Theory of evolution

[DarianF]

40 minutes ago, Morpheus said:

Because it's the exact same horse shit necessary for the big bang.

 

The 'Junkyard Tornado' is a well known fallacy. It's called 'Hoyle's Fallacy' ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkyard_tornado ). It has been hijacked by creationists and misapplied to evolutionary biology ( https://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/essays/the-tornado-in-the-junkyard/ ).

 

The most popular counterargument to it would be the 'Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit' ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_Boeing_747_gambit ).

 

You might want to check out 'Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations' by Ian Musgrave ( http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html ), which goes into more detail. Hoyle's argument is basically the argument from improbability ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-vUSQMqyOo ).

 

[DarianF]

@Morpheus Now, as for the origin of life, that is an active area of research ( a good summary here: https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/11919/chapter/7 ). As far as I recall, Hoyle was a proponent of life being brought to earth from space (exogenous delivery of some kind), but even if that were the case, you would still have to explain how that life got started elsewhere.

 

Chyba and Sagan wrote good papers about exogenous delivery of organic materials in 1992 ( https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11538392/ ) and 1990 ( https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11538074/ ). Also discussed here ---> https://youtu.be/hF1VDUsmzu0?t=758

 

It's interesting that Hoyle himself believed life arrived to earth via comet ( https://www.irishtimes.com/news/according-to-hoyle-life-arrived-on-earth-by-comet-1.242215 ), but I think the kind of life he meant was life already formed in outerspace (but again, how did that begin? Same problem). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia

 

Some research suggests 'Carbonaceous meteorites contain a wide range of extraterrestrial nucleobases' ( https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21836052/ ) so that's a good angle to explore in the modern context.

[Mitochondrial Eve]

13 hours ago, DarianF said:

First of all, 'macroevolution' ( defined here in more detail: https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/macroevolution-examples-from-the-primate-world-96679683/ and here: https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolution-101/macroevolution/what-is-macroevolution/ ) is often used as a red herring by creationists. In reality, there is only microevolution, at the mechanistic level. What we can then observe on the broader scale is what could be called macro, because you're looking at a wider perspective ('zooming out', if you will). If you're expecting to see magical fast jumps from one species to another, you won't, and you wouldn't expect to. You have a lot of small changes over time that result - over a long period of time - in what observed as 'macro' if you want to call it that. It's a term often misused ( here is a discussion on the matter: https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12052-020-00124-w ).

 

Thanks for your reply Darian, but I cannot agree that macroevolution is a red herring and think it is a critical distinction that needs to be considered alongside mutation. The link below provides a comprehensive criticism of evolutionary theory which perhaps you may take the time to read and from which I have gathered the info in this post.

 

https://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

 

There is no dispute that the phenomenon of microevolution exists which is an observable and verifiable matter, however, critics of evolutionary theory assert that the changes which take place occur within strict limits that are never crossed. Apparently, according to the link above, "cells have mechanisms that maintain the original design of a creature within its variation boundaries, and minimise the accumulation of mutations".

 

Even if macroevolution takes place in incremental steps in the form of microevolution at a mechanistic level, Darwinians tell us that, via mutation and natural selection, new information is added to the gene pool which results in the invention of new parts or systems. It is this part which has never been observed and which is disputed. I see no reason why this shouldn't be termed "macroevolution".

 

Evolutionists inform us that, as opposed to microevolution, macroevolution happens too slowly - over thousands of generations - to be observable. However, there have been long term studies of bacteria and fruit flies. A new generation of bacteria can grow in as little as 12 minutes and fruit flies, a more complex organism, are widely used in laboratory studies because a generation takes only 9 days. Both bacteria and fruit flies are highly variable and many mutations have been observed, but they haven't been seen to turn into anything new. One study of fruit flies spanned 35 years with many mutations observed - but none became fixed and variations were limited. And an evolutionary biologist, Dr Richard E Lenski, commenced a long term study of bacteria in 1988 whereby, according to creationists including Scott Whynot who reviewed 26 of Lenski's papers, there have been no observations of mutations resulting in a gain of novel information.

 

And to reiterate Bartholomew's point from my previous post, apparently even evolutionists agree that the overwhelming majority of mutations are deleterious. Do you agree that is the case @DarianF? And do you agree that, for apparently "macro" changes to take place, novel information needs to be brought to the gene pool for which mutation is a fundamental prerequisite?

 

Regarding the fossil record, it may also be worth pointing out the examples of Coelacanth and Archaeopteryx. Coelacanth was thought to have become extinct 65 million years ago having disappeared from the fossil record, and was touted by Darwinians as the first walking fish and an intermediate fossil - that was, until a specimen was found alive, unchanged and unable to walk in 1938. Archaeopteryx was formerly put forward by evolutionists as a great example of a transitional species between dinosaurs and birds, but has since been found to not be a transitional creature after all. Evolutionists have also had to back track on giraffes and the horse series.

 

Another critical problem for the theory can be seen in the lack of transitional fossils between single-celled creatures and complex invertebrates and then between complex invertebrates and fish.

 

13 hours ago, DarianF said:

As for the DNA evidence ( https://evolutionforskeptics.wordpress.com/2014/07/20/molecular-phylogenetics-whales-are-hoofed-mammals/comment-page-1/ ) I'm obviously not a DNA expert, but there are plenty of scientific papers now that confirm the link. These, if I'm not mistaken, have been building as a weight of evidence since the 1990s; or at least the late 1990s - example - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9159931/ - example: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1997-aug-31-mn-27505-story.html ).

 

There are of course, like there should be, debates within then peer reviewed process of all the finer details. The evidence is not 'perfect' but the overall evidence seems to strongly lean in that direction. In 2008, the National Academies wrote that:

 

"The fossil evidence accords with recent genetic findings that whales, dolphins and porpoises descended from a group of terrestrial mammals known as Artiodactyls." ( https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/11876/chapter/3?term=whales#32 ).

 

 

Of course I am no DNA expert either, but my question still remains as to whether such findings of closer genetic relationships between creatures is necessarily proof that evolution is the cause?

 

Also, the understanding of the workings of DNA, RNA and proteins is developing quite rapidly and, whereas previously so called junk DNA (as per the label given to it by evolutionists in the 1970s) was not believed to have served a purpose, researchers are now finding that it can carry out "vital work".  Another point to consider is the developing field of systems biology and, with it, "Gene Regulatory Networks" which operate an overall complex body plan. The theory of evolution cannot explain how such a complex operating system came to be without a designer. According to Electrical Engineer Perry Marshall, "there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information".

Edited April 10, 2022 by Mitochondrial Eve

[DarianF]

6 hours ago, Morpheus said:

That's an excellent article Ink and I wholly agree with the content. I especially liked this part:

 

Astronomer Fred Hoyle compared the odds that all the multi-faceted and multi-functional parts of a cell could coincidentally come together and create life analogous to “a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard and assembling a Boeing 747 from the materials therein!”

 

Hoyle wrote that, “If there were a basic principle of matter which somehow drove organic systems toward life, its existence should easily be demonstrable in the laboratory. One could, for instance, take a swimming bath to represent the primordial soup. Fill it with any chemicals of a non-biological nature you please. Pump any gases over it, or through it, you please, and shine any kind of radiation on it that takes your fancy. Let the experiment proceed for a year and see how many of those 2,000 enzymes (proteins produced by living cells) have appeared in the bath. I will give the answer, and so save the time and trouble and expense of actually doing the experiment. You will find nothing at all, except possibly for a tarry sludge composed of amino acids and other simple organic chemicals.” Even if someone placed all aforementioned substances necessary to create life in the tank and waited for a billion years not a single cell would ever form.

 

"The likelihood of the spontaneous formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 zeros after it … It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. The beginnings of life were not random; they must have been the product of purposeful intelligence.

 

From my earliest training as a scientist, I was very strongly brainwashed to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind of deliberate creation. That notion has had to be painfully shed. At the moment, I can’t find any rational argument to knock down the view which argues for conversion to God. We used to have an open mind; now we realize that the only logical answer to life is creation - and not accidental random shuffling.”

- Astrobiologist Chandra Wickramasinghe

 

 

“We are inescapably the result of a long heritage of learning, adaptation, mutation and evolution, the product of a history which predates our birth as a biological species and stretches back over many thousand millennia…. Going further back, we share a common ancestry with our fellow primates; and going still further back, we share a common ancestry with all other living creatures and plants down to the simplest microbe. The further back we go, the greater the difference from external appearances and behavior patterns which we observe today…. Darwin’s theory, which is now accepted without dissent, is the cornerstone of modern biology. Our own links with the simplest forms of microbial life are well-nigh proven.”
–Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Lifecloud: The Origin of Life in the Universe (1978), p.15-16

[DarianF]

25 minutes ago, Mitochondrial Eve said:

 

Thanks for your reply Darian, but I cannot agree that macroevolution is a red herring and think it is a critical distinction that needs to be considered alongside mutation. The link below provides a comprehensive criticism of evolutionary theory which perhaps you may take the time to read and from which I have gathered the info in this post.

 

https://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

 

There is no dispute that the phenomenon of microevolution exists which is an observable and verifiable matter, however, critics of evolutionary theory assert that the changes which take place occur within strict limits that are never crossed. Apparently, according to the link above, "cells have mechanisms that maintain the original design of a creature within its variation boundaries, and minimise the accumulation of mutations".

 

Even if macroevolution takes place in incremental steps in the form of microevolution at a mechanistic level, Darwinians tell us that, via mutation and natural selection, new information is added to the gene pool which results in the invention of new parts or systems. It is this part which has never been observed and which is disputed. I see no reason why this shouldn't be termed "macroevolution".

 

Evolutionists inform us that, as opposed to microevolution, macroevolution happens too slowly - over thousands of generations - to be observable. However, there have been long term studies of bacteria and fruit flies. A new generation of bacteria can grow in as little as 12 minutes and fruit flies, a more complex organism, are widely used in laboratory studies because a generation takes only 9 days. Both bacteria and fruit flies are highly variable and many mutations have been observed, but they haven't been seen to turn into anything new. One study of fruit flies spanned 35 years with many mutations observed - but none became fixed and variations were limited. And an evolutionary biologist, Dr Richard E Lenski, commenced a long term study of bacteria in 1988 whereby, according to creationists including Scott Whynot who reviewed 26 of Lenski's papers, there have been no observations of mutations resulting in a gain of novel information.

 

And to reiterate Bartholomew's point from my previous post, apparently even evolutionists agree that the overwhelming majority of mutations are deleterious. Do you agree that is the case @DarianF? And do you agree that, for apparently "macro" changes to take place, novel information needs to be brought to the gene pool for which mutation is a fundamental prerequisite?

 

Regarding the fossil record, it may also be worth pointing out the examples of Coelacanth and Archaeopteryx. Coelacanth was thought to have become extinct 65 million years ago having disappeared from the fossil record, and was touted by Darwinians as the first walking fish and an intermediate fossil - that was, until a specimen was found alive, unchanged and unable to walk in 1938. Archaeopteryx was formerly put forward by evolutionists as a great example of a transitional species between dinosaurs and birds, but has since been found to not be a transitional creature after all. Evolutionists have also had to back track on giraffes and the horse series.

 

Another critical problem for the theory can be seen in the lack of transitional fossils between single-celled creatures and complex invertebrates and then between complex invertebrates and fish.

 

 

Of course I am no DNA expert either, but my question still remains as to whether such findings of closer genetic relationships between creatures is necessarily proof that evolution is the cause?

 

Also, the understanding of the workings of DNA, RNA and proteins is developing quite rapidly and, whereas previously so called junk DNA (as per the label given to it by evolutionists in the 1970s) was not believed to have served a purpose, researchers are now finding that it can carry out "vital work".  Another point to consider is the developing field of systems biology and, with it, "Gene Regulatory Networks" which operate an overall complex body plan. The theory of evolution cannot explain how such a complex operating system came to be without a designer. According to Electrical Engineer Perry Marshall, "there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information".

 

Most appreciated, @Mitochondrial Eve. Obviously no quick answers here. Detailed stuff.

 

For your specific question, as I understand it, mutations are random. They are not inherently 'good or bad'. Environmental factors and survival pressures then determine which mutations are favoured over time. It's a pretty basic concept. I'm assuming the other part of your question is related to Genetic variation, gene flow, and new species? https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/her/tree-of-life/v/genetic-variation-gene-flow-and-new-species

 

I think the question you're asking is the one asked / answered here: 'How can evolution happen if information cannot be added to DNA?' ( https://www.quora.com/How-can-evolution-happen-if-information-cannot-be-added-to-DNA ), or the one covered here: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13673-evolution-myths-mutations-can-only-destroy-information/

 

Here is some more detail on the issue of mutations: https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/dna-is-constantly-changing-through-the-process-6524898/

 

So when you claim information cannot be added, what do you mean? And the original claim made - that you are using as the basis for the question - has it been peer reviewed? I'd love for you to throw me some specific journal articles my way to make sure I'm understanding the precision of what you're saying.

Edited April 10, 2022 by DarianF

[DarianF]

@Mitochondrial Eve My amateurish summary may not do the above answer justice. Here is a better summary of key concepts:

 

KEY CONCEPTS

A. A mutation is a random change to an organism’s DNA sequence.
B. The environment contributes to determining whether a mutation is advantageous, deleterious, or neutral.
C. Mutations that increase the fitness of an organism increase in frequency in a population.
D. Evolution can happen quickly (in hundreds of years, or even less); advantageous genetic mutations can increase in
frequency in a population quite rapidly, even if the fitness advantage to the organism is small.
E. Different mutations in the same gene, or even mutations in different genes, can result in the same phenotype.
F. While mutations can be random, natural selection is not random.
G. Selective pressure depends on the environment in which an organism lives. This means that other organisms in the
environment (in this case, the predators) can be a selective force.

 

Source (teacher resource): https://www.biointeractive.org/sites/default/files/IDG_NaturalSelection.pdf

 

Original video (related to the above): The Making of the Fittest: Natural Selection and Adaptation ---> https://www.biointeractive.org/classroom-resources/making-fittest-natural-selection-and-adaptation

Edited April 10, 2022 by DarianF

[DarianF]

6 hours ago, Mitochondrial Eve said:

Also, the understanding of the workings of DNA, RNA and proteins is developing quite rapidly and, whereas previously so called junk DNA (as per the label given to it by evolutionists in the 1970s) was not believed to have served a purpose, researchers are now finding that it can carry out "vital work".  Another point to consider is the developing field of systems biology and, with it, "Gene Regulatory Networks" which operate an overall complex body plan. The theory of evolution cannot explain how such a complex operating system came to be without a designer. According to Electrical Engineer Perry Marshall, "there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information".

 

As for junk DNA, if it was discovered and thought to not be important, then later evidence showed it to be more important, then I don't get the point. All that shows is science working like it should. We discover something, we don't quite understand it, then more evidence comes in and we adjust our views accordingly.

 

As for Electrical Engineer Perry Marshall, what has an electrical engineer got to do with professional biology? No disrespect. And a proper source for the quote would be helpful. Thanks in advance.

 

Edit: One thing for sure, it seems to strike a nerve. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/feb/24/scientists-attacked-over-junk-dna-claim

Edited April 11, 2022 by DarianF

[truepositive]

Science is not working like it should by a very very long shot and credentials are meaningless if they don't result in logical and critical thinking but i digress;

This is Perry's book: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/23258971-evolution-2-0

This is a (fairly relevant) related discussion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noj4phMT9OE

 

Biologists often claim their field is being misrepresented (all the time) but explaining how this happens exactly seems rather difficult. Its a 'field in progress' for sure though (pun very much intended), if i had to point at one person to pay attention to right now, within traditional scientific circles it would be Michael Levin; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0TNfysTazc

 

You might notice a similarity to what Rupert Sheldrake has been talking about for a while now, at least thematically. Your average scientific journalist has probably not heard of Michael thus far and every wikipedia/ guardian/ open academy type resource is likely to be hopelessly behind the curve on things like this. They have their uses in building up a generic framework though, but that's about it.

 

[Mitochondrial Eve]

6 hours ago, DarianF said:

 

As for junk DNA, if it was discovered and thought to not be important, then later evidence showed it to be more important, then I don't get the point. All that shows is science working like it should. We discover something, we don't quite understand it, then more evidence comes in and we adjust our views accordingly.

 

As for Electrical Engineer Perry Marshall, what has an electrical engineer got to do with professional biology? No disrespect. And a proper source for the quote would be helpful. Thanks in advance.

 

Edit: One thing for sure, it seems to strike a nerve. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/feb/24/scientists-attacked-over-junk-dna-claim

 

https://www.icr.org/article/embarrassment-evolutionary-blunder-junk-dna/

 

This article highlights how junk DNA, which does not code for proteins, has been touted for years by evolutionists as evidence of their theory. Because they hastily proclaimed that non-coding DNA, which makes up between 90% - 98% of the genome, was useless, junk DNA was considered strong evidence against intelligent design with evolutionists questioning why an intelligent creator would include such a mish mash of "junk". It could be said that evolutionists held back research into non coding DNA and that this highlights "how evolutionary theory consistently fosters the practice of poor science methodology".

 

The article also makes a case for why an engineering perspective is useful to bring to the debate. This could help to dissect the primary purpose of for non-coding genetic material.

 

Quote

If the informational function of DNA is interpreted from an engineering perspective rather than through selectionism, then a primary purpose for non-coding genetic material becomes clearer. For example, in a construction project, much more information is needed to control the timing, location, dimensions and arrangement of the materials used in the structure than the information for making the materials themselves (which might be substantial). DNA coding for proteins could be interpreted as prescribing the building materials and non-coding DNA (or RNA) is likely one source of information regulating the placement or utilization of those materials.

 

Here is the link to the Perry Marshall quote for you. https://evo2.org/dna-atheists/

 

 

[Pierre-Luc]

The theory of evolution start to make less and less sense as soon as i started looking at it...interesting that it been easy for me to dismiss the possibility that we were once fish and trough out the millions of years we became like we are now...it is only on this huge time scale this thing can make some kind of sense. Looking at mainstream knowledge of genetic their are some mainstream idea about genetic that do not add up. I heard that the difference in the genetic make up of human versus the genetic make up of chimpanzee is greater than that..apparently the difference in the genes between Asian and Caucasian for example, would be of something like 3%..sorry for not linking any source...i just go with what i remember.

Edited April 11, 2022 by Pierre-Luc
missing a word...at least

[DarianF]

10 hours ago, Pierre-Luc said:

The theory of evolution start to make less and less sense as soon as i started looking at it...interesting that it been easy for me to dismiss the possibility that we were once fish and trough out the millions of years we became like we are now...it is only on this huge time scale this thing can make some kind of sense. Looking at mainstream knowledge of genetic their are some mainstream idea about genetic that do not add up. I heard that the difference in the genetic make up of human versus the genetic make up of chimpanzee is greater than that..apparently the difference in the genes between Asian and Caucasian for example, would be of something like 3%..sorry for not linking any source...i just go with what i remember.

 

Hi mate, welcome. As for your comment, "it is only on this huge time scale this thing can make some kind of sense", that's true. It does take a long amount of time for changes to occur. The best evidence we have indicates life has been around 3.7 billion to 3.5 billion years. However, shit got really interesting 541-485 million years ago (The Cambrian Period). As always, there is some scientific debate still going on about the finer details of that period, which keeps things fresh, but overall:

 

Quote

"As with all active areas of science, there remain questions about evolution. There are always new questions to ask, new situations to consider, and new ways to study known phenomena. But evolution itself has been so thoroughly tested that biologists are no longer examining whether evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Similarly, biologists no longer debate many of the mechanisms responsible for evolution. As with any other field of science, scientists continue to study the mechanisms of how the process of evolution operates... the strength of a theory rests in part on providing scientists with the basis to explain observed phenomena and to predict what they are likely to find when exploring new phenomena and observations. In this regard, evolution has been and continues to be one of the most productive theories known to modern science." https://www.nationalacademies.org/evolution/faq

 

Here's a documentary you may enjoy:

 

 

A lot of tension arises when science and religion get mixed up. These resources below were designed to try and ease some of that tension:

 

Quote

 

- Science, Evolution, and Creationism | https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/11876/science-evolution-and-creationism

 

- Science and Religion | https://www.nationalacademies.org/evolution/science-and-religion

 

 

Anyway, hope you found some of that useful.

[DarianF]

11 hours ago, Mitochondrial Eve said:

 

https://www.icr.org/article/embarrassment-evolutionary-blunder-junk-dna/

 

This article highlights how junk DNA, which does not code for proteins, has been touted for years by evolutionists as evidence of their theory. Because they hastily proclaimed that non-coding DNA, which makes up between 90% - 98% of the genome, was useless, junk DNA was considered strong evidence against intelligent design with evolutionists questioning why an intelligent creator would include such a mish mash of "junk". It could be said that evolutionists held back research into non coding DNA and that this highlights "how evolutionary theory consistently fosters the practice of poor science methodology".

 

The article also makes a case for why an engineering perspective is useful to bring to the debate. This could help to dissect the primary purpose of for non-coding genetic material.

 

 

Here is the link to the Perry Marshall quote for you. https://evo2.org/dna-atheists/

 

 

 

I agree that the history of 'junk dna' has been a bit of a mess. I admit I never liked the term, just because I don't like the assumption behind it, but I'm glad we are now finding out more about it.

 

As for Perry:

 

1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.

 

Yes, of course, that's why it's a fascinating area of study.

 

2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.

 

Yes there is. It's called biological evolution. DNA is actually one of the things that supports evolutionary theory the most.

 

3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

 

That's an intellectual leap of faith. Basically, "it's complicated, therefore it must have been..." It's a logical fallacy ( https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy ).

[DarianF]

On 4/11/2022 at 6:57 PM, Pierre-Luc said:

The theory of evolution start to make less and less sense as soon as i started looking at it...interesting that it been easy for me to dismiss the possibility that we were once fish and trough out the millions of years we became like we are now...it is only on this huge time scale this thing can make some kind of sense. Looking at mainstream knowledge of genetic their are some mainstream idea about genetic that do not add up. I heard that the difference in the genetic make up of human versus the genetic make up of chimpanzee is greater than that..apparently the difference in the genes between Asian and Caucasian for example, would be of something like 3%..sorry for not linking any source...i just go with what i remember.

 

Hey mate. Just another thought. Think about dog breeding - i.e. how quickly you can fuck around with dog breeds over a relatively short period of time. It's selective breeding, with the pressure being applied by the breeder. But pretty quickly you can go from wild wolf to some weird fkn poodle thing. So just imagine what can happen over tens of millions of years with the relentless pressure of natural selection at work. You did mention you need a huge timescale, and you're right. That's the point.

[kj35]

 It's still a dog. Canine. Recognisably mammal. Just because you've changed physical features within a species it hasn't crossed species. It hasn't be come....a cat. Adding a few millienia hasn't changed that fact.

[peter]

On 4/9/2022 at 5:45 AM, Grumpy Owl said:

 

One thing I have learned in he last few years is that "experts" can analyse 'evidence' and reach their own conclusions, then that becomes 'accepted fact', parotted by all and sundry.

 

Ever consider the possibility that these 'experts' may be wrong and are trying to push a false narrative?

 

Oh and by the way, you should know by now I am not some god-bothering flat earth acolyte, but I do like to think 'alternatively'.

cholesterol and the need to reduce it is a prime example ,it was the theory of one man

[Morpheus]

2 hours ago, peter said:

cholesterol and the need to reduce it is a prime example ,it was the theory of one man

It certainly is Peter, another load of bollocks. I was reading quite recently about an arctic explorer from the 20's that took on an Inuit diet which consisted mainly of fish, whale, seal and caribou. 

 

It was said that eating highly fatty meat is far better than lean cuts and the guy did this for 2 years, was studied by scientists and the only time he was ill, was when they fed him leaner cuts and he soon rectified it with fattier meat. 

 

Supposedly the Inuit fees the dogs the lean cuts and they eat all the fat. Crazy stuff. 

[DarianF]

4 hours ago, kj35 said:

 It's still a dog. Canine. Recognisably mammal. Just because you've changed physical features within a species it hasn't crossed species. It hasn't be come....a cat. Adding a few millienia hasn't changed that fact.

 

It's called speciation. Give it time. ;-) More info below:

 

https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/speciation-the-origin-of-new-species-26230527/

 

https://www.britannica.com/science/speciation

[DarianF]

8 minutes ago, Morpheus said:

It certainly is Peter, another load of bollocks. I was reading quite recently about an arctic explorer from the 20's that took on an Inuit diet which consisted mainly of fish, whale, seal and caribou. 

 

It was said that eating highly fatty meat is far better than lean cuts and the guy did this for 2 years, was studied by scientists and the only time he was ill, was when they fed him leaner cuts and he soon rectified it with fattier meat. 

 

Supposedly the Inuit fees the dogs the lean cuts and they eat all the fat. Crazy stuff. 

 

The human body is very adaptive to local environmental realities.

[kj35]

10 minutes ago, Morpheus said:

It certainly is Peter, another load of bollocks. I was reading quite recently about an arctic explorer from the 20's that took on an Inuit diet which consisted mainly of fish, whale, seal and caribou. 

 

It was said that eating highly fatty meat is far better than lean cuts and the guy did this for 2 years, was studied by scientists and the only time he was ill, was when they fed him leaner cuts and he soon rectified it with fattier meat. 

 

Supposedly the Inuit fees the dogs the lean cuts and they eat all the fat. Crazy stuff. 

 

2 hours ago, peter said:

cholesterol and the need to reduce it is a prime example ,it was the theory of one man

Article that covers both your points with references :-) 

 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/52c8ccea-3672-4203-bde8-e5a3f205c208?shareToken=7f7b62f92a0d9480ff3535879391473f

Edited April 12, 2022 by kj35

[DarianF]

2 minutes ago, kj35 said:

 

Article that covers both your points with references :-) 

 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/52c8ccea-3672-4203-bde8-e5a3f205c208?shareToken=7f7b62f92a0d9480ff3535879391473f

This isn't the exact same issue, but I find these two videos valuable:

 

 

 

[kj35]

20 minutes ago, DarianF said:

 

It's called speciation. Give it time. ;-) More info below:

 

https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/speciation-the-origin-of-new-species-26230527/

 

https://www.britannica.com/science/speciation

I've read that article, and it says nothing new. It still describes variations within a species and dresses it up as evolutionary change. For example this paragraph 

 

'Ecological speciation in host-plant associated populations of Timema cristinae walking-stick insects (individual populations feed on either the Ceanothus spinosus host plant or on Adenostoma fasciculatum). Pairs of populations feeding on the same host plant species, but in different geographic localities, are ecologically similar and assumed to not be subject to divergent selection. In contrast, pairs of populations feeding on different host plant species are ecologically divergent and subject to divergent selection. Different-host pairs (n = 15 pairs) exhibit significantly greater reproductive isolation due to divergent mating preferences (i.e., sexual isolation) than do same-host pairs (n = 13 pairs). This pattern is independent from neutral genetic divergence, a proxy for time since divergence. Mean divergence is shown for the mitochondrial COI gene (mtDNA) and for the nuclear IT-2 gene (nDNA).'

 

Still is talking about divergence within stick insects. Not species evolving into new ones.  

Edited April 12, 2022 by kj35

[DarianF]

2 minutes ago, kj35 said:

I've read that article, and it says nothing new. It still describes variations within a species and dresses it up as evolutionary change. For example this paragraph 

 

'Ecological speciation in host-plant associated populations of Timema cristinae walking-stick insects (individual populations feed on either the Ceanothus spinosus host plant or on Adenostoma fasciculatum). Pairs of populations feeding on the same host plant species, but in different geographic localities, are ecologically similar and assumed to not be subject to divergent selection. In contrast, pairs of populations feeding on different host plant species are ecologically divergent and subject to divergent selection. Different-host pairs (n = 15 pairs) exhibit significantly greater reproductive isolation due to divergent mating preferences (i.e., sexual isolation) than do same-host pairs (n = 13 pairs). This pattern is independent from neutral genetic divergence, a proxy for time since divergence. Mean divergence is shown for the mitochondrial COI gene (mtDNA) and for the nuclear IT-2 gene (nDNA).'

 

Still is talking about divergence within stick insects. Not species evolving into new ones.  

 

It's definitely not a simple matter. Complex subject area.

 

 

[kj35]

6 minutes ago, DarianF said:

 

It's definitely not a simple matter. Complex subject area.

 

 

I have not misunderstood the article you presented. Perhaps if you think I have you could point out where and explain rather than post another video? The article uses mathematical modelling to postulate evolution but nowhere does it detail evidence for and examples of actual species altering other than divergences within species or hybrid sterilisation.

[DarianF]

20 minutes ago, kj35 said:

I have not misunderstood the article you presented. Perhaps if you think I have you could point out where and explain rather than post another video? The article uses mathematical modelling to postulate evolution but nowhere does it detail evidence for and examples of actual species altering other than divergences within species or hybrid sterilisation.

 

The video is for anyone who is interested in the subject in general. The topic is speciation and Coyne is one of the world's leading experts on the subject, having written a detailed textbook on the matter ( https://www.cell.com/current-biology/comments/S0960-9822(04)00541-X ). So in that way, it's relevant to the discussion on speciation.

 

When you want specific examples, what do you mean exactly? Are you expecting to see species separating in real time? Obviously you can't see that, because the time scales involved are generally vast. The mathematical modeling you highlight is part of the process of understanding the mechanisms involved. As I said, it's not a simple matter:

 

Quote

"We have several plausible models of how speciation occurs — but of course, it’s hard for us to get an eye-witness account of a natural speciation event since most of these events happened in the distant past. We can figure out that speciation events happened and often when they happened, but it’s more difficult to figure out how they happened. However, we can use our models of speciation to make predictions and then check these predictions against our observations of the natural world and the outcomes of experiments." ( https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolution-101/speciation/evidence-for-speciation/ )

 

But back to the point I made about vast time frames, perhaps not necessarily:

 

Quote

"We often think of speciation as a slow process. All the available evidence supports the idea that different species evolved from common ancestors, and yet, new species don’t pop up around us on a daily basis. For many biologists, this implies that speciation happens so slowly that it’s hard to observe on human timescales — that we’d need to track a population for millennia or more to actually see it split into two separate species. However, new research suggests that speciation may be easier to observe than we thought. We just need to know where to look." ( https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evo-news/speciation-in-real-time/ )

 

[kj35]

3 minutes ago, DarianF said:

 

The video is for anyone who is interested in the subject in general. The topic is speciation and Coyne is one of the world's leading experts on the subject, having written a detailed textbook on the matter ( https://www.cell.com/current-biology/comments/S0960-9822(04)00541-X ). So in that way, it's relevant to the discussion on speciation.

 

When you want specific examples, what do you mean exactly? Are you expecting to see species separating in real time? Obviously you can't see that, because the time scales involved are generally vast. The mathematical modeling you highlight is part of the process of understanding the mechanisms involved. As I said, it's not a simple matter:

 

 

But back to the point I made about vast time frames, perhaps not necessarily:

 

 

The link you provide to Berkeley is STILL talking about variations within a bird species.

 

We have no problem finding intact fossils millions of years old. Why is there no fossil proof of species evolving into new species? Even followers of Darwin have had to change from slow changes should be evident in the fossil record to now theorising that dramatic sudden changes are now the fashionable groupthink for evolution. And yet, still no proof.  Why is that?