Is evolution a fact?

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Attacking creation, and et at the end of your statement does not strengthen your argument it in fact highlights your ignorance. Because what you are saying is first you know it's evolution... Then you turn around and say prove to me it's not evolution.

But this thread is about proving evolution... Not proving creationism or et. So focus.. Eyes on the ball... Evidence for the basilosaurus... Try again?

Evolution is the simplest explanation for the observed data.

ET is a more complicated explanation.

"God(s)" is the most complicated explanation.

This is a case of simple logic in deciding which is the simplest explanation consistent with the evidence - and that is evolution.

If you can show a better explanation and provide evidence for it, go ahead.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

And nothing about the basilosaurus.

Thank you

I've already answered that - you simply won't accept it.

Provide an alternative explanation for how these life-forms can be simultaneously ordered by ear-bone structure AND by dating methods.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[DutchLiam84]

Come on guys/girls, we've entertained this dude long enough. It's time to stop.

 

[Isotelus]

Prove to me then if it's not faith... A dorudon is the direct ancestor of a basilosaurus?

This was directed at Dragan but I feel the need to point out that this is asking the wrong question. Direct ancestry is not actually what the whale chart is implying (what Dragan posted above is what one should be focusing on; i.e., the change in character states)

Here's a segment from a blog I did a while back that pertains to the question. It dealt with transitional fossils specifically but applies to the misconception that direct ancestry is assumed when looking at the fossil record.

The definition [of a transitional fossil] does not imply or assume that any such fossil represents direct relation or ancestry to any other, although it is implied that this is how it is viewed by some creationists who state that no evidence exists showing one organism evolving into another. This misconception is intrinsically linked to the notion that evolution posits progression in a linear fashion. This view may or may not result from misinterpretation of diagrams that evidently depict primitive forms proceeding linearly into advanced forms in a series of strictly anagenetic events, but it must be noted that such graphical representations are often directed at non-scientists and simplified accordingly under the assumption that the viewer can place the image in the context of the correct version of evolution, which postulates the arrangement of organisms in a branching, tree-like structure.

The placement of Dorudon on the chart indicates it retains more primitive characters than Basilosaurus, and that Dorudon is a member of the sister group to the group that contains Basilosaurus. This means somewhere along the lines the two share a common ancestor; NOT that one eventually gave rise to the next.

 

[Rumraket]

No... It's an assumption... Nobody was around to know. You assume through a few changes you therefore get the basilosaurus... But nobody was around to see it...

There are thousands of crimes solved every year with forensics science without anyone being there to see the crimes being committed.

The simple fact is that we can know that certain things took place without having been present to witness them, because the events in question leave evidence behind.

This "were you there" nonsense that creationists respond with often has to stop, it is ridiculous and everybody knows it. As the above example with forensics science demonstrates.

Lets take a simple and obvious example: How do you know there has not been an Elephant orgy in your house/apartment when you come back from work? You weren't home! So how do you know?

 

[Isotelus]

This quote is indeed priceless.... Really get this...
" correct version of evolution.."

Really? Is there a correct version of science?

What evolution church do you go to? Please give me the correct version of evolution....l

You supplied no refutation to any of what I said, in spite of the fact that I'm telling you as a scientist myself that you are fundamentally misunderstanding what evolution posits.

Care to behave in a mature and intelligent manner and try again?

Edit: Forgot to add, I gave you the correct interpretation in my last post, which you have dismissed without reason. So by all means, read what I wrote again.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Phew dodged that bullet eh dragon glas? Lol. Kick the can down the road.... So now apparently the charts need no evidence... They are simply true.... Talk about a vicious circle.

Why do you keep assuming that everyone is "dodging"?

As it happened, Isotelus answered you - and you still don't get it.

So accords to his version of evolution the charts don't need evidence....do you agree with his version of evolution dragon glas?

The charts are based on the evidence.

Just as when one graphs actual data in mathematics.

And by "he" I assume you mean Isotelus - she's a scientist.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Rumraket]

Because there is no evidence for an elephant orgy in my house. Or are y postulating elephants are flying ?

How do you know they weren't a special species of flying elephants your god created?

 

[Isotelus]

Oh right.. The argument from the holier than thou perspective... Ok.. You are much more mature. Can we move on?

I suspect people might consider me to be more mature because I took the time to consider your position and formulate an appropriate response, as everyone else on this forum aside from you usually does. Perhaps you should give it a try.

So are you arguing your version of evolution does not need evidence for the whale charts?

Not even remotely. Go back and read what I wrote.

 

[SpecialFrog]

Bernhard, the brother of your great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather is not your ancestor. However, his DNA will still tell us about what your ancestors were like. Do you agree?

The whale slide is the same kind of thing. We have species that are at least close relations to the actual ancestors of whales. They still provide useful information about the history of whales, including proving that the transition steps are possible.

 

[Isotelus]

No no I get it... It's a version of evolution... The version that claims the order implied in the charts is not the order of what really might of happened.

Right.. So what is the order?

No...you don't. You're asking another wrong question which effectively demonstrates you don't understand what the chart is indicating. Nothing wrong with that per se, but I'm trying to tell you what it means and I don't see any indication you're internalizing any of what anyone has said. Dragan glas gets it; there's no confusion on our part.

I'm not in any way implying that the order is not what really happened, I'm telling you that branching trees as shown on the chart have nothing to do with direct ancestry. They're showing a progression of character states as represented by species from the fossil record, which each successive step representing a change or derivation of a particular character. Likewise, each step is organized in tiers that represent sister groups. The order of these groups shows the more primitive or basal representatives appearing further down the tree, while the advanced or derived characters appear towards the top. The overall picture is a representation of the degrees of relatedness of the fossil groups in question to one another, and shows how traits changed over time, i.e., how evolution occurred. Direct ancestry is not implied or needed in this chart.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Or to put it in even simpler terms...

The chart represents how species are related.

It's not a family tree (genealogical/direct line of descendants): pictures of your great-great-grandfather, then your great-grandfather, then your grandfather and finally your father.

Understand?

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Rumraket]

The definition [of a transitional fossil] does not imply or assume that any such fossil represents direct relation or ancestry to any other, although it is implied that this is how it is viewed by some creationists who state that no evidence exists showing one organism evolving into another. This misconception is intrinsically linked to the notion that evolution posits progression in a linear fashion. This view may or may not result from misinterpretation of diagrams that evidently depict primitive forms proceeding linearly into advanced forms in a series of strictly anagenetic events, but it must be noted that such graphical representations are often directed at non-scientists and simplified accordingly under the assumption that the viewer can place the image in the context of the correct version of evolution, which postulates the arrangement of organisms in a branching, tree-like structure.

This quote is indeed priceless.... Really get this...
" correct version of evolution.."

Really? Is there a correct version of science?

The theory of evolution is not synonymous with all of "science", it is a scientific theory within the biology subbranch. And yes, there is a correct one. Just like there are correct and wrong versions of the theory of gravity, or the theory of atoms and so on.

For example, the supercede Bohr-model of the atom is an incorrect version of atomic theroy.

What evolution church do you go to?

None, we don't do religion. We have no worship, we don't believe in an afterlive, we have no rituals or prayers or anything of the sort.

Please give me the correct version of evolution....l

http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Third-Edition-Douglas-Futuyma/dp/1605351156

 

[Rumraket]

Rum racket

Then fine evidence for shared derived characteristics can also equal designers.. That would also debunk evolution as the only explaination.

No, because there is no expectation of shared derived characteristics over other patterns, on design. Designers can design many patterns, not just branching hierarchies. So even though nesting hierachies can be designed by deliberation, you have no reason to expect it any more than some other pattern. That means on design, nesting hierarchies is only one possibility and therefore has a probability of less than 100% (because all the different patterns designers can design need to add up to 100%, so any individual pattern cannot itself be 100%, and since there are millions of possible patterns, each individual patterns has a miniscule prior probability).

On the theory of evolution nesting hierarchies are absolutely required. So given that we do in fact observe that life can be readily grouped into nesting hierarchies, this observation is 100% probable on evolution, but much much less than 100% on design. So it is much much more likely that evolution is the explanation for the pattern, than design.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Ok super dragan glas.. Related.

Can you prove to me that the dorudon is the basilousaurus's father?

You're not taking in what I and others are saying.

Where do I say that Dorudon is the Basilosaurus' father?

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Rumraket]

Ok super dragan glas.. Related.

Can you prove to me that the dorudon is the basilousaurus's father?

It doesn't have to be it's father. You are related to your great-great-great grandfather's cousin, even though he is not your direct ancestor.

 

[Rumraket]

Or if I understood it wrong.. Please explain how they are related..?

You are related to your brother/sister, even though none of them gave birth to you and you didn't give birth to them.

 

[Rumraket]

No no I get it... It's a version of evolution... The version that claims the order implied in the charts is not the order of what really might of happened.

Right.. So what is the order?

No, you're getting it wrong.

The inference is actually really simple and goes like this: Since we cannot know whether any two fossils in the fossil record are directly related (as in one is the direct ancestor of the other, they might instead be distant cousins), it is common practice to arrange the specimens when constructing a phylogeny, in a series of branches, instead of as individuals that lie on a direct line of descent.

In fact given that at any particular time on the planet, there are usually many similar species(for example many species of sharks), the odds that any particular fossil we find that "looks like" it is an earlier form of a species found in a younger layer, the odds are it probably isn't, but is instead a counsin species many generations removed.

That's it.

So when you see the chart with the whale fossil record, what you are seeing is simply the most open and honest presentation: Instead of them being arranged as a line of direct descendants, one giving birth to the next, they are placed as cousins because that is the most likely to be true arrangement.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Rumraket already explained it to you - as did I earlier.

And you didn't answer my question: where did I say that Dorudon was Basilisaurus' father?

As Isotelus pointed out, they share a common ancestor - in fact, they co-existed:

Bite marks revisited – evidence for middle-to-late Eocene Basilosaurus isis predation on Dorudon atrox (both Cetacea, Basilosauridae)

Get it now?

[It's nearly 2am here - I'm off to bed, and will let those in your time-zone (including scientists) deal with you.]

PS Just seen your reply whilst previewing this.

I've already explained that the chart places the species of whales according to how their ear-bones changed over time - this chart is based on actual fossilised skulls including ear-bones. It's not just a made-up chart based on no actual evidence!

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Isotelus]

The female version of Aron Ra.... Anything to not give evidence.

Then don't give evidence ... But don't blame me that you I claim your not defending evolution.

I can and do blame you. You're still not getting what the whale chart means and asking for evidence based on your incorrect interpretation of it. That's not how it works. We're telling you what evolution actually is. Once you get that, then move on to the evidence, which has actually been already briefly mentioned a number of times by me and others.

Ok super dragan glas.. Related.

Can you prove to me that the dorudon is the basilousaurus's father?

That's right. He is super. Moving on.

I'm telling you that branching trees as shown on the chart have nothing to do with direct ancestry.

The definition [of a transitional fossil] does not imply or assume that any such fossil represents direct relation or ancestry to any other, although it is implied that this is how it is viewed by some creationists who state that no evidence exists showing one organisms evolving into another. This misconception is intrinsically linked to the notion that evolution posits progression in a linear fashion. This view may or may not result from misinterpretation of diagrams that evidently depict primitive forms proceeding linearly into advanced forms in a series of strictly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anagenesis[[anagenetic events, but it must be noted that such graphical representations are often directed at non-scientists and simplified accordingly under the assumption that the viewer can place the image in the context of the correct version of evolution, which postulates the arrangement of organisms in a branching, tree-like structure. Transitional fossils do not imply a linear sequence of evolution and are instead imposed upon and considered within the context of branching lineages typical of phylogenetics

The placement of Dorudon on the chart indicates it retains more primitive characters than Basilosaurus, and that Dorudon is a member of the sister group to the group that contains Basilosaurus. This means somewhere along the lines the two share a common ancestor; NOT that one eventually gave rise to the next.

Also see what Rumraket said above on this page. I don't know how to make this any clearer.