• Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
    If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
    Donations can be made via here

Proving evolution to someone who doesn't believe anything

arg-fallbackName="Wind Of Change"/>
are you familiar with the evolution of Brassica?

I don't know any of the details, except what you showed in the picture.
I do understand artificial selection, but can you show all of these domesticated plants came from this one plant?
 
arg-fallbackName="Call Me Emo"/>
I don't know any of the details, except what you showed in the picture.
I do understand artificial selection, but can you show all of these domesticated plants came from this one plant?

I also accompanied my pictures with a citation that describes how they evolved. Furthermore, they can all be grafted and cross pollinated so it shouldn't be difficult to accept their relatedness.

The Evolution of Brassica Oleracea
 
arg-fallbackName="AronRa"/>
Okay, it does make sense, I accept that.

There is something you said in one of your videos and I'm not sure I get it.

you said:

Primates are collectively defined as any gill-less, organic RNA/DNA protein-based... ... metabolic, metazoic, nucleic, diploid, bilaterally symmetrical, endothermic, digestive, triploblast, opisthokont, deuterostome coelomate with a spinal cord and 12 cranial nerves connecting to a limbic system in an enlarged cerebral cortex with a reduced olfactory region inside a jawed skull with specialized teeth including canines and premolars, forward-oriented fully enclosed optical orbits, and a single temporal fenestra, -attached to a vertebrate hind-leg dominant tetrapodal skeleton with sacral pelvis, clavicle, and wrist and ankle bones; and having lungs, tear ducts, body-wide hair follicles, lactal mammaries, opposable thumbs, and keratinized dermis with chitinous nails on all five digits on all four extremities in addition to an embryonic development in amniotic fluid, leading to a placental birth and highly social lifestyle.

Is this the definition of a primate?
With the correction that our nails are not chitinous. That was a very old error.

And if so, can you give me the definition of a monkey by attributes and characteristics like you did here^?
I mean, according to phylogenetics, all you got to do is to take these characteristics, and add the clades characteristics up to monkeys, right?
Add to this the traits of a dry nose, (Haplorhini) and then the specifics for (1) an even larger brain than other primates, (2) two pectoral mammae, (3) lack of specialized sensory whiskers, (4) color vision, and (5) a naked and pendulous penis, not sheathed and tethered to the abdomen as in most other mammals. Of course the simpler classification is that a monkey is any member of the taxonomic clade of Anthropoidea, also known as Simiiformes.
 
arg-fallbackName="Wind Of Change"/>
With the correction that our nails are not chitinous. That was a very old error.
Oh haha

Add to this the traits of a dry nose, (Haplorhini) and then the specifics for (1) an even larger brain than other primates, (2) two pectoral mammae, (3) lack of specialized sensory whiskers, (4) color vision, and (5) a naked and pendulous penis, not sheathed and tethered to the abdomen as in most other mammals. Of course the simpler classification is that a monkey is any member of the taxonomic clade of Anthropoidea, also known as Simiiformes.

Thank you very much

And about the "a monkey is any member of the taxonomic clade of Anthropoidea"

But then, without characteristics, how do you tell who belongs to that clade and who is not?
 
arg-fallbackName="Wind Of Change"/>
I also accompanied my pictures with a citation that describes how they evolved. Furthermore, they can all be grafted and cross pollinated so it shouldn't be difficult to accept their relatedness.

I don't think its difficult to accept, I agree. But I don't think I believe it yet (the common ancestor of those plants).
I read the explanation, is there evidence as well? maybe I missed it.
The evidence shouldn't be too difficult, like growing them in natural conditions and seeing them evolve "back" to look like the wild one, or something like that.
That is something that should happen, right? (granting its the same environment)
 
arg-fallbackName="AronRa"/>
And about the "a monkey is any member of the taxonomic clade of Anthropoidea"
But then, without characteristics, how do you tell who belongs to that clade and who is not?
The characteristics establish criteria for a parent clade, but phylogenetics differs from Linnaean taxonomy in that classification is based on ancestry. For example, snakes and whales are both classified as tetrapods even though neither of them have four limbs anymore, because we know they USED to have four limbs. This is not only indicated in the genome as well as the fossil record but may also be expressed in embryological development. Likewise, we have a number of characteristics indicative of humans, (two arms, two legs, brain size in excess of 900cc, etc.) But we know that people may be born without one or more of these characteristics, and they're still human, because their ancestors were human.

Is something about our classification the issue you're having? When I brought up the Phylogeny Challenge, you ignored it on the excuse that you're not a creationist. There are two problems with that.

One is that we have to work with the best model we have. We can't replace something that works with nothing that doesn't. I promised to prove that evolution is the truest, best explanation there is for the origin of our species, and that it is the only explanation of biodiversity with either evidentiary support or scientific validity. So far, in accepting microevolution plus speciation, you have accepted almost the entirety of evolutionary mechanisms, and you haven't posited anything in its stead. Most evolution-deniers accept that microevolution happens, but they clearly don't understand HOW it happens, because most of their issues with evolution--including your own--stem from an incomplete understanding of those mechanisms.

Two is that it doesn't matter whether you're creationist or not. If you doubt common ancestry, then you should still take the Phylogeny Challenge. You said that the taxonomic "tree of life" is "not really consistent with evolutionary theory", though you didn't provide any explanation to imply that, and what you did cite still fits with both evolution and phylogeny. I also showed that there is quite a robust family tree objectively determined by a twin-nested hierarchy of morphology and genetics (as well as embryology) and backed by centuries of paleontology, and all of it consistently backed by peer reviewed studies without contradiction.

I don't know what we need to cover next. So please clarify your contention. If it is that you just need to understand evolutionary processes better, or if cladistic classification is an alien concept, that's fine. I'll be happy to elucidate.
 
arg-fallbackName="Wind Of Change"/>
I can't answer the phylogeny challenge. And I know you don't really like philosophy, but to say that because I can't prove evolution is false (answering the challenge) - therefore its true, is a fallacy. And I know what you're gonna say, that you have a working theory and yeah I get it, but I can't accept evolutionary theory before I know that first - its backed by evidence, and second - *it's consistent throughout* (otherwise It's not a good explanation at all).
Before we move to the evidence, I would like to understand better the model, that's why I'm asking these questions,
It's like, before you give me evidence the earth is round and not in the center of the universe, first I need to understand the models, right?

So now I have a question that is indeed related to evidence.
I think multiple independent fields that all tell the same story is very convincing.
So what about embriology for instance? Is it possible to create a phylogenetic tree just from embriology?

And if so, is it accurate?
Can you give me one of those?


"I don't know what we need to cover next. So please clarify your contention"

Well, I think I'm trying to understand the model better, but that's separate from the evidence for it, and I need both.
So I thought that maybe I need to ask those question that are on my mind to correct any basic misunderstanding I might have, does that make sense?

And thank you for answering the last question.
 
Last edited:
arg-fallbackName="Call Me Emo"/>
I don't think its difficult to accept, I agree. But I don't think I believe it yet (the common ancestor of those plants).
I read the explanation, is there evidence as well? maybe I missed it.
The evidence shouldn't be too difficult, like growing them in natural conditions and seeing them evolve "back" to look like the wild one, or something like that.
That is something that should happen, right? (granting its the same environment)


I fail to see why its necessary to show a plant reverting back into it's wild type when you already accept speciation. Furthermore, Plants don't simply revert back into their wild type after thousands of years of cultivation.....not saying that they don't, but not that easily.

Are you forgetting that all these plants can cross pollinate? They're still the same species. But then again you don't seem to believe anything so why should that convince you huh :/
 
arg-fallbackName="AronRa"/>
I can't answer the phylogeny challenge. And I know you don't really like philosophy, but to say that because I can't prove evolution is false (answering the challenge) - therefore its true, is a fallacy.
That's not what anyone is saying or thinking here. In fact science has a rule that we could potentially disprove any theory or hypothesis, but we can never prove one to be true. The best we could do is that if a given hypothesis has been effectively proven in the legal sense (by an overwhelming preponderance of evidence beyond reasonable doubt) by having long withstood substantial critical analysis in peer review, always continuously supported by evidence and experience without contradiction, and having significant explanation power, to the point that it's actually silly to question it anymore, then that hypothesis would not be declared "proven" in the positive sense; instead it would be elevated to the level of theory, which is the highest level of confidence science has. Over the last couple hundred years, the criteria to qualify as a theory has become more strict, which is why no scientific theory has been disproved in more than a century.

String theory is a mathematic theory, not a scientific theory. There are different rules for that bullshit.

Every modern scientific theory is also an observed fact, atomic theory, theory of relativity, cell theory, and the germ theory of disease are all examples of this. According to the National Academy of Sciences, it's not "just" a theory, "the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact", both because it has been so well supported that it is perverse to question it anymore, and because there are so many ways to observe and confirm it. Understanding evolution is essential. We've been unwittingly using these processes throughout the entire history of agriculture, and we're just now coming to understand them. Now we're using it in medicine too. So evolution is need to know accurate information with practical application, where absolutely every objection to it always proves to be irrational.

And I know what you're gonna say, that you have a working theory and yeah I get it, but I can't accept evolutionary theory before I know that first - its backed by evidence, and second - *it's consistent throughout* (otherwise It's not a good explanation at all).
Again, no. I don't understand big bang cosmology, and what I know about it is that cosmologists are trying to explain it more than it explains anything. So I don't like big bang cosmology, and I don't necessarily "believe" it, but I must concede that it is still the best model we have, and I can't reject it because it works in certain applications, and because I don't have anything better to replace it with. When Lavoisier disproved phlogiston theory in 1777, it wasn't enough to say "I don't believe that". He disproved it with his own theory of oxygen.

That's why we still teach Dalton's model of the atom, even though we know it's not as accurate as the quantum model, because Dalton's model works in some applications where we have to use it, and where the quantum model cannot be applied.

You said you accept microevolution plus speciation [macroevolution] so you've accepted evolution in total, and you did so without either of the criteria you're now asking for. So although you don't yet understand enough about that, we've already established that evolution is the truest, best explanation there is for the origin of our species, and that it is the only explanation of biodiversity with either evidentiary support or scientific validity--unless you can posit some alternative with more explanative power and that accounts for all the data better.

But your contention (which is still vague) is that the one thing you don't accept is some as-yet unidentified aspect of common ancestry, which is apparently related to our method of classification rather than your understanding of evolution. That's why I'm still asking you to answer the phylogeny challenge. I'm only asking you to point out where you think the problem is or why you think there is a problem. This is now the third time I've asked you this same question.

Before we move to the evidence, I would like to understand better the model, that's why I'm asking these questions,
It's like, before you give me evidence the earth is round and not in the center of the universe, first I need to understand the models, right?
OK. Do you understand and accept that evolution is a process of varying allele frequencies among reproductive populations leading to (usually subtle) changes in their morphological or physiological composition, which—when compiled over successive generations—can increase biodiversity when continuing variation between genetically isolated groups eventually lead to one or more descendant branches increasingly distinct from their ancestors or cousins? Or more simply, it is how life forms diversify via descent with inherent modification.

To put it another way, do you understand and accept that subtle variations exist among the siblings of every brood, not just from genetic recombination in the case of sexual reproduction, but that every descendant of any individual organism will also have some number of unique mutations?

Do you understand and accept that of these mutations, some may be deleterious and thus quickly removed from the gene pool, a few may be advantageous and possibly see a selective advantage, but that the majority of them would be effectively neutral, and will continue to accumulate over many generations?

Do you understand and accept that one of the inevitable results of this genetic drift is that one population that is divided for many generations will accumulate their own uniquely distinctive mutations, such that if we eventually happened across a lone wanderer, we should be able to identify which ancestral group it came from, according to its indicative traits?

Do you understand and accept that this would lead to subspecies, where every member of a regionally isolated subgroup shares a suite of diagnostic traits that are not shared by any member of the alternate groups? A subspecies is equivalent to a breed, the difference being whether it was derived by artificial or natural selection.

There is a caveat here is that within a single interbreeding population, the dominant gene pool tends to restrict diversity, such that notable variation typically occurs in smaller, more isolated populations. If the two groups resume interbreeding, then all that may meld together again as if it had never been. But if they’re isolated long enough, they will continue to drift further apart both physically and genetically until it becomes difficult to interbreed at all anymore. Eventually, they’ll only be able to sire infertile hybrids, if they can still produce anything living. At the point when two sexually reproductive populations can't or won't interbreed with viable offspring, then they have become two different species. This is the most significant level in the whole of phylogenetics, when the daughter strain is now unrestrained by the once-dominant parent gene pool and is therefore free to express an even greater variance, thus continually widening the gap between them. Do you understand and accept this?

Most Intelligent Design Creationists say they accept this, but they always imply that there should be some limit, some never identified boundary, that species, genera and maybe even families could still be within "kinds", a term which must remain forever undefined. I'm not playing that game anymore. That's why I need you to explain where you think the problem is and why you think there is a problem there.

So now I have a question that is indeed related to evidence.
I think multiple independent fields that all tell the same story is very convincing.
So what about embriology for instance? Is it possible to create a phylogenetic tree just from embriology?

And if so, is it accurate?
Can you give me one of those?
In a word, yes, One of the laws of evolution is that the young of two closely-related species are more similar than the adults are. Ernst Haeckel's notion that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" could have been a timeless truth of evolution if he had written it correctly, but he included a couple erroneous elements. He said that an embryo would pass through the adult stages of its evolutionary ancestry, and he was using antiquated categories. Karl Ernst von Baer corrected Haeckel's Biogenetic law with his own fourth law of embryology, that "fundamentally, the embryo of a higher animal never resembles the adult of another animal form, such as one less evolved, but only its embryo." The first three of his laws would allow a crude taxonomic tree to be devised just on embryology alone, and it would be accurate, though it would have far fewer categories, and the lack of detail means that it wouldn't be very useful.

Well, I think I'm trying to understand the model better, but that's separate from the evidence for it, and I need both.
So I thought that maybe I need to ask those question that are on my mind to correct any basic misunderstanding I might have, does that make sense?
Just tell me what you need to see and I'll show it to you, but I can't do that if you keep dodging the question of what you think the problem is.
 
arg-fallbackName="Wind Of Change"/>
I fail to see why its necessary to show a plant reverting back into it's wild type when you already accept speciation.

So if I accept speciation it means I accept all members of the same group is related? Why are you making it harder than it is? they are the same species, is that it, or maybe there is more evidence?
 
arg-fallbackName="he_who_is_nobody"/>
About evolution, again, I'm not like creationists, so I actually read about the subject. When I'm using the word "Evolution" in a general sense, I'm defining it as "a change in the inherited traits of a population through successive generations", And yes, I accept that. when I used the word in my email, I was talking about the theory of evolution, and more specifically - common descent.

Microevolution is evolution within a species, while macroevolution is evolution between species, or above that.
I accept microevolution entirely, and I also accept macroevolution happens (speciation for instance).
But to accept speciation is different from accepting a common ancestor to all animals.

I have been pointed this out for a decade now. When people say they reject evolution, they do not mean change in allelic frequencies in a population over time. They almost always mean, universal common descent, deep time, the origin of life, how did everything get here, or a combination of those.

Wind of Change has stated quite a few times that he accepts evolution, but simply rejects universal common descent. Everyone needs to stop focusing on showing Wind of Change evolution and demonstrating universal common descent.

The evidence shouldn't be too difficult, like growing them in natural conditions and seeing them evolve "back" to look like the wild one, or something like that.
That is something that should happen, right? (granting its the same environment)

No. That is not something that should happen. Why would you think that growing cultivated plants in their natural environment lead to them reverting to their wild type?

I also do not understand your point about convergent evolution? Do you think that because there are some convergent adaptations that they could not arise naturally? Or is it that you believe convergent evolution is an ad hoc justification? It appears that you are saying both.
 
arg-fallbackName="Wind Of Change"/>
That's not what anyone is saying or thinking here. In fact science has a rule that we could potentially disprove any theory or hypothesis, but we can never prove one to be true. The best we could do is that if a given hypothesis has been effectively proven in the legal sense (by an overwhelming preponderance of evidence beyond reasonable doubt) by having long withstood substantial critical analysis in peer review, always continuously supported by evidence and experience without contradiction, and having significant explanation power, to the point that it's actually silly to question it anymore, then that hypothesis would not be declared "proven" in the positive sense; instead it would be elevated to the level of theory, which is the highest level of confidence science has. Over the last couple hundred years, the criteria to qualify as a theory has become more strict, which is why no scientific theory has been disproved in more than a century.

And I don't have a problem with any of it.
you said "by evidence and experience without contradiction"
So that's what I want to see, the evidence and the non contradiction.

Every modern scientific theory is also an observed fact, atomic theory, theory of relativity, cell theory, and the germ theory of disease are all examples of this. According to the National Academy of Sciences, it's not "just" a theory, "the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact", both because it has been so well supported that it is perverse to question it anymore, and because there are so many ways to observe and confirm it. Understanding evolution is essential. We've been unwittingly using these processes throughout the entire history of agriculture, and we're just now coming to understand them. Now we're using it in medicine too. So evolution is need to know accurate information with practical application, where absolutely every objection to it always proves to be irrational.

Right, and I understand that too.

Again, no. I don't understand big bang cosmology, and what I know about it is that cosmologists are trying to explain it more than it explains anything. So I don't like big bang cosmology, and I don't necessarily "believe" it, but I must concede that it is still the best model we have, and I can't reject it because it works in certain applications, and because I don't have anything better to replace it with. When Lavoisier disproved phlogiston theory in 1777, it wasn't enough to say "I don't believe that". He disproved it with his own theory of oxygen.

So here I don't agree.
I believe in the big bang as well, I have seen the evidence for it.
Before I read about the evidence, I didn't believe in it.
If an hypothesis can explain something, it's still doesn't mean it is consistent. If there is a fact that disproves the theory, it has a huge problem, and that's all I ask, to see the evidence, and to see it is actually consistent.

That's why we still teach Dalton's model of the atom, even though we know it's not as accurate as the quantum model, because Dalton's model works in some applications where we have to use it, and where the quantum model cannot be applied.

Right, and I want everyone who looks at the evidence of that model, and sees how it can apply in these applications - to use it in those situations. The same with newton's laws, and the same with Evolution. Do not for example, use newton's laws in areas you are not convinced they are reliable (like near the sun). The same with evolution, I want to see the consistency and the evidence.

You said you accept microevolution plus speciation [macroevolution] so you've accepted evolution in total

No. If I accept that speciation can occur, it does not mean I accept that pine trees and elephants are related (I'm joking of course).
Anyways, I still need to see the evidence step by step (because If it's not consistent, it's not an explanation at all).
And if evolution is true, and backed by so many evidence like you say, why is that a problem? No, I'm not convinced, is that it?
Are we done here? because if that's all you can show me (changes up to the possibility of speciation), sorry, I just can't accept that whole theory..

So for instance, the phylogeny challenge, are you gonna answer it as well? I don't think I've seen you do it.

• Is the short-tailed goanna related to the perentie and all other Australian goannas? And how do you know that?
• Are all Australian goannas related to each other and the African and Indonesian monitors? And how do you know that?
• Are today’s terrestrial varanids related to Cretaceous mosasaurs? And how do you know that?
• Are varanids related to any other anguimorphs including snakes? And how do you know that?
• Are anguimorphs also related to scincomorphs and geckos? And how do you know that?
• Are all scleroglossa related to iguanids and other squamates? And how do you know that?
• Are all of squamata related to each other and all other lepidosaurs? And how do you know that?
• Are lepidosaurs related to placodonts and plesiosaurs? And how do you know that?
• Are lepidosauromorphs related to archosaurs and other diapsids? And how do you know that?
• Are all diapsids related to anapsids or synapsid “reptiles” like dimetrodon? And how do you know that?
• Are all reptiles related to each other and all other amniotes? And how do you know that?
• Are all amniotes related to each other and all other tetrapods? And how do you know that?
• Are all tetrapods related to each other and all other vertebrates? And how do you know that?
And so on. Which of these are related? And how do you know that?

But your contention (which is still vague) is that the one thing you don't accept is some as-yet unidentified aspect of common ancestry, which is apparently related to our method of classification rather than your understanding of evolution. That's why I'm still asking you to answer the phylogeny challenge. I'm only asking you to point out where you think the problem is or why you think there is a problem. This is now the third time I've asked you this same question.

Ok, sure.
so all the questions above^
my answer to all of them is "I don't know".

Do you understand and accept that evolution is a process of varying allele frequencies among reproductive populations leading to (usually subtle) changes in their morphological or physiological composition, which—when compiled over successive generations—can increase biodiversity when continuing variation between genetically isolated groups eventually lead to one or more descendant branches increasingly distinct from their ancestors or cousins? Or more simply, it is how life forms diversify via descent with inherent modification.

Sure, but - can you give me an example of a new gene that was slowly compiled over successive generations and helped the ones who held it? Was something like that observed? Again, not trying to be difficult, just asking.

To put it another way, do you understand and accept that subtle variations exist among the siblings of every brood, not just from genetic recombination in the case of sexual reproduction, but that every descendant of any individual organism will also have some number of unique mutations?

Yes.

Do you understand and accept that of these mutations, some may be deleterious and thus quickly removed from the gene pool, a few may be advantageous and possibly see a selective advantage, but that the majority of them would be effectively neutral, and will continue to accumulate over many generations?

Can you give me a few examples of such mutations? Including in humans.

Do you understand and accept that one of the inevitable results of this genetic drift is that one population that is divided for many generations will accumulate their own uniquely distinctive mutations, such that if we eventually happened across a lone wanderer, we should be able to identify which ancestral group it came from, according to its indicative traits?

No, not yet.

Do you understand and accept that this would lead to subspecies, where every member of a regionally isolated subgroup shares a suite of diagnostic traits that are not shared by any member of the alternate groups? A subspecies is equivalent to a breed, the difference being whether it was derived by artificial or natural selection.

I accept that if the above is true, then yes, that is what will happen.
 
arg-fallbackName="Wind Of Change"/>
There is a caveat here is that within a single interbreeding population, the dominant gene pool tends to restrict diversity, such that notable variation typically occurs in smaller, more isolated populations. If the two groups resume interbreeding, then all that may meld together again as if it had never been. But if they’re isolated long enough, they will continue to drift further apart both physically and genetically until it becomes difficult to interbreed at all anymore. Eventually, they’ll only be able to sire infertile hybrids, if they can still produce anything living. At the point when two sexually reproductive populations can't or won't interbreed with viable offspring, then they have become two different species. This is the most significant level in the whole of phylogenetics, when the daughter strain is now unrestrained by the once-dominant parent gene pool and is therefore free to express an even greater variance, thus continually widening the gap between them. Do you understand and accept this?

I don't think I understand some of it.
Could you explain further about that please:
"There is a caveat here is that within a single interbreeding population, the dominant gene pool tends to restrict diversity, such that notable variation typically occurs in smaller, more isolated populations. If the two groups resume interbreeding, then all that may meld together again as if it had never been."


Most Intelligent Design Creationists say they accept this, but they always imply that there should be some limit, some never identified boundary, that species, genera and maybe even families could still be within "kinds", a term which must remain forever undefined. I'm not playing that game anymore. That's why I need you to explain where you think the problem is and why you think there is a problem there.

Yeah, for me it's especially hard to accept the evolution of the joints and knuckles (of the knee, of the hand..)
I don't believe in a kind. All i'm saying is that I'm not yet convinced of that common ancestry.

In a word, yes, One of the laws of evolution is that the young of two closely-related species are more similar than the adults are. Ernst Haeckel's notion that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" could have been a timeless truth of evolution if he had written it correctly, but he included a couple erroneous elements. He said that an embryo would pass through the adult stages of its evolutionary ancestry, and he was using antiquated categories. Karl Ernst von Baer corrected Haeckel's Biogenetic law with his own fourth law of embryology, that "fundamentally, the embryo of a higher animal never resembles the adult of another animal form, such as one less evolved, but only its embryo." The first three of his laws would allow a crude taxonomic tree to be devised just on embryology alone, and it would be accurate, though it would have far fewer categories, and the lack of detail means that it wouldn't be very useful.

Sure, and I understand that. But I would still like to see it.
Because one tree by genetics is really good. But a tree with just genetics, a tree with just fossils, a tree with just embriology, a tree with just morphology, And all tell the same story? That's sounds very nice. That's why I would like to see it.

Just tell me what you need to see and I'll show it to you, but I can't do that if you keep dodging the question of what you think the problem is.

I honest, I don't think I'm dodging, I said I cannot answer the challenge, meaning that I don't think I can explain any point in which I know there isn't any relationship, because literally I don't know which are related and which are not, that's why I want the evidence.
 
arg-fallbackName="Wind Of Change"/>
No. That is not something that should happen. Why would you think that growing cultivated plants in their natural environment lead to them reverting to their wild type?

Because they were in a specific environment, and were "stable" there, then they moved to quite a different environment, so they had different selective pressures (being tasty and so on), and when I'm picturing in my head returning to the same environment - they would not need to be tasty or pretty anymore, and the same selective pressures that were in the beginning should come back, That was my reasoning.

I also do not understand your point about convergent evolution? Do you think that because there are some convergent adaptations that they could not arise naturally? Or is it that you believe convergent evolution is an ad hoc justification? It appears that you are saying both.

No, I'm not saying any of that.
Convergent evolution can happen, I think, when It's quite important, simple, and the similarities are superficial.

But if it's a complicated characteristic, then I didn't really think why would that evolve twice, kinda like a mammal evolving feathers.
 
arg-fallbackName="Call Me Emo"/>
Because they were in a specific environment, and were "stable" there, then they moved to quite a different environment, so they had different selective pressures (being tasty and so on), and when I'm picturing in my head returning to the same environment - they would not need to be tasty or pretty anymore, and the same selective pressures that were in the beginning should come back, That was my reasoning.

"In your head" yeah so Evolution doesn't work according to what's in your head.


Many Cultivars or Citrus and Mangoes and Bananas grow in the wild and don't revert to their wild type forms. They just 'learned' to cope in their new environments.

Try to familiarize yourself about how Evolution actually work instead of assuming how it should work.
 
arg-fallbackName="Wind Of Change"/>
"In your head" yeah so Evolution doesn't work according to what's in your head.

Well, yeah, but we all do this. Because you have a larger understanding than me, then when you picture evolutionary processes they are more accurate than what I'm picturing, but I don't see the problem with saying "in my head".. are you saying that when you picture evolutionary processes, are you not picturing them in your head? And if not? then where are you picturing them? I think you are being a little pedantic unless you were joking.

"Many Cultivars or Citrus and Mangoes and Bananas grow in the wild and don't revert to their wild type forms. They just 'learned' to cope in their new environments. "

Ok, then still waiting for the evidence.

"Try to familiarize yourself about how Evolution actually work instead of assuming how it should work. "

That's why I'm asking these question, and I'm open to correction, but don't be aggressive please, that's not how you should engage people.
But thank you for answering, very much appreciate it.
 
arg-fallbackName="Call Me Emo"/>
Well, yeah, but we all do this. Because you have a larger understanding than me, then when you picture evolutionary processes they are more accurate than what I'm picturing, but I don't see the problem with saying "in my head".. are you saying that when you picture evolutionary processes, are you not picturing them in your head? And if not? then where are you picturing them? I think you are being a little pedantic unless you were joking.

"Many Cultivars or Citrus and Mangoes and Bananas grow in the wild and don't revert to their wild type forms. They just 'learned' to cope in their new environments. "

Ok, then still waiting for the evidence.

"Try to familiarize yourself about how Evolution actually work instead of assuming how it should work. "

That's why I'm asking these question, and I'm open to correction, but don't be aggressive please, that's not how you should engage people.
But thank you for answering, very much appreciate it.
Well, yeah, but we all do this. Because you have a larger understanding than me, then when you picture evolutionary processes they are more accurate than what I'm picturing, but I don't see the problem with saying "in my head".. are you saying that when you picture evolutionary processes, are you not picturing them in your head? And if not? then where are you picturing them? I think you are being a little pedantic unless you were joking.

"Many Cultivars or Citrus and Mangoes and Bananas grow in the wild and don't revert to their wild type forms. They just 'learned' to cope in their new environments. "

Ok, then still waiting for the evidence.

"Try to familiarize yourself about how Evolution actually work instead of assuming how it should work. "

That's why I'm asking these question, and I'm open to correction, but don't be aggressive please, that's not how you should engage people.
But thank you for answering, very much appreciate it.


I've already given you evidence, but apparently it isn't enough.
But what "evidence" are you really looking for though? Do you want me to show you a banana tree not reverting back into its wild type form? What would you expect the evidence to be or look like?

I'm trying my best to give you evidence of Evolution with Plants you'd be familiar with....but apparently you're not familiar with them either. I'm not here to give a course in Botany or to spoon feed you information that's readily available to anyone who cares. I'd advise that you at least try to familiarize yourself with the Evolutionary origins of the food you eat, them maybe you might not be so resistant to accepting facts of Evolution that had been known for centuries. d807c20db7c482dadeee296fb0e86d0b.jpg
 
Back
Top