Theory of evolution

[DarianF]

1 minute ago, kj35 said:

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? 

 

Define the proof you are looking for exactly? I'm not sure what you're looking for in terms of proof. This kind of discussion tends to go around in circles, sort of like this famous interview below. Creationists say show me the evidence. Biologists show the evidence. Creationists say show me the evidence. Biologists say, but we just did. And on and on it goes.

 

 

[DarianF]

@kj35 This one isn't mathematical. A good simple overview:

 

 

Here's a good introductory lecture you may also find useful:

 

 

Beyond that, what are you looking for exactly? If there's nothing I can help you with, you could always contact a professional biologist and ask them for the exact evidence you're looking for.

[Morpheus]

1 hour ago, kj35 said:

 

Article that covers both your points with references :-) 

 

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

It was this guy:

 

https://allthingscarnivore.com/vilhjalmur-stefansson-and-his-all-meat-diet-experiment/

 

[DarianF]

@kj35 I've got a specific time code here for you (it should work from the embed below), which gets into splitting as seen in molecular and fossil evidence. Is that the kind of thing you are looking for?

 

 

An example (cited above) by Coyne, also explained here by Ridley:

 

Quote

"Diatoms are single-celled, photosynthetic organisms that float in the plankton. Many species grow beautiful glasslike cell walls, and these can be preserved as fossils. The figure illustrates the fossil record for the diatom Rhizosolenia between 3.3 and 1.6 million years ago. About 3 million years ago, a single ancestral species split into two; and there is a comprehensive fossil record of the change at the time of the split. The diatoms show that the fossil record can be complete enough to reveal the origin of a new species." https://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/tutorials/The_evidence_for_evolution21.asp

 

Edited April 12, 2022 by DarianF
Additional source

[DarianF]

55 minutes ago, Morpheus said:

It was this guy:

 

https://allthingscarnivore.com/vilhjalmur-stefansson-and-his-all-meat-diet-experiment/

 

 

Evolutionary Adaptations to Dietary Changes

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4163920/

 

It makes sense that humans can adapt to different diets. It has always been a matter of necessity.

[DarianF]

On 3/2/2022 at 8:55 PM, alexa said:

 

No neither do I, the earth, our brains & DNA are so complexed, there has to be a creator, GOD!

Even Richard Dawkins (a dawk on speed) when questioned about evolution, had to admit to a higher being.

 

@alexa | Ancient DNA and the New Science of the Human Past

 

 

[kj35]

12 hours ago, DarianF said:

@kj35 I've got a specific time code here for you (it should work from the embed below), which gets into splitting as seen in molecular and fossil evidence. Is that the kind of thing you are looking for?

 

 

An example (cited above) by Coyne, also explained here by Ridley:

 

 

That sounds interesting I'll check it out later thanks @DarianF. 

[DarianF]

1 hour ago, kj35 said:

That sounds interesting I'll check it out later thanks @DarianF. 

 

No probs. No rush.

[DarianF]

@Mitochondrial Eve , @kj35

 

Sorry, I accidentally posted this in the water thread. I meant to post it here:

 

Genomic evidence for homoploid hybrid speciation between ancestors of two different genera

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-29643-4

 

New paper. Relevant to the ongoing discussion on speciastion and genetic evidence.

[Given To Fly]

2 hours ago, DarianF said:

@Mitochondrial Eve , @kj35

 

Sorry, I accidentally posted this in the water thread. I meant to post it here:

 

Genomic evidence for homoploid hybrid speciation between ancestors of two different genera

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-29643-4

 

New paper. Relevant to the ongoing discussion on speciastion and genetic evidence.

 

Bud, c'mon, these 'scientists' are trained/indoctrinated in Chinese communist philosophy where they have to deny God for the benefit of the state, and their livliehood !!

 

I used to believe in this sort of horse manure. I blindly believed that because Engels called Marxism 'scientific socialism' and not utopian, that it was indeed scientific. The same with the cow dung of covid science ... it should all be taken with a grain of salt.

[Pinkiebee]

1 hour ago, Given To Fly said:

 

Bud, c'mon, these 'scientists' are trained/indoctrinated in Chinese communist philosophy where they have to deny God for the benefit of the state, and their livliehood !!

 

I used to believe in this sort of horse manure. I blindly believed that because Engels called Marxism 'scientific socialism' and not utopian, that it was indeed scientific. The same with the cow dung of covid science ... it should all be taken with a grain of salt.

Very few of them make a habit of debunking god. It doesnt come up very often.

 

Its reasonably clear that a lot of scientific understanding seems to contradict the old testament in particular. That throws shade on the bible rather than there not being one or more supernatural entities ruling our lives

 

Admittedly evidence for supernatural entities is a bit lacking if you discount the bible and other ancient text. But they could still be out there keeping a low profile

Edited April 14, 2022 by Pinkiebee

[Given To Fly]

2 hours ago, Pinkiebee said:

Very few of them make a habit of debunking god. It doesnt come up very often.

 

Its reasonably clear that a lot of scientific understanding seems to contradict the old testament in particular. That throws shade on the bible rather than there not being one or more supernatural entities ruling our lives

 

Admittedly evidence for supernatural entities is a bit lacking if you discount the bible and other ancient text. But they could still be out there keeping a low profile

 

The most credible and legitimate is your own experience and research, rather than confirmation bias. And my own numerous sober experiences confirms the existence of God and the supernatural. No scientist or expert on the planet is going to be able to refute or tell me otherwise what I know to be true which wasn't by blind faith.

[Pinkiebee]

Just now, Given To Fly said:

 

The most credible and legitimate is your own experience and research, rather than confirmation bias. And my own numerous sober experiences confirms the existence of God and the supernatural. No scientist or expert on the planet is going to be able to refute or tell me otherwise what I know to be true which wasn't by blind faith.

Richard Dawkins asides very few scientist are remotely intrested in telling you god or the supernatural doesnt exist.  You cant prove a negative. They are to the most part concerned with proving rather than disproving things. 

 

I too consider myself a believer.  In the supernatural not at all the bible.  As there isnt any evidence that would pass scientific rigour I have to accept that it's almost certainly superstitious wishfull thinking. Still it helps and that's all that matters 

[DarianF]

11 hours ago, Given To Fly said:

 

Bud, c'mon, these 'scientists' are trained/indoctrinated in Chinese communist philosophy where they have to deny God for the benefit of the state, and their livliehood !!

 

I used to believe in this sort of horse manure. I blindly believed that because Engels called Marxism 'scientific socialism' and not utopian, that it was indeed scientific. The same with the cow dung of covid science ... it should all be taken with a grain of salt.

 

Ignore all the evidence and place it within a convenient conspiracy framework so you don't have to deal with it.

[DarianF]

7 hours ago, Pinkiebee said:

Richard Dawkins asides very few scientist are remotely intrested in telling you god or the supernatural doesnt exist.  You cant prove a negative. They are to the most part concerned with proving rather than disproving things. 

 

I too consider myself a believer.  In the supernatural not at all the bible.  As there isnt any evidence that would pass scientific rigour I have to accept that it's almost certainly superstitious wishfull thinking. Still it helps and that's all that matters 

 

Dawkins doesn't say it's impossible that god, etc, exists, he simply points out there is no good evidence for believing so, when there are plenty of perfectly reasonable, naturalistic and evidence based explanations for things.

 

Like you, I keep an open mind on the supernatural, but I always wonder, if you ended up being able to prove something that was previously believed to be supernatural, wouldn't it then become just plain old natural? For instance, at the moment, vampires are 'supernatural' beings, because they've never been proven to exist. However, let's just say vampires suddenly were captured and studied by scientists, and the results published in the peer reviewed literature, they would become an acknowledged organism. Hence, they would no longer be supernatural beings, they would just be recently discovered natural beings.

[Pinkiebee]

Just now, DarianF said:

 

Dawkins doesn't say it's impossible that god, etc, exists, he simply points out there is no good evidence for believing so, when there are plenty of perfectly reasonable, naturalistic and evidence based explanations for things.

 

Like you, I keep an open mind on the supernatural, but I always wonder, if you ended up being able to prove something that was previously believed to be supernatural, wouldn't it then become just plain old natural? For instance, at the moment, vampires are 'supernatural' beings, because they've never been proven to exist. However, let's just say vampires suddenly were captured and studied by scientists, and the results published in the peer reviewed literature, they would become an acknowledged organism. Hence, they would no longer be supernatural beings, they would just be recently discovered natural beings.

Yes. Thats exactly right. They would still be pretty super though 

[DarianF]

1 minute ago, Pinkiebee said:

Yes. Thats exactly right. They would still be pretty super though 

 

Oh hell yeah. I reckon it would be awesome. I love the whole vampire thing (guilty pleasure lol).

[peter]

On 4/13/2022 at 3:44 AM, kj35 said:

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? 

Maybe the proof is in the DNA , I watched a show on where you come from few years back now ,they had four famous people and tested their genetics to see where they originated from,which was neither here nor there I couldn't care,what I did find interesting was everyone had neanderthal DNA in them which this so called geneticist(they said he was on the show ) said that all humans have it in small amounts ,however Ian Thorpe the swimmer,had unusually high amounts of neanderthal DNA.

So I guess what I'm asking are modern humans the mutated offspring of neanderthals or did modern humans bread neanderthals out of existence,the one thing they didn't show was a person with RH negative blood,that would have been interesting .

PS the show and its findings could have been all bullshit for all I know

[DarianF]

4 hours ago, peter said:

Maybe the proof is in the DNA , I watched a show on where you come from few years back now ,they had four famous people and tested their genetics to see where they originated from,which was neither here nor there I couldn't care,what I did find interesting was everyone had neanderthal DNA in them which this so called geneticist(they said he was on the show ) said that all humans have it in small amounts ,however Ian Thorpe the swimmer,had unusually high amounts of neanderthal DNA.

So I guess what I'm asking are modern humans the mutated offspring of neanderthals or did modern humans bread neanderthals out of existence,the one thing they didn't show was a person with RH negative blood,that would have been interesting .

PS the show and its findings could have been all bullshit for all I know

 

"Neanderthals have contributed approximately 1-4% of the genomes of non-African modern humans... even with some interbreeding between modern humans and now-extinct hominins, most of our genome still derives from Africa. Neanderthals could not have contributed to modern African peoples’ genomes because Neanderthals evolved and lived exclusively in Eurasia and therefore could not have bred with the humans living in Africa at that time." https://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics/ancient-dna-and-neanderthals/interbreeding

 

Also see: https://youtu.be/SCZ9T6j18gE

 

Edited April 15, 2022 by DarianF

[DarianF]

Malaria and Sickle Cell Anemia — HHMI BioInteractive Video

This film explores the evolutionary connection between an infectious disease, malaria, and a genetic condition, sickle cell anemia.

Archived: https://www.biointeractive.org/classroom-resources/making-fittest-natural-selection-humans

 

 

[DarianF]

Medicine Without Evolution is like Engineering Without Physics

 

 

[truepositive]

Most of the authorities being thrown around have a well polished opinion more than anything else, there is no consensus on this topic, neither would it be definitive proof of something if there was (this points at the empiricism vs ideological debate in science and consequently whether or not peer review has any value at all, but that is a huge topic that requires its own thread). Evolution itself is usually a poorly defined topic. 'Selective pressure' and 'Emergent property' are terminologies that do not fly under a logical philosophical lens.

 

Ill repeat this again, Michael Levin is at the forefront of a (re-discovery and) complete paradigm shift into bio-electrics, which is a more complete, elegant, and practical way of looking at all this, and 'coincidentally' not at odds with electric theory at large, as well as many spiritual aspects of the same set of considerations.

[Pinkiebee]

On 4/12/2022 at 6:44 PM, kj35 said:

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? 

Every fossil we find is a transitional species. They were all transitioning from something else into some thing else

 

It's a really arbitrary man made classification of how much it has to change before you call it a new species.  Ie if an animal in is the process of loosing its legs. An example with shorter legs is a transition .  is it a new species? Depends how short they are I suppose 

Edited April 15, 2022 by Pinkiebee

[peter]

37 minutes ago, Pinkiebee said:

Every fossil we find is a transitional species. They were all transitioning from something else into some thing else

How do you know

[Pinkiebee]

Just now, peter said:

How do you know

Research