Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?

[AVZ]

So essentially Kiwi, AVZ, and all the rest will reject out of hand any concept of evolution that does anything less than a dog producing a non-dog.

That is a really dumb comment.
What else is evolution than the claim that one species evolved from another? If evolution would be about dogs producing dogs, or species only producing their own species...evolution theory would not exist.

So your claim is that one species evolves into another species, but when Kiwi or I insist to have evidence of one species evolving into another, you call that absurd.
You are being ridiculous.

[The Barbarian]

A totally irrelevant comment.

You see it as different from yours, because the notion of a redwood tree growing to adulthood from a seed doesn't bother you, and the notion of new taxa evolving from old does bother you.

You can actually witness a giant redwood sprouting from a giant redwood seed.

You can actually witness new species evolving from old ones.  But no one ever lived long enough to see a giant redwood grow from a seed, or new species grow into new genera, families, orders, and so on.

But, more importantly it is you who claim that evolution has been observed.

Yep.  Perhaps you don't know what "evolution" means in biology.   What do you think it means?  Hint: it certainly includes speciation, which as you know, is directly observed.

At the same time you say that nobody ever observed a giant redwood tree growing to full height.

Which is quite true.

So if you state that the 1000 year process of a growing redwood tree is not observable and has not been observed...how can you make the claim that a millions of years taking process like evolution is observable and has been observed?

It doesn't have to take millions of years.   Speciation can happen rather rapidly.   Common descent is like watching a redwood grow to maturity.   But evolution includes much shorter periods of time.

[The Barbarian]

4WD comments:

So essentially Kiwi, AVZ, and all the rest will reject out of hand any concept of evolution that does anything less than a dog producing a non-dog.

AVZ writes:

That is a really dumb comment.

It's very perceptive, and illustrates a lack of understanding on the part of some (certainly not all) creationists.

What else is evolution than the claim that one species evolved from another?

Evolution is also change within a species.   And it's also common descent.  And everything in between.   I'll make it easy.  Evolution, in biology, is a change in allele frequency in a population over time.

If evolution would be about dogs producing dogs, or species only producing their own species...evolution theory would not exist.

You're wrong about that. 

So your claim is that one species evolves into another species

Which is directly observed, remember.

but when Kiwi or I insist to have evidence of one species evolving into another, you call that absurd.

To insist that any human could live long enough to see higher taxa evolve is indeed absurd.   We can see speciation sometimes, but that's about it.

[AVZ]

You see it as different from yours, because the notion of a redwood tree growing to adulthood from a seed doesn't bother you, and the notion of new taxa evolving from old does bother you.

You can actually witness new species evolving from old ones.  But no one ever lived long enough to see a giant redwood grow from a seed, or new species grow into new genera, families, orders, and so on.

Yep.  Perhaps you don't know what "evolution" means in biology.   What do you think it means?  Hint: it certainly includes speciation, which as you know, is directly observed.

Which is quite true.

It doesn't have to take millions of years.   Speciation can happen rather rapidly.   Common descent is like watching a redwood grow to maturity.   But evolution includes much shorter periods of time.

I honestly dont know what point you wish to make and what relevance a redwood tree is to evolution.
The redwood tree neither speciates nor evolves into something different but a redwood tree.
The seed wont grow anything else but a redwood tree.

Your claim goes somewhat like this: Unobserved evolution is true because nobody ever observed a redwood tree grow to full height.
It doesn't make sense at all.

[AVZ]

Evolution is also change within a species.   

And that's yet another untruth from your side. Evolution is not about change within a species.
Yes for evolution to be true a species much change, but change in a species is not evolution.

For a change to be evolution, you will have to prove that the species did not have the ability for the change to start with.
Many adaptations of species are triggered by properties the species possessed all along. And if the species had the ability from the onset, then it did not evolve anything.

You have now arrived at the point where you call adaptation the same as evolution, which is most certainly a false claim.

The argument you are trying to put up is really ridiculous.
Are you trying to make us believe that it is not NECESSARY for evolution that speciation MUST occur?
Here is the thing, if no speciation ever occurred, and one species never evolved into another, evolution could not exist. The complete evolutionary ancestral tree would be down the drain.
Good luck with that.

[Alan]

I honestly dont know what point you wish to make and what relevance a redwood tree is to evolution.
The redwood tree neither speciates nor evolves into something different but a redwood tree.
The seed wont grow anything else but a redwood tree.

Your claim goes somewhat like this: Unobserved evolution is true because nobody ever observed a redwood tree grow to full height.
It doesn't make sense at all.

The point there is that since you cannot possibly observe the Redwood growing to maturity, it can't possibly be true, but we do know otherwise from a different perspective of observation which we all partake in.

[AVZ]

The point there is that since you cannot possibly observe the Redwood growing to maturity, it can't possibly be true, but we do know otherwise from a different perspective of observation which we all partake in.

Again, that has nothing to do with evolution.
By looking at one redwood tree, or a whole bunch of them, whether observable or not, you cannot state that the redwood tree at any point in its existence was not a redwood tree.
Neither can you state that the redwood tree will no longer be a redwood tree in future.

The only thing that is observable, millions of times over, is that redwood trees drop redwood seeds that grow into redwood trees.

So if you would to take all the millions of observable instances of reproduction of all the redwood trees in the world, and see that all redwood trees reproduce is other redwood trees...then the whole redwood argument is one against evolution.

[4WD]

So if you would to take all the millions of observable instances of reproduction of all the redwood trees in the world, and see that all redwood trees reproduce is other redwood trees...

But of course you haven't made such observations, nor can you, nor can anyone else.  So your conclusion is pure conjecture, having no part in truth.

[Alan]

Again, that has nothing to do with evolution.
By looking at one redwood tree, or a whole bunch of them, whether observable or not, you cannot state that the redwood tree at any point in its existence was not a redwood tree.
Neither can you state that the redwood tree will no longer be a redwood tree in future.

The only thing that is observable, millions of times over, is that redwood trees drop redwood seeds that grow into redwood trees.

So if you would to take all the millions of observable instances of reproduction of all the redwood trees in the world, and see that all redwood trees reproduce is other redwood trees...then the whole redwood argument is one against evolution.

[AVZ]

But of course you haven't made such observations, nor can you, nor can anyone else.  So your conclusion is pure conjecture, having no part in truth.

Of course you could if you wanted.
In the fall you go a redwood forest and collect 1000 seeds.
You plant those seeds and soon you will see those seeds grow into redwood trees.
The year after you go again, and the year after you go again etc etc.
Every year you plant 1000 seeds and after a number of years you will have a few hundred new redwood trees who also drop seeds.
After 30 years you will have observed millions upon millions of seeds, and if they sprout they will all grow into redwood trees.

So you can actually witnessed many redwood generations...not surprisingly...all growing into....redwood trees.


The university of California actually did a generational experiment of fruit flies.
Yep, they bred 600 generations of flies, with an equivalent of 12,000 human generations. In the meantime the meddled with the flies.
So unlike in nature where meddling may happen on a small scale, they did so forcefully and on a large scale.
Guess what they ended up with? FRUIT FLIES!!!

Richard Lenski did an impressive 20-year study on bacteria. The went through a baffling 40,000 generations!
Also here mutations were introduced artificially and forcefully.
Guess what Lenski come up with after 20 years...the exact same bacteria he started off with, but all of them devolved and pained with degenerative mutations.

As I said, evolution has never ever been witnessed. Not even over thousands of generations.
And here you are saying that because we can't see a redwood tree grow out his life, evolution must be true. What a joke.

[4WD]

What you apparently don't realize or understand is that it is impossible for any study to show, demonstrate or prove that evolution can't or doesn't exist.

[AVZ]

[AVZ]

What you apparently don't realize or understand is that it is impossible for any study to show, demonstrate or prove that evolution can't or doesn't exist.

Neither does the absence of proof show that it does exist.

[4WD]

Neither does the absence of proof show that it does exist.

The Barbarian has shown you examples of proof. 

[AVZ]

The Barbarian has shown you examples of proof.

No he hasn't

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Evolution is also change within a species.

And that's yet another untruth from your side. Evolution is not about change within a species.

Sorry, you're just wrong.  The scientific definition of biological evolution is "change in allele frequency in a population over time."  So changes in the population genes are indeed also evolution by definition.

Yes for evolution to be true a species much change, but change in a species is not evolution.

See above.  One of the problems with people who think they hate science is, they don't really know what it is.

For a change to be evolution, you will have to prove that the species did not have the ability for the change to start with.

No.  If you think about it, a change from a single individual having a new mutation in one generation, to that mutation spreading widely into the population is exactly what evolution is.  By definition.

Many adaptations of species are triggered by properties the species possessed all along.

Such as mutation and natural selection.  That's how it works.

And if the species had the ability from the onset, then it did not evolve anything.

Here you are confusing individuals with populations.  Individual don't evolve.  Populations do.

You have now arrived at the point where you call adaptation the same as evolution,

No.  Here, you're confusing a physical adaptation, like making more red blood cells in a high-altitude environment (which is built into mammalian physiology) with a genetic adaptation, like the mutations that permit Tibetans to survive at very high altitudes.  One is just individual response, and is not passed on to new generations, and the other is a mutation that affects all descendants who get the new allele as well.

The argument you are trying to put up is really ridiculous.

You're a little confused about these terms and what they mean.  It's not surprising.  Most people don't understand it very well.

Are you trying to make us believe that it is not NECESSARY for evolution that speciation MUST occur?

That's true.  When the allele frequency changes in a population, that's the textbook definition of evolution.

Here is the thing, if no speciation ever occurred, and one species never evolved into another, evolution could not exist.

As you see, that's wrong.  Tibetans are not a new species.  They've just evolved some adaptations to their environment.

The complete evolutionary ancestral tree would be down the drain.

Here, you're confusing common descent with evolution.   It's like confusing gravity and formation of stars.   The latter is a consequence of the former, but that does not mean that if it doesn't result in a star forming, it can't be gravity.

[4WD]

One of the problems with people who think they hate science is, they don't really know what it is.

So very, very true.

[The Barbarian]

This misunderstanding of the way science works...



...if true, would have meant we would not have the contributions of Huxley, Mendel, Morgan, Kimura, Gould, Dobzhansky, Collins, and a host of other great scientists, whose challenges to evolutionary theory led to significant revisions in it.

The major difference between science and creationism, is that science is open to new evidence; theories are changed or even discarded as evidence demands.

[Alan]

The major difference between science and creationism, is that science is open to new evidence; theories are changed or even discarded as evidence demands.

Careful, this will come back at you 

[The Barbarian]

Careful, this will come back at you

Of course.  At least half the time, creationists regard it as cheating, since they aren't able to adjust their idea when new evidence shows up.   The other half of the time, they say, "see, science is always wrong."

I get that.   

[AVZ]

The major difference between science and creationism, is that science is open to new evidence; theories are changed or even discarded as evidence demands.

Creationists are also open to new evidence. This whole discussion is not about evidence, but it is about the conclusions drawn from it or the assumptions made from it.

[AVZ]

Barbarian observes:
Evolution is also change within a species.

Sorry, you're just wrong.  The scientific definition of biological evolution is "change in allele frequency in a population over time."  So changes in the population genes are indeed also evolution by definition.

See above.  One of the problems with people who think they hate science is, they don't really know what it is.

No.  If you think about it, a change from a single individual having a new mutation in one generation, to that mutation spreading widely into the population is exactly what evolution is.  By definition.

Such as mutation and natural selection.  That's how it works.

Here you are confusing individuals with populations.  Individual don't evolve.  Populations do.
 

No.  Here, you're confusing a physical adaptation, like making more red blood cells in a high-altitude environment (which is built into mammalian physiology) with a genetic adaptation, like the mutations that permit Tibetans to survive at very high altitudes.  One is just individual response, and is not passed on to new generations, and the other is a mutation that affects all descendants who get the new allele as well.

You're a little confused about these terms and what they mean.  It's not surprising.  Most people don't understand it very well.

That's true.  When the allele frequency changes in a population, that's the textbook definition of evolution.

As you see, that's wrong.  Tibetans are not a new species.  They've just evolved some adaptations to their environment.

Here, you're confusing common descent with evolution.   It's like confusing gravity and formation of stars.   The latter is a consequence of the former, but that does not mean that if it doesn't result in a star forming, it can't be gravity.

There is nothing in the statements you make that shows any proof of evolution.
What you are talking about is adaptation, which is inherent in any species.

If you would to remove all the Tibetans from the Himalayas and move them to Scandinavia, they will adapt to their new environment.
The ability to adapt is inherent in our DNA, which responds to the environment and switches some properties on or off.
By all means you could move all Scandinavians to the Himalayas, and they will adapt to that new environment as well.

That is nor proof whatsoever that evolution is true.
The ability to adapt is present in any species from the onset, so no new abilities are acquired.
The principal biological functions of a Tibetan and a Scandinavian are identical, and neither are the two different species or will they ever be.

Evolution claims otherwise.
It claims that a species acquires new abilities, not present before in the species. It is those chances that classify the species to become a new species., and that's what evolution is about.
It has never been observed before!

[The Barbarian]

There is nothing in the statements you make that shows any proof of evolution.

What you are talking about is adaptation

No.  All humans, moving to a high altitude, will adapt in various ways, such as making more RBCs.    This is inherent in all species.  What has happened with Tibetans, is the evolution of new alleles that allow them to survive more efficiently at high altitudes.   

If you would to remove all the Tibetans from the Himalayas and move them to Scandinavia, they will adapt to their new environment.

No.  Turns out, Tibetans who have emigrated to lower areas, retain the mutation, even after several generations.   They've evolved a new function that most other humans lack.  A few Han Chinese have it, but it's not selected for in Chinese living at lower altitudes.  Tibetans are genetically close to Han Chinese, being descended from them.

The ability to adapt is inherent in our DNA, which responds to the environment and switches some properties on or off.

Mutations are inherent properties in living things.   Most of them don't do very much.  A few are harmful.  A very few are useful.  Natural selection sorts them out.  This is why the mutation evolved in Tibetans, but not in other populations.

By all means you could move all Scandinavians to the Himalayas, and they will adapt to that new environment as well.

They would adapt, but eventually, in the population, one or more mutations that made living there more efficient would occur, and natural selection would increase the frequency of that mutation.  Wouldn't be the same one that Tibetans have, but it would help.   Indian populations in the Andes, for example, have mutations that enhance survival there.  But they aren't the same as those that evolved in Tibet.

That is nor proof whatsoever that evolution is true.

Directly observed evolution is the proof.   We see that going on in various populations.   

The ability to adapt is present in any species from the onset, so no new abilities are acquired.

No, that's wrong.  The mutation found in Tibetans is not found in other populations, even those living at high altitudes. 

The principal biological functions of a Tibetan and a Scandinavian are identical

No.  As you learned, Tibetans have an allele that is not found in Scandinavians.  Likewise, many Scandinavians have a mutation that provides excellent immunity to Bubonic Plague, while Tibetans do not.  The Black Plague that went through Europe made that mutation widespread among Europeans.  They evolved a different adaptation.   

Evolution claims otherwise.
It claims that a species acquires new abilities, not present before in the species.

I just gave you two examples.  Another is the Milano mutation, which provides excellent protection against arteriosclerosis.   We happen to know the very individual in which this new mutation first occurred, and how it spread in the population of his descendants.

It is those chances that classify the species to become a new species., and that's what evolution is about.

You've been misled about that.  Evolution is a change in allele frequency in a population over time.  So the evolution of the Tibetan EPAS1 gene is by definition, evolution.

Around the world, populations have adapted to life at high altitude in different ways. One adaptation involves making more red blood cells, which transport oxygen to the body's tissues. Indigenous people in the Peruvian Andes have higher red blood cell counts than their countrymen living at sea level, for example.

But Tibetans have evolved a different method. "Tibetans have the highest expression levels for EPAS1 in the world," said co-author Dr Jian Wang of the Beijing Genomics Institute in Schenzhen, China, a research facility that collected the data. "For Western people, after two to three weeks at altitude, the red blood cell count starts to increase. But Tibetans and Sherpas keep the same levels," he said.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/jul/02/mutation-gene-tibetans-altitude

It has never been observed before!

As you now see, it's been observed many times.

[The Barbarian]

Creationists are also open to new evidence.

Mostly not.  A few have conceded that new species or even higher taxa evolve.  But that's not the usual.

This whole discussion is not about evidence

For science, it is.  Evidence is all that counts.

[AVZ]

You've been misled about that.  Evolution is a change in allele frequency in a population over time.  So the evolution of the Tibetan EPAS1 gene is by definition, evolution.

Around the world, populations have adapted to life at high altitude in different ways. One adaptation involves making more red blood cells, which transport oxygen to the body's tissues. Indigenous people in the Peruvian Andes have higher red blood cell counts than their countrymen living at sea level, for example.

But Tibetans have evolved a different method. "Tibetans have the highest expression levels for EPAS1 in the world," said co-author Dr Jian Wang of the Beijing Genomics Institute in Schenzhen, China, a research facility that collected the data. "For Western people, after two to three weeks at altitude, the red blood cell count starts to increase. But Tibetans and Sherpas keep the same levels," he said.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/jul/02/mutation-gene-tibetans-altitude

As you now see, it's been observed many times.

My my...according to science the Tibetans INHERITED the EPAS1 gene in the past from some far away relatives.
That means that the gene existed many generations past.
Which means that those people INHERITED it from their ancestors, who INHERITED it from theirs etc etc.
There is NO PROOF that in this chain of events anyone ACQUIRED the gene.

Now everybody in the world has fragments of the EPAS1 gene.
Which simply means that westeners LOST part of the gene, and the Tibetan family kept it.

That is proof of DEVOLUTION and not evolution.

[KiwiChristian]

Mostly not.  A few have conceded that new species or even higher taxa evolve.  But that's not the usual.

You cannot make a blanket statement like and use words like "Mostly" or "few" as you simply do not KNOW the majority of creationists.

[KiwiChristian]

That is a really dumb comment.
What else is evolution than the claim that one species evolved from another? If evolution would be about dogs producing dogs, or species only producing their own species...evolution theory would not exist.

So your claim is that one species evolves into another species, but when Kiwi or I insist to have evidence of one species evolving into another, you call that absurd.
You are being ridiculous.

yes, we get different species. That is not debatable.

We get big dogs, little dogs, black dogs, white dogs.

They are still a dog!

We also see bacteria changing. Its still a bacteria!

Yet the general theory is we are ALL related.

[KiwiChristian]

The problem is in defining "kind."   Seems that transitional forms exist between any sort of kind you can define.   Let's try primates.   How many "kinds" would that be, or do you think all primates are a single kind?

And give us your evidence for your belief.

PROVE that ANY form is "transitional"

[Amo]

More scientific wisdom from the superior skills of observation among evolutionary scientists. It's getting harder all the time to argue with such superior intellect.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2515969/Humans-evolved-female-chimpanzee-mated-pig-Extraordinary-claim-American-geneticist.html

'Humans evolved after a female chimpanzee mated with a pig': Extraordinary claim made by American geneticist

[Alan]

More scientific wisdom from the superior skills of observation among evolutionary scientists. It's getting harder all the time to argue with such superior intellect.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2515969/Humans-evolved-female-chimpanzee-mated-pig-Extraordinary-claim-American-geneticist.html

'Humans evolved after a female chimpanzee mated with a pig': Extraordinary claim made by American geneticist

So because his claim is way out in left field, does that apply to all of science? Ken Ham is every bit as much a whack job if you want specifics about creationists. Dinosaurs and humans did NOT coexist, dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago, but nutty Ham claims they were on the ark 

[Amo]

http://www.6000years.org/frame.php?page=hoaxes

The above link addresses supposed links between humans and apes presented to the public as proof of evolution in the past, which have been proved wrong or at least highly unlikely. The opening statement has been quoted, and the supposed links listed and addressed. I have listed the supposed links, the info regarding there true nature may be observed at the link provided. As my previous post suggests, a great many evolutionists take great liberties in stating there assumptions as facts prematurely. This is just a tiny example of what goes on, on a much larger scale regarding the same.

Archaeological Forgeries

There is no fossil evidence to support the "ape-man" image, which is unceasingly promulgated by the media and evolutionist academic circles. With brushes in their hands, evolutionists produce imaginary creatures, nevertheless, the fact that these drawings correspond to no matching fossils constitutes a serious problem for them.  Despite the fact that no complete "transitional form" fossil has ever been found, the theory of evolution is taught more than ever in classrooms around the world.  We keep finding more and more huge burial sites of dinosaurs, which are supposedly 65 million years old, yet we cannot find a single skeleton of a half man, half ape, pre-human being.  Such fossils should stand a much better chance of being preserved, since they would only be maybe tens of thousands of years old, not millions as with the dinosaurs (in the evolutionist's timeline).  Now why do you suppose this is?  Maybe simply because evolution never happened?  If evolution were true, we would find at least thousands of skeletons of the "transitional" skeletons shown in the evolutionist drawing below.  Now if I were a believer in evolution, I would need to seriously question my faith in the absence of any such skeletons.

But since there aren't any such skeletons, one of the interesting methods evolutionists employ to overcome this problem is to "produce" the fossils they cannot find.

Evolutionists present much of their finds as if they were compelling and factual explanations to human evolution. In fact, they base their conclusions on mere speculation and often the flimsiest of 'finds'. Many discoveries of supposed hominids consist of only a mouth fragment, a leg bone, a hip bone, or a knee joint. On this alone, they have considered it to be a hominid. They even name it, reconstruct what it looked like, and present it to the public as a fact. Some of these finds have turned out to be those of a pig, donkey, or the result of a hoax.

Piltdown Man, which may be the biggest scandal in the history of science, is a typical example of this method.

Piltdown Man...........................

Nebraska Man.............................

Ota Benga......................

Java Man - Pekin Man.......................

Neanderthal Man.........................

The Taung Child.....................

Ramapithecus........................

Australopithecines........................

Lucy......................

Ardi.......................

[Amo]

So because his claim is way out in left field, does that apply to all of science? Ken Ham is every bit as much a whack job if you want specifics about creationists. Dinosaurs and humans did NOT coexist, dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago, but nutty Ham claims they were on the ark 

They did exist together. You simply think the wisdom of fallen humanity is greater than that of scripture. That todays "scientists" have deeper insight than the prophets of God.   

[Alan]

The skeletal remains do exist with enough of them preserved to accurately describe the details of their anatomic appearance.

[Alan]

They did exist together. You simply think the wisdom of fallen humanity is greater than that of scripture. That todays "scientists" have deeper insight than the prophets of God.

No they did not, that is an absolutely ridiculous claim.

[geronimo]

 hummmm. 40 pages?
I just wanted to remind you guys (both genders) you are about to step on Baptism's toes.

And they said it couldn't be done. heh heh.