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

[edwest]

You have posted nothing new. Feel free to continue but all of it’s been covered before in this thread.

 

[buffalo]

Actually I think it was more because tonsils have a tendency to house common infections and appendixes have a tendency to ‘explode’, and taking them out didn’t have any obvious negative effect. Doctors weren’t just like “Well evolution is a thing therefore this random organ must be useless.”

I mean come on man. You just heard a talking point about evolution and vestigial organs and completely got the logic backwards.

It was evo thinking that made them believe these organs were useless.

 

[Edgar]

You keep mentioning how you’re not a Young-earth creationist but you’re not any different since they make the exact same argument you’re making about how we cannot and should not try to make any inferences about the past outside of the Bible no matter what evidence there is

What are you talking about? What Bible argument? I haven’t even mentioned the Bible! For your information, I don’t even have an interpretation of the Genesis creation accounts - all I know is, if scientific discoveries about the age of life on earth are correct, Genesis and the “six days” obviously aren’t literal. Furthermore, I accept the possibility that life on earth could be billions of years old.

So for HIV research, I really only need to talk about viral evolution, since even that would negate the majority of anti-evolution arguments made in this thread, namely:
That random mutation can produce useful and novel functionality … that random mutation and natural selection alone can produce efficient and functional phenotypes with the appearance of design … that genetic research can trace the relationship and origin of lifeforms

This doesn’t answer my question. I already know that certain mechanisms of microevolution have proven useful - in the treatment of AIDS for example - but that’s not what I asked for. My question is: How has the Darwinian interpretation of the history of life (ie, macroevolution) proven useful in applied science? And may I remind you that “research” and tracing the origin of lifeforms are not a practical uses.

In the end you’re just some dude on the internet with a weird axe to grind about a subject you don’t really understand. The research world goes without your approval because luckily people making grant decisions usually actually bother to try to have a decent grasp of the subject.

Which aspect of evolutionary theory don’t I understand?

 

[Edgar]

It’s ironic and strange that you post this thinking it is an attack on evolution.

Wrong again - I don’t think it’s an attack on evolution. Gould was an ardent evolutionist who - like the fine Marxist that he was - refused to acknowledge clear evidence of creation.

Evolution in fact predicts that no new phyla would be forming. But why does your continuous miraculous creation never form any new phyla?

Wrong again. My progressive creation model is in fact based on the fossil record, which features all manner of new phyla.

Punctuated equilibrium is also not an attack on evolution

Gee, no kidding? Why would Gould and Eldredge want to attack evolution? (Incidentally, Gould was a typical evolutionary scientist - he spent a life-time raving on about evolutionary theory - his untestable PE story for example - but contributed absolutely nothing to the real world of applied biology.)

 

[Beyond_Reason]

Wrong again. My progressive creation model is in fact based on the fossil record, which features all manner of new phyla.

Really? New animal phyla after the cambrian explosion? Go on…

 

[Edgar]

Evolution brings about new and different life forms all the time. It has been witnessed under controlled conditions as well as in nature.

Is that so? Which new and different F0RM of life has man witnessed coming into existence?

One species of _E.col_i bacterium has a new and different FORM to another species of E.coli? One species of Green Warbler has a new and different FORM to another species of Green Warbler? Really? Which biolgoy textbook are you reading?

And can I prove God isn’t just making them look like they’re evolving?

A progressive creation model fits the fossil record much better than the evolution model.

 

[Beyond_Reason]

Yes, new viral forms, as well as bacteria are witnessed. And, although I know you will arbitarily dismiss them, artificial selection has radically changed the form of a lot of plants and domestic animals.

 

[Edgar]

Really? New animal phyla after the cambrian explosion?

Wow, the number of wrong conclusions you come to is embarrassing - how old are you? When did I say no new animal phyla appeared after the Cambrian explosion?

 

[Beyond_Reason]

I’m asking for examples of new animal phyla appearing after the Cambrian explosion.

Ironic post is ironic.

 

[Beyond_Reason]

Just to spell it out. You originally posted this quote from Gould:

“the Cambrian phylum count was larger, perhaps much larger, than the contemporary count. No new phyla have appeared, and many have gone”

And I stated that this does not contradict evolution, it is in fact predicted by evolution (hey look, a testable prediction!).

Then you said

Wrong again. My progressive creation model is in fact based on the fossil record, which features all manner of new phyla.

And so I said

Really? New animal phyla after the cambrian explosion? Go on…

asking for examples of new animal phyla appearing after the cambrian explosion.

Then you insulted me and asked

When did I say no new animal phyla appeared after the Cambrian explosion?

… when I clearly didn’t say that you did and was in fact asking if you had evidence of the opposite.

I can get out the puppets if you need more help.

 

[Edgar]

Yes, new viral forms, as well as bacteria are witnessed. And, although I know you will arbitarily dismiss them, artificial selection has radically changed the form of a lot of plants and domestic animals.

Show me a scientific article or paper that says “new and different FORMS” of viruses or bacteria have been witnessed to evolve.

 

[Beyond_Reason]

How are you defining “form”? I’m thinking it is in some sort of loosey goose way that no matter what I provide you’ll dance off and say it doesn’t count unless it’s bacteria growing a human arm or some other ridiculous nonsense.

 

[Beyond_Reason]

Metis1:

The fact that life forms have evolved is obvious

Really? So what does the fossil record reveal as the evolutionary ancestors of fish? Where are the millions of transitional fossils that should exist between dinosaurs and birds? Why does the Cambrian explosion reveal disparity before diversity - the opposite of what evolution predicts?

“the Cambrian phylum count was larger, perhaps much larger, than the contemporary count. No new phyla have appeared, and many have gone … The history of animal life is not a history of gradually increasing differentiation. It is a history of exuberant initial proliferation, followed by much loss” - S. J. Gould.

I’m still curious about this post. You say the Cambrian explosion reveals “disparity before diversity” and that this is the opposite of what evolution predicts, and then insert a quote from Gould about how there were more phyla in the Cambrian than there are now, which is actually exactly what evolution predicts. So what was the point of the Gould quote? My original interpretation was that you thought Gould’s statement about how there were more phyla in the Cambrian supported your statement about “disparity before diversity” and contradicted evolution. But after I pointed out that that actually supports evolution you say “of course what Gould said supports evolution.” So what was the point of including it? To immediately contradict yourself? Or are you saying his statement about no new phyla emerging is a false prediction of evolution, which you seem to now be saying, and I am eagerly awaiting this multitude of new and varied phyla emerging since the Cambrian Explosion.

 

[Techno2000]

How are you defining “form”? I’m thinking it is in some sort of loosey goose way that no matter what I provide you’ll dance off and say it doesn’t count unless it’s bacteria growing a human arm or some other ridiculous nonsense.

Just show one feather or tooth sprouting out and we’ll be satisfied.

 

[Beyond_Reason]

Thanks for obliging me in stepping in to fill your role. I’m sure Edgar was on the cusp of saying I was making a strawman.

 

[Edgar]

How are you defining “form”? I’m thinking it is in some sort of loosey goose way that no matter what I provide you’ll dance off and say it doesn’t count unless it’s bacteria growing a human arm or some other ridiculous nonsense.

In other words, you can’t show me a scientific article or paper that says “ new and different FORMS ” of viruses or bacteria have been witnessed to evolve.

 

[Beyond_Reason]

If you define “forms” for me, I’ll be happy to oblige. But I’m waiting because I suspect you will change after I provide it if I dont nail you down to one ahead of time.

 

[Edgar]

You originally posted this quote from Gould: “the Cambrian phylum count was larger, perhaps much larger, than the contemporary count. No new phyla have appeared, and many have gone”

That’s Gould’s opinion. It’s my understanding that the general scientific consenus is, some new phyla appeared after the Cambrian explosion.

 

[Edgar]

If you define “forms” for me, I’ll be happy to oblige. But I’m waiting because I suspect you will change after I provide it if I dont nail you down to one ahead of time.

Huh? You want me to define “forms”? It’s your term, not mine!

 

[Beyond_Reason]

Not really, almost all appeared at that time (leaving possible exceptions for some microbes). Evolution explains why. “Progressive creation” does not.