R
rossum
Guest
We are getting closer to understanding abiogenesis as we assemble information. We shall see who gets there first, baraminology or abiogenesis.
rossum
Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true
- Status
rossum
B
buffalo
Guest
You know my prediction…
O
o_mlly
Guest
Catch up on your reading:
evolutionnews.org
biologydirect.biomedcentral.com
As the Tree of Life Tumbles: Now, the “Public Goods” Hypothesis | Evolution News
Even as Richard Dawkins informs Rick Perry that “evolution is a fact,” many evolutionary biologists are quietly (or not so quietly) abandoning the Tree of Life hypothesis.
evolutionnews.org
Biology Direct
As an author driven, open peer-review journal, Biology Direct provides authors and readers with a transparent alternative to the traditional model of peer ...
biologydirect.biomedcentral.com
Save the tree of life or get lost in the woods
The wealth of prokaryotic genomic data available has revealed that the histories of many genes are inconsistent, leading some to question the value of the tree of life hypothesis.How stands the Tree of Life a century and a half after The Origin ?
We examine the Tree of Life (TOL) as an evolutionary hypothesis and…The fundamental units, processes and patterns of evolution, and the Tree of Life conundrum
The elucidation of the dominant role of horizontal gene transfer (HGT) in the evolution of prokaryotes led to a severe crisis of the Tree of Life (TOL) concept and intense debates on…Of woods and webs: possible alternatives to the tree of life for studying genomic fluidity in E. coli
The point being that there is no scientific consensus (as claimed) on the Tree of Life hypothesis.
B
Bradskii
Guest
My wife is really ticked off. She was quietly reading and now I’ve sprayed a rather decent verdhelo all over the table. No worries though. It’s not much to clean up as most of it came out of my nose.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
This is not based on the discovery of any new evidence. This is just a rehash of evidence that existed in 2009. This does not do anything to overturn results know at that time.
There may not be consensus on the details of what is the ancestor of what (the Tree of Life). But there is consensus on evolution, which is the general principle of how things evolve. You should not confuse uncertainly about the details with uncertainty about the general principle, which is all this thread should be about.
M
mVitus
Guest
Okay.
So you accept all monkey came about through various adaptations from some initial kind.
Please explain the process by which the colobus monkey got it’s long hair.
The proboscis monkey got its long nose
the mandril became suited the the ground (compared to other monkeys) and got its bright nose
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
and the pygmy market became tiny.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
What I’m mainly interested is: Did these changes happen via adaptation or direct ID intervention? (is *poor* there’s a pygmy marmoset, ect.)
F
FredBloggs
Guest
Fine - but you didn’t point out the context - you only pointed towards the document being nine years old. So it’s entirely reasonable that I didn’t delve into the document. Far from being “not so obvious to [me],” it wouldn’t be obvious to anybody from what you posted.FredBloggs:
The currency of an article that reports on the state of changing interpretations in an historical science is in itself obvious.
What perhaps is not so obvious to you in this dated article is the next sentence artfully deleted from the poster’s quote which qualifies much of its content as uncertain.
“How this happened, when, and in what order the different groups split, is still uncertain.”
Also worth pointing out that the qualifier that you have added, and which you appear to imply invalidates the original article, does nothing of the sort. Saying “X happened, but we’re not sure how or when,” doesn’t cast any doubt on the fact that “X happened.” If I come home to a ransacked house, I don’t expect the police who turn up to say, “You don’t know when this happened or how they got in? Perhaps it didn’t happen at all then?”
O
o_mlly
Guest
Apparently, you did not read the articles, did you?
You miss the point. Evolution as a science stands on the strength of its data and logical inferences. Evolution as a philosophy claiming that human beings evolved from bugs is categorically contested.
F
FredBloggs
Guest
How can it be better when it has no supporting evidence, and is not even necessary to the hypothesis?
That’s like saying that Intelligent Falling Theory is a much better and consistent explanation that the Theory of Gravity.
F
FredBloggs
Guest
It will need some evidence before it has any chance of becoming consensus. I think you’re safe with “quack.”buffalo:
I may believe it when it becomes the consensus view. In the meantime, I will consider it a quack theory.
F
FredBloggs
Guest
To be fair, there isn’t really, “ID, the science.”rossum:
Many fall into this confusion. There is ID, the science and there is ID, the philosophy.
O
o_mlly
Guest
Big difference: you have a ransacked house as evidence for others to examine.
The metaphorical tree of life exists in the imagination of some scientists. Presuming everyone else accepts their imagination, they elaborate on the roots of their imaginary tree. It is quite right to ask for evidence of the tree as it remains but a figment until demonstrated. These scientists invite us to participate in the logical fallacy of their circular reasoning.
_
_
Last edited:
O
o_mlly
Guest
My sympathies to the misses. I know how she feels.
F
FredBloggs
Guest
You’re missing my point. Which was that you used the “we don’t know when or how” to cast doubt on whether something happened. That’s not a valid argument.FredBloggs:
Big difference: you have a ransacked house as evidence for others to examine.
The metaphorical tree of life exists in the imagination of some scientists. Presuming everyone else accepts their imagination, they elaborate on the roots of their imaginary tree. It is quite right to ask for evidence of the tree as it remains but a figment until demonstrated. These scientists invite us to participate in the logical fallacy of their circular reasoning.
_
_
So if you wish to refute the claim: “a common ancestor gave rise to two main groups of life: bacteria and archaea” then do so by presenting something that refutes the evidence of their common ancestry.
A
Aloysium
Guest
This sort of stuff is way beyond the pay scale of anybody in existence, especially considering that so many people actually believe in the unbelievable - evolution.
First of all, the physical aspect of any thing is the lowest on the hierarchy of the structure that defines its existence. The universe is a collection of wholes brought together by what they are existentially, that which makes them what they are in themselves, different from what is other to them. An atom is a whole, made up of subatomic events. A bacterium is a whole being in itself as a collection of atoms configured into molecules which interact to form its structure and physiology, all dedicated to growth and the reproduction of the basic “template”, the reality of what it is to be a bacterium. At a very primitive level it senses its environment and reacts to incorporate external material to enable these processes that are its nature.
I’m going to jump to monkeys because I’m too lazy to write a book. Let’s assume there exists a kind organization of being, a soul that is monkey. You show pictures of hairy monkeys, ugly monkeys, scary monkeys and cute wee monkeys. A parent might say to their child that they are behaving like a monkey. Someone has oddly drawn a widely circulated picture of successively taller and more upright monkeys led by a man, to visualize the idea that we here discussing are a form of monkey.
Skipping to how sexual reproduction works for monkeys, we see first of all that it happens in families, which in most cases are part of a larger clan. The structure of monkeys is a unity of the physical and psychosocial under the rubric of the spirit that is existential structure defining it as monkey. On a physical level, two gametes, one from each parent come together to produce an embryo. It is the unit, the initiation of a proces that goes on to develop into a monkey. What is involved is more than just DNA magic. I don’t know about monkeys, but if you substitute the DNA of a chicken in the embryo of an ostrich, nothing progresses. There is a built-in physical organization that enables diversity not only to provide for adaptability to and the transformation of the environment in which the monkey finds itself, but primarily to express God’s creative beauty. So we have hairy monkeys arising spontaneously and as a reaction to stresses in the environment which shuffle about genomic material. We have big nose monkeys to produce the sounds that attract mates who like big noses. We have blue butt and blue testicle monkeys because blue seems to be a colour some prefer, rather exotic I suppose. Little tiny monkeys are cute; who wouldn’t want one of those wee creatures to love.
This is a start at least.
Last edited:
M
mVitus
Guest
So, getting to the science only, you would say animals change when they have to? ie the reason a species of monkeys is hairier is because the weather was cold so they “chose*” to become hairier in response. (As opposed to a hairier monkey happened to survive better, hence why they became hairier.)
*Chose is obviously not the best word, but I think it conveys enough of what I’m getting across.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
It is the data and logical inferences that point to humans having evolved from something non human.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
That’s not a difference. With evolution we also have a “ransacked house” for others to examine.FredBloggs:
Big difference: you have a ransacked house as evidence for others to examine.
B
buffalo
Guest
Adaptation and HGT.
B
buffalo
Guest
Intelligent design as a science stands on the strength of its data, observations and logical inferences.
- Status