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

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

So?

So, we do have source material.

Oh, I see what you are replying to now. I said “In the context of a debate among those who have no access to original data…” That means we do not have ancient hominid bones in our basement, nor the means to date them ourselves. We do not have original data from which true scientists work. We have citations of papers written by scientists who do have such access and have done that analysis. We are citing authorities who have done the work. We do not, nor can we, do the work ourselves. So, like I said, it all comes down to citing authorities, which means evaluating the consensus of these authorities based on their credentials.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Truth always wins out over established (and incorrect) assumptions. If evolution is false and there is evidence to support that fact, then it will eventually become established science. But in the meantime, there is no reason to give anti-evolution a pass or quick-track to acceptance. It will have to earn acceptance the same way every scientific theory has had to earn it - the hard way. There are too many quack claims in science to overthrow consensus every time one such claim pops up.

Intelligently designed life is a much better and consistent explanation.

I may believe it when it becomes the consensus view. In the meantime, I will consider it a quack theory.

 

[buffalo]

@Buffalo, in regards to “kinds” are all monkeys one kind? As in, was there just one original monkey that has “micro-evolved” since its appearance.

Micro-evolved? Not sure how you are using this term.

 

[rossum]

It is sharpening now as we have more genetic and epigenetic information coming in. Species are islands is what is being learned.

Your “sharpening” implies that it is not yet ready. And it is very obvious that some species are not islands: horses and donkeys or lions and tigers for example.

"Kind " will be defined as genetically unique and isolated by large distances. I already linked a paper showing just that.

Again a future promise: “will be defined…” Your paper supported the prediction of standard evolutionary theory that the major branches of the evolutionary tree will move further apart over time. The problem with the ‘kind’ concept is that a we go back into the past those gaps shrink, just as evolution predicts.

rossum

 

[edwest211]

Thank you for that very good example of current scientific thinking. It is like a man sitting on a tree limb and sawing away the part of the limb that supports him. This dismembering of the human being into body and brain is not the whole story. I suspect scientists know that but atheism is the current ideology, along with secular humanism.

 

[mVitus]

Micro-evolved? Not sure how you are using this term.

You’re the guy in these threads that likes distinguishing between evolution and microevolutions. I was attempting to use your terminology. I suppose another way to put it is: Did that one original monkey (what modern science would classify as a species) adapt to become all the monkey species we see today?

 

[rossum]

Intelligently designed life is a much better and consistent explanation.

I disagree. Is the designer alive? If yes, then you need a designer designer to design the living designer, after all, life is designed.

If the designer is non-living then you have life arising from non-life, which allows abiogenesis.

One of my beefs with ID is that ID fails to apply its own insights to its proposed designer. Is the designer complex? How did that complexity arise? Is the designer alive? How did that life originate? Is the designer intelligent? What was the cause of that intelligence?

rossum

 

[edwest211]

I have been watching materials science. In one case, scientists ran an experiment hoping to get a certain result but got something else instead. Something very useful. From the school of “They said it couldn’t be done so we didn’t do it,” scientists created a crystal that was judged to be impossible to make. The Wright Brothers were written off as hoaxers after announcing their first flight.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The Wright Brothers were written off as hoaxers after announcing their first flight.

…but they were eventually believed, because their claim was true. But not everything that was written off as a hoax turns out to be true. In fact, most of them actually are hoaxes. The success of the Wright brothers is no reason to become less critical of hoaxes.

 

[buffalo]

Your “sharpening” implies that it is not yet ready. And it is very obvious that some species are not islands: horses and donkeys or lions and tigers for example.

Yes, they are all members of a higher group.

 

[Aloysium]

I just want to add a picture taken of an illustration included in one of the articles. It is to illustrate how both chimps and humans are tool makers, a point repeated by certain posters here.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

LoL!!

 

[buffalo]

One of my beefs with ID is that ID fails to apply its own insights to its proposed designer. Is the designer complex? How did that complexity arise? Is the designer alive? How did that life originate? Is the designer intelligent? What was the cause of that intelligence?

Many fall into this confusion. There is ID, the science and there is ID, the philosophy.

 

[edwest211]

As part of my personal research, I study hoaxes. It amazes me when some turn out to be true but are not recognized by science.

 

[edwest211]

I knew it. Chimps are smart enough to stay away from clean rooms

 

[buffalo]

It can be viewed much like the “tree of life” without the main trunk.

The prototypical “kind” were originally created and all subsequent life has descended from these originals with limited diversity to retain their orignal core.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

As part of my personal research, I study hoaxes. It amazes me when some turn out to be true but are not recognized by science.

Why should it be amazing? If they are true they will be recognized eventually. Are you amazed that they are not instantly accepted? You shouldn’t be. That’s the way it should be.

 

[edwest211]

You make an assumption here. Each is taken by me on a case by case basis. I didn’t even imply instant acceptance. Questions I like. Assumptions? Not much. That’s the way what should be? I know the scientific method. I’ve been doing research at my job and personally for years. It’s work. Like it’s not TL;DR.

 

[rossum]

Yes, they are all members of a higher group.

Which brings us back to where the kind boundaries lie. Are kangaroos in a different kind to koalas or are they both in the Marsupial kind? What about in Mammal kind? How about Tetrapod kind? There are a great many possible “higher” groups. Where does the boundary lie? How do we tell, objectively.

Baraminology has a great deal of work yet to do.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Many fall into this confusion. There is ID, the science and there is ID, the philosophy.

So, tell me the scientific origin of the intelligence in the Intelligent Designer. You can leave out the philosophy.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

Which brings us back to where the kind boundaries lie. Are kangaroos in a different kind to koalas or are they both in the Marsupial kind? What about in Mammal kind? How about Tetrapod kind? There are a great many possible “higher” groups. Where does the boundary lie? How do we tell, objectively.

Baraminology has a great deal of work yet to do.

We are getting closer as we assemble genetic information.

---

“It is more likely that—at all times in evolution—the animals alive at that point arose relatively recently.”

In this view, a species only lasts a certain amount of time before it either evolves into something new or goes extinct.

And yet—another unexpected finding from the study—species have very clear genetic boundaries, and there’s nothing much in between.

"If individuals are stars, then species are galaxies," said Thaler. "They are compact clusters in the vastness of empty sequence space."

The absence of “in-between” species is something that also perplexed Darwin, he said.

Read more at: Sweeping gene survey reveals new facets of evolution