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

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
What I have been posting for a very long time now. Biology majors should be asking for their money back.

The Scientific Approach to Evolution: What They Didn’t Teach You in Biology​

When assessing the validity of a scientific theory, the available evidence should not be weighted equally as if it were equally valid. Rather, the evidence must be prioritized according to the level of confidence that it provides. Evidence that provides high confidence must be prioritized over evidence that only provides low confidence.

Guidelines for the practice of medicine and agencies like the Food and Drug Administration have long recognized that higher confidence evidence is:
  1. repeatable, 2) obtained through prospective study (i.e., through experiments designed in advance to block out confounding factors, rather than through retrospective study), 3) directly measured (e.g., blood pressure measured directly via an arterial catheter, rather than indirectly measured via a cuff around the arm), 4) obtained with minimal bias, 5) obtained with minimal assumptions, and 6) summarized with sober judgement, not amplified or extrapolated beyond the experimental conditions.
These 6 criteria can be applied to any field of science to indicate the relative level of confidence in the available evidence. The criteria are not black-and-white, but rather provide a spectrum of levels of confidence.

Applying these 6 criteria to the evidence for evolution results in a clear dichotomy between evidence that only provides very low confidence and evidence that provides very high confidence.
 
Last edited:
The commonly cited evidence for evolution (e.g., the fossil record, homology, and vestigial organs) do not meet any of the 6 criteria for high-confidence science.

For example, the process that produced the life-forms found in the fossil record cannot be repeated, cannot be directly measured, and cannot be studied prospectively.

Also, interpretations of the fossil record are replete with bias and are based upon many assumptions (for example, we are asked to assume that a life-form that is not found in a given layer of fossils did not exist at that time, yet we also are asked to assume that absence of

transitional fossils in the fossil record does not imply that they did not exist).

Finally, the interpretation of the fossil record (i.e., the effort to explain how the life-forms contained in the fossil record came to exist) extrapolates far from the actual evidence (fossilized bones) to try to explain the process responsible for the origination of the life-forms. The very low confidence provided by this type of evidence cannot provide clarity; it can only provide fuel for endless debate.

In stark contrast, experimental evolution studies like Richard Lenski’s Long Term Evolution Experiment (LTEE) meet all 6 criteria and provide very high confidence.

Experimental evolution can be repeated, can be studied prospectively and directly measured, with minimal bias and assumptions, and the results can be summarized with sober judgement.

The evidence from these high-confidence experimental evolution studies simply must be prioritized over the low-confidence evidence.

Yet, biology textbooks routinely prioritize the low-confidence evidence over the high-confidence evidence. The high-confidence evidence from experimental evolution studies paint a highly constrained picture of evolution.

For example, Lenski’s 70,000 generations of E. coli show that evolution is highly constrained – unable to produce the innovations necessary to change body plans over time or to produce new molecular machinery. The orphan genes that are prevalent in all life-forms cannot be explained by the evolution observed in these studies.

When high-confidence evidence is appropriately prioritized over low-confidence evidence, the result is a profound new view of evolution – one that they did not teach you in biology.

https://www.amazon.com/Scientific-A...+to+evolution&qid=1554638276&s=gateway&sr=8-1
 
Please don’t cut and paste chunks of word salad without putting them in quotes so we know these are not your words. And it is common practice and good manners to link to the page from which you are copying said salad.

Thank you.
 
IWantGod said:
If God created species, then apart from animals that have gone extinct, all the animals that exist today should be no different from when they were first created; there should be no new species. So it should be true that the Platypus has always existed for as long as there have been animals. From the moment animals existed they ought to be identical to the animals that live today. The evidence does not bare out that cl;aim.
Click to expand...
As someone who works on computers for other people I find it incredible how people tell me, the guy with multiple degrees how they work. Every other customer I get has to argue why think 5 minutes of Google Fu is going to outweigh 20 years experience and 5 years college.

Leave the evaluation to scientist, Darwin was Catholic and he benchmarked the concept.
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
James Tour: The Mystery of the Origin of Life
Click to expand...
A mystery which Christianity fails to solve; it merely asserts that life did not have any origin. I am not sure about the ID solution. Is the proposed ID designer alive? If yes, then what is the origin of the living designer?

Your post also shows that you are not aware of the difference between evolution (which is the topic of this thread) and abiogenesis (which is not). Your posts show that you need to learn more about this subject before posting on it.
 
rossum said:
Your post also shows that you are not aware of the difference between evolution (which is the topic of this thread) and abiogenesis (which is not). Your posts show that you need to learn more about this subject before posting on it.
Click to expand...
Laugh out loud. Really? You actually resorted to this…?
 
Abiogenesis contains a lot more chemistry than evolution does. See A high-yielding, strictly regioselective prebiotic purine nucleoside formation pathway for an example.
The origin of life is believed to have started with prebiotic molecules reacting along unidentified pathways to produce key molecules such as nucleosides. To date, a single prebiotic pathway to purine nucleosides had been proposed. It is considered to be inefficient due to missing regioselectivity and low yields. We report that the condensation of formamidopyrimidines (FaPys) with sugars provides the natural N -9 nucleosides with extreme regioselectivity and in good yields (60%). The FaPys are available from formic acid and aminopyrimidines, which are in turn available from prebiotic molecules that were also detected during the Rosetta comet mission. This nucleoside formation pathway can be fused to sugar-forming reactions to produce pentosides, providing a plausible scenario of how purine nucleosides may have formed under prebiotic conditions.
Click to expand...
A lot about chemistry. Nothing about DNA, RNA, random mutations or natural selection.

Abiogenesis is related to, but not the same as evolution.

Again, you are showing your lack of relevant knowledge in this area I’m afraid. Do you even know how purines are related to the origin of life?
 
buffalo said:
40.png
rossum:
Your post also shows that you are not aware of the difference between evolution (which is the topic of this thread) and abiogenesis (which is not). Your posts show that you need to learn more about this subject before posting on it.
Click to expand...
Laugh out loud. Really? You actually resorted to this…?
Click to expand...
So why did you link to a video about abiogenesis when discussing evolution?
 
buffalo said:
More devolution - Adam’s brain was larger?

[The Human Brain Has been Getting Smaller Since the Stone Age]​

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2019/04/08/human-brains-have-shrunk-since-the-stone-age/
Click to expand...
I was going to ask you about this comment from your link:

‘From around 4 million to roughly 2 million years ago, the Australopith species (Lucy and her contemporaries) approached 2 cups (500 mL). By 1 million years ago, some Homo erectus exceeded 4 cups (1,000 mL). And average cranial capacity reached around 130,000 years ago in both Neanderthals (with specimens ranging from 1,172 to 1,740 mL) and Homo sapiens (1,090 to 1,175 mL). It’s also worth noting that our stature hasn’t changed substantially since Homo erectus times, so much of this brain expansion happened independent of body size growth.’

But then I remembered that you don’t believe what it says in any case.

It must be hard presenting evidence for whatever point it is that you think you are making when you don’t believe the evidence yourself. How you can keep on doing this is a mystery to more than a few people.
 
Bradskii said:
And average cranial capacity reached around 130,000 years ago in both Neanderthals (with specimens ranging from 1,172 to 1,740 mL) and Homo sapiens (1,090 to 1,175 mL).
Click to expand...
It has been known for a long time that Neanderthal cranial capacity was larger than that of Homo sapiens. Given that Neanderthals are now extinct then a reduction in average capacity is only to be expected. I would be more interested to see figures purely for H. sapiens.
 
rossum said:
40.png
Bradskii:
And average cranial capacity reached around 130,000 years ago in both Neanderthals (with specimens ranging from 1,172 to 1,740 mL) and Homo sapiens (1,090 to 1,175 mL).
Click to expand...
It has been known for a long time that Neanderthal cranial capacity was larger than that of Homo sapiens. Given that Neanderthals are now extinct then a reduction in average capacity is only to be expected. I would be more interested to see figures purely for H. sapiens.
Click to expand...
Notwithstanding that brain size is not an indication of intelligence. Any given dolphin has the same size as me but I’d probably be able to beat it at backgammon.
 
More devolution - Adam could regrow limbs and organs?

[Genetic elements that drive regeneration uncovered]​

Limb or organ regrowth may be hidden in our genes​

“If you trace our evolutionary tree way back to its roots – long before the shedding of gills or the development of opposable thumbs – you will likely find a common ancestor with the amazing ability to regenerate lost body parts.”

“Lucky descendants of this creature, including today’s salamanders or zebrafish, can still perform the feat, but humans lost much of their regenerative power over millions of years of evolution.” (hmmmm)

“We want to find more of these types of elements so we can understand what turns on and ultimately controls the program of regeneration,” said Poss (programs are designed)

 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
“If you trace our evolutionary tree way back to its roots – long before the shedding of gills or the development of opposable thumbs – you will likely find a common ancestor with the amazing ability to regenerate lost body parts.”

“…but humans lost much of their regenerative power over millions of years of evolution.”
Click to expand...
Those were the two main points you made. And wait, no-one’s going to believe this…seriously, they won’t…but you don’t actually believe what you posted!

Oh dear, oh dear.

You don’t believe our evolutionary tree goes back to fish and gills. You don’t believe in a common ancestor. And you don’t even believe that anything at all has lasted for tens of thousands of years let alone millions.

Oh dear me. Why do you do it…
 
Bradskii said:
Those were the two main points you made. And wait, no-one’s going to believe this…seriously, they won’t…but you don’t actually believe what you posted!
Click to expand...
I think it’s really cool. We also are close at cracking immortality the same way. Basically aging is just damage. Your body mainly the hippocampus of brain loses track of a full clean set of your DNA. Progress has been made take stem cells from other parts of your own body and growing a culture. This can be injected directly into the hippocampus and has already successfully deaged several animal test subjects and one women.
Bradskii said:
You don’t believe our evolutionary tree goes back to fish and gills. You don’t believe in a common ancestor. And you don’t even believe that anything at all has lasted for tens of thousands of years let alone millions.
Click to expand...
Um yeah, the church has nothing against those claims so ya.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top