@Balrog99 Oh I see. Can I ask you then why do you think the scientific consensus does not agree with you? Is there a conspiracy, or are they just dumber than you?
Well I am a chemist, not a biologist, so I'm not an authority on evolution by any means. I can likely understand the concepts better than the average person though if that means anything. I hope I'm allowed to question things without being called out too harshly...
The average person has nothing to do with this. I asked why do you think the scientific consensus (of biologists and other professionals relevant to this issue) do not agree with you?
I have no idea. I don't know any of them so I've never asked...
@Balrog99 Oh I see. Can I ask you then why do you think the scientific consensus does not agree with you? Is there a conspiracy, or are they just dumber than you?
Well I am a chemist, not a biologist, so I'm not an authority on evolution by any means. I can likely understand the concepts better than the average person though if that means anything. I hope I'm allowed to question things without being called out too harshly...
The average person has nothing to do with this. I asked why do you think the scientific consensus (of biologists and other professionals relevant to this issue) do not agree with you?
I have no idea. I don't know any of them so I've never asked...
Perhaps it would be worthwhile to find out before discussing any further...
EDIT: This is pretty funny, actually. The same thing happens with all three: flat earth, anti vax, and anti evolution.
"This theory has no good science supporting it."
"Oh really? Have you made an effort to look into the science?"
"Well, no. I like to read sources that support my views."
@Balrog99 Oh I see. Can I ask you then why do you think the scientific consensus does not agree with you? Is there a conspiracy, or are they just dumber than you?
Well I am a chemist, not a biologist, so I'm not an authority on evolution by any means. I can likely understand the concepts better than the average person though if that means anything. I hope I'm allowed to question things without being called out too harshly...
The average person has nothing to do with this. I asked why do you think the scientific consensus (of biologists and other professionals relevant to this issue) do not agree with you?
I have no idea. I don't know any of them so I've never asked...
Perhaps it would be worthwhile to find out before discussing any further...
EDIT: This is pretty funny, actually. The same thing happens with all three: flat earth, anti vax, and anti evolution.
"This theory has no good science supporting it."
"Oh really? Have you made an effort to look into the science?"
"Well, no. I like to read sources that support my views."
I don't know who you're arguing with here. I didn't realize I had to have a PhD in biology to have an opinion. I'm not really interested enough in evolution to study it exhaustively. The only knowledge I have about it is in passing from reading National Geographic and occasional Wikipedia articles when something new about the subject comes up in one of my scientific journals that looks interesting.
@Balrog99 Oh I see. Can I ask you then why do you think the scientific consensus does not agree with you? Is there a conspiracy, or are they just dumber than you?
Well I am a chemist, not a biologist, so I'm not an authority on evolution by any means. I can likely understand the concepts better than the average person though if that means anything. I hope I'm allowed to question things without being called out too harshly...
The average person has nothing to do with this. I asked why do you think the scientific consensus (of biologists and other professionals relevant to this issue) do not agree with you?
I have no idea. I don't know any of them so I've never asked...
Perhaps it would be worthwhile to find out before discussing any further...
EDIT: This is pretty funny, actually. The same thing happens with all three: flat earth, anti vax, and anti evolution.
"This theory has no good science supporting it."
"Oh really? Have you made an effort to look into the science?"
"Well, no. I like to read sources that support my views."
I don't know who you're arguing with here. I didn't realize I had to have a PhD in biology to have an opinion. I'm not really interested enough in evolution to study it exhaustively. The only knowledge I have about it is in passing from reading National Geographic and occasional Wikipedia articles when something new about the subject comes up in one of my scientific journals that looks interesting.
You said you never asked why the consensus is not in agreement with your position. Perhaps you should find out before saying the science of evolution is not good. I'm just making an observation, not an argument, FWIW.
I guess I just disagree on what 'proof' means. If humans are around for another million years or so and we haven't totally taken mother nature out of the equation by then, we'd probably have proof of some sort or another for evolution. It's not called 'The Proven Fact of Evolution' yet is it?
Yes it is. That evolution happens is as much a fact as the fact that my coffee cup will hit the ground if I drop it.
The scientific theory part comes in when we explore how evolution happens. As of now, all available evidence points to natural selection in response to environmental pressures over large amounts of time as the mechanism.
To be even more pedantic, you cannot prove that a coffee cup will hit the ground if you drop it. You can have a reasonable confidence it will based on available evidence, but never will it be proven to a 100% certainty. Such proofs are only possible in mathematics and other abstract fields.
@Grond0 "It would seem to me that these grey areas wouldn't be expected if someone had designed separate species from the outset. "
May I ask why? I've seen comments like this elsewhere in the past, but I don't see why creation would or wouldn't necessarily look a certain way. Its not as if an initial creation and evolution are incompatible.
I guess I just disagree on what 'proof' means. If humans are around for another million years or so and we haven't totally taken mother nature out of the equation by then, we'd probably have proof of some sort or another for evolution. It's not called 'The Proven Fact of Evolution' yet is it?
Evolution is just small variations in genetics and expressed traits. If evolution was impossible, breeding dogs to express different traits, for example, would be impossible. We even have records within the last few hundred years documenting the first apprearnace of some domestic breeds. Life is either conastantly evolving and changing, or its immutable and never changes. The simple fact that changes can be seen and have been documented, should be more than enough proof that evolution happens.
@Grond0 "It would seem to me that these grey areas wouldn't be expected if someone had designed separate species from the outset. "
May I ask why? I've seen comments like this elsewhere in the past, but I don't see why creation would or wouldn't necessarily look a certain way. Its not as if an initial creation and evolution are incompatible.
@ThacoBell I think the evidence for evolution is overwhelming and that includes the development of new species over time. If an act of creation took place it does not seem reasonable to me to argue that the creation included all current species:
- this wouldn't account for all the other species that are in the fossil record.
- nor would it account for the changes in species we can observe even in short time periods (by the standards of evolution).
To account for that you would either need to posit a continuing intervention by a creator or that the original stimulus to life was provided by a creator who then just left evolutionary processes to work. In either case that wouldn't fit with the idea that someone had designed separate species from the outset.
I guess I just disagree on what 'proof' means. If humans are around for another million years or so and we haven't totally taken mother nature out of the equation by then, we'd probably have proof of some sort or another for evolution. It's not called 'The Proven Fact of Evolution' yet is it?
I think you're misunderstanding what the word theory means in science. A theory means everything we have cannot disprove it. You rely on quantum theory every time you use a computer, because transistors rely on it. Every time you use your GPS, the theory of relativity has to be taken into account, because it says time passes slower when close to a large gravitational body. You get some antibiotics to fight off an infection, that's germ theory. There's a vast amount of fossil evidence leaving a clear trail between modern humans to a common ancestor with chimps. There's huge fossil trails connecting other disparate species. Now, with genetics we know that genes for eyes appear in the same spots in the genome for arthropods, mollusks and chordates. If they did not share a common ancestor and had developed vision independently, then they wouldn't have such similar genetics. You can't prove 100% that any of these theories are true, but all the evidence we have backs them up and does not contradict them. Theories are also adaptable, when we learn new information, it doesn't necessarily mean everything about a theory is wrong, but perhaps just certain aspects of it, and new information can be incorporated. Darwin freely admitted he had no idea how the laws of inheritance worked, how could he without knowing about DNA? But the discovery of DNA helped back up his claims and has become integrated with the theory of evolution.
I guess I just disagree on what 'proof' means. If humans are around for another million years or so and we haven't totally taken mother nature out of the equation by then, we'd probably have proof of some sort or another for evolution. It's not called 'The Proven Fact of Evolution' yet is it?
I think you're misunderstanding what the word theory means in science. A theory means everything we have cannot disprove it. You rely on quantum theory every time you use a computer, because transistors rely on it. Every time you use your GPS, the theory of relativity has to be taken into account, because it says time passes slower when close to a large gravitational body. You get some antibiotics to fight off an infection, that's germ theory. There's a vast amount of fossil evidence leaving a clear trail between modern humans to a common ancestor with chimps. There's huge fossil trails connecting other disparate species. Now, with genetics we know that genes for eyes appear in the same spots in the genome for arthropods, mollusks and chordates. If they did not share a common ancestor and had developed vision independently, then they wouldn't have such similar genetics. You can't prove 100% that any of these theories are true, but all the evidence we have backs them up and does not contradict them. Theories are also adaptable, when we learn new information, it doesn't necessarily mean everything about a theory is wrong, but perhaps just certain aspects of it, and new information can be incorporated. Darwin freely admitted he had no idea how the laws of inheritance worked, how could he without knowing about DNA? But the discovery of DNA helped back up his claims and has become integrated with the theory of evolution.
I know the definition of scientific theory and how it works. You can't even 'prove' the existence of atoms or molecules and that's the basis of chemistry. There are a few things about evolution that trouble my sense of logic, though. For instance, what advantage is half a feather? Is there an advantage to minutely higher than cold blood? What advantage is there to a non-sentient organic molecule to begin replicating itself? What advantage is there to being only a tiny bit bigger or smaller than your fellows? What advantage is their for a minutely opposed thumb? How do small populations with little relative chance of useful mutation due to the law of averages, evolve? What about how lungs evolved from gills? What advantage is a slightly lunglike gill?
Why would a species with a partial trait like I'm describing be at any advantage with regards to survival? I'm saying we're missing some important details about evolution. Natural selection seems logical at first until you really think about it more in depth.
I guess I just disagree on what 'proof' means. If humans are around for another million years or so and we haven't totally taken mother nature out of the equation by then, we'd probably have proof of some sort or another for evolution. It's not called 'The Proven Fact of Evolution' yet is it?
I think you're misunderstanding what the word theory means in science. A theory means everything we have cannot disprove it. You rely on quantum theory every time you use a computer, because transistors rely on it. Every time you use your GPS, the theory of relativity has to be taken into account, because it says time passes slower when close to a large gravitational body. You get some antibiotics to fight off an infection, that's germ theory. There's a vast amount of fossil evidence leaving a clear trail between modern humans to a common ancestor with chimps. There's huge fossil trails connecting other disparate species. Now, with genetics we know that genes for eyes appear in the same spots in the genome for arthropods, mollusks and chordates. If they did not share a common ancestor and had developed vision independently, then they wouldn't have such similar genetics. You can't prove 100% that any of these theories are true, but all the evidence we have backs them up and does not contradict them. Theories are also adaptable, when we learn new information, it doesn't necessarily mean everything about a theory is wrong, but perhaps just certain aspects of it, and new information can be incorporated. Darwin freely admitted he had no idea how the laws of inheritance worked, how could he without knowing about DNA? But the discovery of DNA helped back up his claims and has become integrated with the theory of evolution.
I know the definition of scientific theory and how it works. You can't even 'prove' the existence of atoms or molecules and that's the basis of chemistry. There are a few things about evolution that trouble my sense of logic, though. For instance, what advantage is half a feather? Is there an advantage to minutely higher than cold blood? What advantage is there to a non-sentient organic molecule to begin replicating itself? What advantage is there to being only a tiny bit bigger or smaller than your fellows? What advantage is their for a minutely opposed thumb? How do small populations with little relative chance of useful mutation due to the law of averages, evolve? What about how lungs evolved from gills? What advantage is a slightly lunglike gill?
With more recent findings, it seems that earliest feathers on dinosaurs were used for to help maintain body temperature. This is obviously unprovable, but odds are they also played a part in sexual selection, since pigments have been recovered and they seem to be pretty brightly colored. We know feathers evolved well before wings evolved in birds and had uses before flight evolved in them. Tests have also been done on birds with clipped wings and half clipped wings, and the wings still help when moving up an incline or to slow a fall from a high place. Even without enough feathers to fly, gliding short distances down can be possible. There's a living species of bird, that when young still has claws on it's wings for climbing that go away as they get older and can fly properly.
The advantage of having warm blood is that you don't have to wait for another heat source to get you going before you can move. Even with only a small endothermic reaction, you have an advantage, since you can start your day before your competitors. A larger reaction and you can be active even on a cold night. Keep in mind it developed in a cold blooded world, so having a small advantage with a small endothermic reaction to regulate your body temperature just a bit would have been an advantage over an animal that can't do that. Same thing goes for very primitive eyes.
An organic molecule replicating itself, could be viewed as an advantage over not replicating, since it allows proliferation. The only goal of evolution is survival.
Chimps and other apes thumbs are not as opposed as ours, but still very useful for grasping branches, but not as good for the fine tool work we do.
There's a lot of reasons a small population could evolve. Duress on the population or inbreeding are examples. Sometimes they don't evolve if they have traits that make them successful in their environment.
I guess I just disagree on what 'proof' means. If humans are around for another million years or so and we haven't totally taken mother nature out of the equation by then, we'd probably have proof of some sort or another for evolution. It's not called 'The Proven Fact of Evolution' yet is it?
I think you're misunderstanding what the word theory means in science. A theory means everything we have cannot disprove it. You rely on quantum theory every time you use a computer, because transistors rely on it. Every time you use your GPS, the theory of relativity has to be taken into account, because it says time passes slower when close to a large gravitational body. You get some antibiotics to fight off an infection, that's germ theory. There's a vast amount of fossil evidence leaving a clear trail between modern humans to a common ancestor with chimps. There's huge fossil trails connecting other disparate species. Now, with genetics we know that genes for eyes appear in the same spots in the genome for arthropods, mollusks and chordates. If they did not share a common ancestor and had developed vision independently, then they wouldn't have such similar genetics. You can't prove 100% that any of these theories are true, but all the evidence we have backs them up and does not contradict them. Theories are also adaptable, when we learn new information, it doesn't necessarily mean everything about a theory is wrong, but perhaps just certain aspects of it, and new information can be incorporated. Darwin freely admitted he had no idea how the laws of inheritance worked, how could he without knowing about DNA? But the discovery of DNA helped back up his claims and has become integrated with the theory of evolution.
I know the definition of scientific theory and how it works. You can't even 'prove' the existence of atoms or molecules and that's the basis of chemistry. There are a few things about evolution that trouble my sense of logic, though. For instance, what advantage is half a feather? Is there an advantage to minutely higher than cold blood? What advantage is there to a non-sentient organic molecule to begin replicating itself? What advantage is there to being only a tiny bit bigger or smaller than your fellows? What advantage is their for a minutely opposed thumb? How do small populations with little relative chance of useful mutation due to the law of averages, evolve? What about how lungs evolved from gills? What advantage is a slightly lunglike gill?
With more recent findings, it seems that earliest feathers on dinosaurs were used for to help maintain body temperature. This is obviously unprovable, but odds are they also played a part in sexual selection, since pigments have been recovered and they seem to be pretty brightly colored. We know feathers evolved well before wings evolved in birds and had uses before flight evolved in them. Tests have also been done on birds with clipped wings and half clipped wings, and the wings still help when moving up an incline or to slow a fall from a high place. Even without enough feathers to fly, gliding short distances down can be possible. There's a living species of bird, that when young still has claws on it's wings for climbing that go away as they get older and can fly properly.
The advantage of having warm blood is that you don't have to wait for another heat source to get you going before you can move. Even with only a small endothermic reaction, you have an advantage, since you can start your day before your competitors. A larger reaction and you can be active even on a cold night. Keep in mind it developed in a cold blooded world, so having a small advantage with a small endothermic reaction to regulate your body temperature just a bit would have been an advantage over an animal that can't do that. Same thing goes for very primitive eyes.
An organic molecule replicating itself, could be viewed as an advantage over not replicating, since it allows proliferation. The only goal of evolution is survival.
Chimps and other apes thumbs are not as opposed as ours, but still very useful for grasping branches, but not as good for the fine tool work we do.
There's a lot of reasons a small population could evolve. Duress on the population or inbreeding are examples. Sometimes they don't evolve if they have traits that make them successful in their environment.
Drill down further. What advantage is one feather? Did the first female dinosaur to see a feather go 'omigod I need me some of that!'? Keep looking at it on a micro-scale and the seemingly logical theory of evolution, as presented, is no longer logical...
What about how lungs evolved from gills? What advantage is a slightly lunglike gill?
The ability to crawl from pool to pool. The ability to survive oxygen depleted water. Actually I remember reading somewhere that lungs are thought to have evolved from swim bladders.
EDIT: everybody's fast today. I started writing this post just after I saw the post I was replying to and didn't see any of the responses in between.
Why would a species with a partial trait like I'm describing be at any advantage with regards to survival? I'm saying we're missing some important details about evolution. Natural selection seems logical at first until you really think about it more in depth.
I guess I just disagree on what 'proof' means. If humans are around for another million years or so and we haven't totally taken mother nature out of the equation by then, we'd probably have proof of some sort or another for evolution. It's not called 'The Proven Fact of Evolution' yet is it?
I think you're misunderstanding what the word theory means in science. A theory means everything we have cannot disprove it. You rely on quantum theory every time you use a computer, because transistors rely on it. Every time you use your GPS, the theory of relativity has to be taken into account, because it says time passes slower when close to a large gravitational body. You get some antibiotics to fight off an infection, that's germ theory. There's a vast amount of fossil evidence leaving a clear trail between modern humans to a common ancestor with chimps. There's huge fossil trails connecting other disparate species. Now, with genetics we know that genes for eyes appear in the same spots in the genome for arthropods, mollusks and chordates. If they did not share a common ancestor and had developed vision independently, then they wouldn't have such similar genetics. You can't prove 100% that any of these theories are true, but all the evidence we have backs them up and does not contradict them. Theories are also adaptable, when we learn new information, it doesn't necessarily mean everything about a theory is wrong, but perhaps just certain aspects of it, and new information can be incorporated. Darwin freely admitted he had no idea how the laws of inheritance worked, how could he without knowing about DNA? But the discovery of DNA helped back up his claims and has become integrated with the theory of evolution.
I know the definition of scientific theory and how it works. You can't even 'prove' the existence of atoms or molecules and that's the basis of chemistry. There are a few things about evolution that trouble my sense of logic, though. For instance, what advantage is half a feather? Is there an advantage to minutely higher than cold blood? What advantage is there to a non-sentient organic molecule to begin replicating itself? What advantage is there to being only a tiny bit bigger or smaller than your fellows? What advantage is their for a minutely opposed thumb? How do small populations with little relative chance of useful mutation due to the law of averages, evolve? What about how lungs evolved from gills? What advantage is a slightly lunglike gill?
With more recent findings, it seems that earliest feathers on dinosaurs were used for to help maintain body temperature. This is obviously unprovable, but odds are they also played a part in sexual selection, since pigments have been recovered and they seem to be pretty brightly colored. We know feathers evolved well before wings evolved in birds and had uses before flight evolved in them. Tests have also been done on birds with clipped wings and half clipped wings, and the wings still help when moving up an incline or to slow a fall from a high place. Even without enough feathers to fly, gliding short distances down can be possible. There's a living species of bird, that when young still has claws on it's wings for climbing that go away as they get older and can fly properly.
The advantage of having warm blood is that you don't have to wait for another heat source to get you going before you can move. Even with only a small endothermic reaction, you have an advantage, since you can start your day before your competitors. A larger reaction and you can be active even on a cold night. Keep in mind it developed in a cold blooded world, so having a small advantage with a small endothermic reaction to regulate your body temperature just a bit would have been an advantage over an animal that can't do that. Same thing goes for very primitive eyes.
An organic molecule replicating itself, could be viewed as an advantage over not replicating, since it allows proliferation. The only goal of evolution is survival.
Chimps and other apes thumbs are not as opposed as ours, but still very useful for grasping branches, but not as good for the fine tool work we do.
There's a lot of reasons a small population could evolve. Duress on the population or inbreeding are examples. Sometimes they don't evolve if they have traits that make them successful in their environment.
Drill down further. What advantage is one feather? Did the first female dinosaur to see a feather go 'omigod I need me some of that!'? Keep looking at it on a micro-scale and the seemingly logical theory of evolution, as presented, is no longer logical...
The way genes work, getting a single feather would be a much more unlikely mutation than many at once. It's not as if a specific single hair on your body is caused by an individual gene just for it.
Drill down further. What advantage is one feather? Did the first female dinosaur to see a feather go 'omigod I need me some of that!'? Keep looking at it on a micro-scale and the seemingly logical theory of evolution, as presented, is no longer logical...
Evolution isn't intentional process. There is no Nature Coach, assign to every species, who says: "alright, we're trying single feather this season!". Some male dinosaurs with feathers survived long enough to pass that trait down. In the next generation, dinosaurs with two feathers survived long enough. After some time, dinosaurs with feathers were the only ones left. I see no problem with logic of that.
I guess I just disagree on what 'proof' means. If humans are around for another million years or so and we haven't totally taken mother nature out of the equation by then, we'd probably have proof of some sort or another for evolution. It's not called 'The Proven Fact of Evolution' yet is it?
I think you're misunderstanding what the word theory means in science. A theory means everything we have cannot disprove it. You rely on quantum theory every time you use a computer, because transistors rely on it. Every time you use your GPS, the theory of relativity has to be taken into account, because it says time passes slower when close to a large gravitational body. You get some antibiotics to fight off an infection, that's germ theory. There's a vast amount of fossil evidence leaving a clear trail between modern humans to a common ancestor with chimps. There's huge fossil trails connecting other disparate species. Now, with genetics we know that genes for eyes appear in the same spots in the genome for arthropods, mollusks and chordates. If they did not share a common ancestor and had developed vision independently, then they wouldn't have such similar genetics. You can't prove 100% that any of these theories are true, but all the evidence we have backs them up and does not contradict them. Theories are also adaptable, when we learn new information, it doesn't necessarily mean everything about a theory is wrong, but perhaps just certain aspects of it, and new information can be incorporated. Darwin freely admitted he had no idea how the laws of inheritance worked, how could he without knowing about DNA? But the discovery of DNA helped back up his claims and has become integrated with the theory of evolution.
I know the definition of scientific theory and how it works. You can't even 'prove' the existence of atoms or molecules and that's the basis of chemistry. There are a few things about evolution that trouble my sense of logic, though. For instance, what advantage is half a feather? Is there an advantage to minutely higher than cold blood? What advantage is there to a non-sentient organic molecule to begin replicating itself? What advantage is there to being only a tiny bit bigger or smaller than your fellows? What advantage is their for a minutely opposed thumb? How do small populations with little relative chance of useful mutation due to the law of averages, evolve? What about how lungs evolved from gills? What advantage is a slightly lunglike gill?
With more recent findings, it seems that earliest feathers on dinosaurs were used for to help maintain body temperature. This is obviously unprovable, but odds are they also played a part in sexual selection, since pigments have been recovered and they seem to be pretty brightly colored. We know feathers evolved well before wings evolved in birds and had uses before flight evolved in them. Tests have also been done on birds with clipped wings and half clipped wings, and the wings still help when moving up an incline or to slow a fall from a high place. Even without enough feathers to fly, gliding short distances down can be possible. There's a living species of bird, that when young still has claws on it's wings for climbing that go away as they get older and can fly properly.
The advantage of having warm blood is that you don't have to wait for another heat source to get you going before you can move. Even with only a small endothermic reaction, you have an advantage, since you can start your day before your competitors. A larger reaction and you can be active even on a cold night. Keep in mind it developed in a cold blooded world, so having a small advantage with a small endothermic reaction to regulate your body temperature just a bit would have been an advantage over an animal that can't do that. Same thing goes for very primitive eyes.
An organic molecule replicating itself, could be viewed as an advantage over not replicating, since it allows proliferation. The only goal of evolution is survival.
Chimps and other apes thumbs are not as opposed as ours, but still very useful for grasping branches, but not as good for the fine tool work we do.
There's a lot of reasons a small population could evolve. Duress on the population or inbreeding are examples. Sometimes they don't evolve if they have traits that make them successful in their environment.
Drill down further. What advantage is one feather? Did the first female dinosaur to see a feather go 'omigod I need me some of that!'? Keep looking at it on a micro-scale and the seemingly logical theory of evolution, as presented, is no longer logical...
The way genes work, getting a single feather would be a much more unlikely mutation than many at once. It's not as if a specific single hair on your body is caused by an individual gene just for it.
Agreed. Evolution doesn't require mutation to function - selection within a gene pool can make major changes over time anyway. However, for the sort of 'step-change' that was being discussed before, you are likely to be looking at mutations - and to be heritable those mutations will need to affect the germ cells. Such mutations are unlikely to affect a single feather ...
Oh the name of the bird that has claws on it's wings was the Hoazin. Here's a video of them, because seeing the chicks climb around in trees is a great way to visualize how they got to that point. Ancestors to birds would have been tree climbers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87_shPJxdns
Also @Ammar is totally right about the feathers. The way genes work, it likely wouldn't have been a single feather, but some amount across at least a portion of the body.
@Grond0 "It would seem to me that these grey areas wouldn't be expected if someone had designed separate species from the outset. "
May I ask why? I've seen comments like this elsewhere in the past, but I don't see why creation would or wouldn't necessarily look a certain way. Its not as if an initial creation and evolution are incompatible.
@ThacoBell I think the evidence for evolution is overwhelming and that includes the development of new species over time. If an act of creation took place it does not seem reasonable to me to argue that the creation included all current species:
- this wouldn't account for all the other species that are in the fossil record.
- nor would it account for the changes in species we can observe even in short time periods (by the standards of evolution).
To account for that you would either need to posit a continuing intervention by a creator or that the original stimulus to life was provided by a creator who then just left evolutionary processes to work. In either case that wouldn't fit with the idea that someone had designed separate species from the outset.
I think you are misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm not refuting evolution. You said that a creator would be unlikely because of what we know and don't know about evolution. I'm just asking why you hold that view. I don't see why they are mutually exclusive.
@Grond0 "It would seem to me that these grey areas wouldn't be expected if someone had designed separate species from the outset. "
May I ask why? I've seen comments like this elsewhere in the past, but I don't see why creation would or wouldn't necessarily look a certain way. Its not as if an initial creation and evolution are incompatible.
@ThacoBell I think the evidence for evolution is overwhelming and that includes the development of new species over time. If an act of creation took place it does not seem reasonable to me to argue that the creation included all current species:
- this wouldn't account for all the other species that are in the fossil record.
- nor would it account for the changes in species we can observe even in short time periods (by the standards of evolution).
To account for that you would either need to posit a continuing intervention by a creator or that the original stimulus to life was provided by a creator who then just left evolutionary processes to work. In either case that wouldn't fit with the idea that someone had designed separate species from the outset.
I think you are misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm not refuting evolution. You said that a creator would be unlikely because of what we know and don't know about evolution. I'm just asking why you hold that view. I don't see why they are mutually exclusive.
@ThacoBell that's not what I'm saying - I'll try again.
1) You say you accept evolution. I think that means you accept that existing species have changed in arriving at their present states and will undergo further changes in the future.
2) Unless you're arguing that the future of the universe was determined at the moment of creation (and I don't think you are based on what I remember of your past posts) that means that existing species were not designed in their current state as part of an initial act of creation.
3) You could argue that the process of evolution does not follow a natural law, but rather reflects continuing intervention by a creator, but again I don't think you're arguing that.
4) The above steps lead to the conclusion that existing species were not specifically designed by a creator.
That does not mean, however, that there was no creator - this logic doesn't rule out an initial act of creation. All I was saying originally was that I think it's difficult to both believe in evolution and also believe that current species were designed by a creator.
@Grond0 You could still say it though. If the creator had perfect foreknowledge, then it knew how creatures would turn out when it started everything, and supposedly made a choice to create the world in this particular way. Of course, as always, there is no evidence for this.
@FinneousPJ I'm not sure that's really different from the idea of a deterministic universe - and as I said my understanding was that ThacoBell was not arguing for that.
Comments
I have no idea. I don't know any of them so I've never asked...
Perhaps it would be worthwhile to find out before discussing any further...
EDIT: This is pretty funny, actually. The same thing happens with all three: flat earth, anti vax, and anti evolution.
"This theory has no good science supporting it."
"Oh really? Have you made an effort to look into the science?"
"Well, no. I like to read sources that support my views."
I don't know who you're arguing with here. I didn't realize I had to have a PhD in biology to have an opinion. I'm not really interested enough in evolution to study it exhaustively. The only knowledge I have about it is in passing from reading National Geographic and occasional Wikipedia articles when something new about the subject comes up in one of my scientific journals that looks interesting.
You said you never asked why the consensus is not in agreement with your position. Perhaps you should find out before saying the science of evolution is not good. I'm just making an observation, not an argument, FWIW.
Yes it is. That evolution happens is as much a fact as the fact that my coffee cup will hit the ground if I drop it.
The scientific theory part comes in when we explore how evolution happens. As of now, all available evidence points to natural selection in response to environmental pressures over large amounts of time as the mechanism.
(Am I being pedantic? Why yes, yes I am.)
May I ask why? I've seen comments like this elsewhere in the past, but I don't see why creation would or wouldn't necessarily look a certain way. Its not as if an initial creation and evolution are incompatible.
Evolution is just small variations in genetics and expressed traits. If evolution was impossible, breeding dogs to express different traits, for example, would be impossible. We even have records within the last few hundred years documenting the first apprearnace of some domestic breeds. Life is either conastantly evolving and changing, or its immutable and never changes. The simple fact that changes can be seen and have been documented, should be more than enough proof that evolution happens.
@ThacoBell I think the evidence for evolution is overwhelming and that includes the development of new species over time. If an act of creation took place it does not seem reasonable to me to argue that the creation included all current species:
- this wouldn't account for all the other species that are in the fossil record.
- nor would it account for the changes in species we can observe even in short time periods (by the standards of evolution).
To account for that you would either need to posit a continuing intervention by a creator or that the original stimulus to life was provided by a creator who then just left evolutionary processes to work. In either case that wouldn't fit with the idea that someone had designed separate species from the outset.
I think you're misunderstanding what the word theory means in science. A theory means everything we have cannot disprove it. You rely on quantum theory every time you use a computer, because transistors rely on it. Every time you use your GPS, the theory of relativity has to be taken into account, because it says time passes slower when close to a large gravitational body. You get some antibiotics to fight off an infection, that's germ theory. There's a vast amount of fossil evidence leaving a clear trail between modern humans to a common ancestor with chimps. There's huge fossil trails connecting other disparate species. Now, with genetics we know that genes for eyes appear in the same spots in the genome for arthropods, mollusks and chordates. If they did not share a common ancestor and had developed vision independently, then they wouldn't have such similar genetics. You can't prove 100% that any of these theories are true, but all the evidence we have backs them up and does not contradict them. Theories are also adaptable, when we learn new information, it doesn't necessarily mean everything about a theory is wrong, but perhaps just certain aspects of it, and new information can be incorporated. Darwin freely admitted he had no idea how the laws of inheritance worked, how could he without knowing about DNA? But the discovery of DNA helped back up his claims and has become integrated with the theory of evolution.
I know the definition of scientific theory and how it works. You can't even 'prove' the existence of atoms or molecules and that's the basis of chemistry. There are a few things about evolution that trouble my sense of logic, though. For instance, what advantage is half a feather? Is there an advantage to minutely higher than cold blood? What advantage is there to a non-sentient organic molecule to begin replicating itself? What advantage is there to being only a tiny bit bigger or smaller than your fellows? What advantage is their for a minutely opposed thumb? How do small populations with little relative chance of useful mutation due to the law of averages, evolve? What about how lungs evolved from gills? What advantage is a slightly lunglike gill?
Also, this video
And the book of the same name might help you, if you're willing to challenge yourself.
Why would a species with a partial trait like I'm describing be at any advantage with regards to survival? I'm saying we're missing some important details about evolution. Natural selection seems logical at first until you really think about it more in depth.
With more recent findings, it seems that earliest feathers on dinosaurs were used for to help maintain body temperature. This is obviously unprovable, but odds are they also played a part in sexual selection, since pigments have been recovered and they seem to be pretty brightly colored. We know feathers evolved well before wings evolved in birds and had uses before flight evolved in them. Tests have also been done on birds with clipped wings and half clipped wings, and the wings still help when moving up an incline or to slow a fall from a high place. Even without enough feathers to fly, gliding short distances down can be possible. There's a living species of bird, that when young still has claws on it's wings for climbing that go away as they get older and can fly properly.
The advantage of having warm blood is that you don't have to wait for another heat source to get you going before you can move. Even with only a small endothermic reaction, you have an advantage, since you can start your day before your competitors. A larger reaction and you can be active even on a cold night. Keep in mind it developed in a cold blooded world, so having a small advantage with a small endothermic reaction to regulate your body temperature just a bit would have been an advantage over an animal that can't do that. Same thing goes for very primitive eyes.
An organic molecule replicating itself, could be viewed as an advantage over not replicating, since it allows proliferation. The only goal of evolution is survival.
Chimps and other apes thumbs are not as opposed as ours, but still very useful for grasping branches, but not as good for the fine tool work we do.
There's a lot of reasons a small population could evolve. Duress on the population or inbreeding are examples. Sometimes they don't evolve if they have traits that make them successful in their environment.
Drill down further. What advantage is one feather? Did the first female dinosaur to see a feather go 'omigod I need me some of that!'? Keep looking at it on a micro-scale and the seemingly logical theory of evolution, as presented, is no longer logical...
I'll give it go. Please note, I'm just spouting these off. I'm not a biologist
Warmth, colorful display.
Able to stay active slightly longer than competitors.
Dispersal of entropy
Better able to take down larger prey, easier to wriggle into small hiding places searching for prey.
Hitchhiking.
Most don't, but over millions of years the law of averages means that a few do.
The ability to crawl from pool to pool. The ability to survive oxygen depleted water. Actually I remember reading somewhere that lungs are thought to have evolved from swim bladders.
EDIT: everybody's fast today. I started writing this post just after I saw the post I was replying to and didn't see any of the responses in between.
Sir Dawkins answer this in the video I ninja'd
The way genes work, getting a single feather would be a much more unlikely mutation than many at once. It's not as if a specific single hair on your body is caused by an individual gene just for it.
Evolution isn't intentional process. There is no Nature Coach, assign to every species, who says: "alright, we're trying single feather this season!". Some male dinosaurs with feathers survived long enough to pass that trait down. In the next generation, dinosaurs with two feathers survived long enough. After some time, dinosaurs with feathers were the only ones left. I see no problem with logic of that.
Agreed. Evolution doesn't require mutation to function - selection within a gene pool can make major changes over time anyway. However, for the sort of 'step-change' that was being discussed before, you are likely to be looking at mutations - and to be heritable those mutations will need to affect the germ cells. Such mutations are unlikely to affect a single feather ...
Also @Ammar is totally right about the feathers. The way genes work, it likely wouldn't have been a single feather, but some amount across at least a portion of the body.
I think you are misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm not refuting evolution. You said that a creator would be unlikely because of what we know and don't know about evolution. I'm just asking why you hold that view. I don't see why they are mutually exclusive.
@ThacoBell that's not what I'm saying - I'll try again.
1) You say you accept evolution. I think that means you accept that existing species have changed in arriving at their present states and will undergo further changes in the future.
2) Unless you're arguing that the future of the universe was determined at the moment of creation (and I don't think you are based on what I remember of your past posts) that means that existing species were not designed in their current state as part of an initial act of creation.
3) You could argue that the process of evolution does not follow a natural law, but rather reflects continuing intervention by a creator, but again I don't think you're arguing that.
4) The above steps lead to the conclusion that existing species were not specifically designed by a creator.
That does not mean, however, that there was no creator - this logic doesn't rule out an initial act of creation. All I was saying originally was that I think it's difficult to both believe in evolution and also believe that current species were designed by a creator.