way that made his particular form uncompetitive.

But, he did have to go through millions of years of evolution for him to become the “snapping turtle”…right ?

That depends on what you consider the starting point .

The only starting starting point fossils they can find is the snapping turtle.

 

[Vonsalza]

Not true. They just found a proto-turtle that had no shell at all.

 

[rossum]

It is an adaptation, aka micro-evolution

It is precisely what you asked for above at post #2280, evidence that mutations are creative.

You asked a question. I answered it. You are quibbling about the answer and doing the micro- macro-mambo, which has nothing to do with your question.

Yes, mutations can be creative. In this case they created the ability to digest a new chemical.

That it is an example of micro-evolution (you got that right) is irrelevant. Micro-evolution can be creative; macro-evolution can be creative.

rossum

 

[rossum]

It Reveals Creation.

But it does not reveal the precise mechanisms used: “Let the waters bring forth…” Precisely what mechanism was used there? The Bible does not say. God using evolution is not ruled out, and abiogenesis indicates that life started in the sea, “the waters”.

The Bible does not contain the word “evolution”.

rossum

 

[edwest211]

That is the problem.

 

[edwest211]

Want to buy a tree that’s gone missing for 150 milion years? You can.

http://www.wollemipine.com/news/Found_Tree_from_the_Dinosaur_Age.php

 

[rom]

LeafByNiggle,

You said, “Therefore we shouldn’t call any scientific theory a fact.”

MY RESPONSE: Yay! Let’s drink to that.

You said, “A numeric calculation is not a necessary part of a scientific theory.”

MY RESPONSE. It is not necessary, but it is often used to back up a scientific theory. The lack of probability calculations to back up evolution shows the bankruptcy of the evolutionary hypothesis. I think that geneticists realize this, so they have started supporting their statements with mathematical calculations.

You said, “There is a real science of probability.”

MY RESPONSE: I know. It is what I am talking about.

You said, “Show me the calculations and I will show you how the science of probability theory is misapplied.”

MY RESPONSE: Are you assuming , before even seeing my calculations, that I made a mistake?

You said, “Irrelevant, since evolution does not posit that random mutations alone drove any significant evolutionary change.”

MY RESPONSE: True, evolution needs more than random mutations. Actually, much more than random mutations. Chance alone cannot drive evolution.

You said, “… it is no wonder that you have trouble understanding evolution.”

MY RESPONSE: God bless you.

You said, “Just as observations of radium decay serve only to illustrate extremely minute decay, yet we confidently extrapolate to what will happen in 1600 years.”

MY RESPONSE: Radium decay is not a complex process like evolution is. While you can extrapolate numbers in radium decay, it is not that straightforward when it comes to evolution where there are more variable involved and more complex processes to account for. You might think, for example, that genetic mutation and natural selection are drivers of evolution. Well, they are. And they might explain the development and survival of a certain property that you observe in your experiments, but they are hardly adequate to explain the origin of a species as a creature of nature. That a bat develop a thin skin flap might help it to fly. But how does that genetic mutation account for the concomitant growth of the fingers and the skeletal structure to enable its wing? And they all have to grow together to give the bat an advantage. So many questions. The evolutionist can only speculate, but cannot prove.

 

[Techno2000]

I can’t seem to get a clear cut answer on this: If an organism that has gone through the evolutionary process to become a new species, will also have to have its ecosystem/food chain go through a evolutionary process ?