More Evolution Help

[abelcainsbrother]

Even though Rumraket already responded, I want to make some things clear:

I don't want to be accused of hijacking a thread but Life adapting is life adapting to a hostile environment but remaining the same kind of life. Life evolving is a dinosaur evolving into a bird or a primate evolving into a man,etc.

Rumraket already pointed out that this is not what scientists say at all.
I want to make an even more damning point:
A human is already a primate, so how can a primate "evolve into" a human? It makes no sense.
A bird is already a dinosaur, so how can a dinosaur "evolve into" a bird? It makes no sense.

And before you blatently misunderstand me again, let me clarify:
This is a ballpoint pen. It was made by a generic company.
This is also a ballpoint pen. It was made by BIC and is generally referred to as a "biro".
A biro is a ballpoint pen, but not all ballpoint pens are biros.

This is a dinosaur. I could have picked any, but I chose Compsognathus.
This is also a dinosaur. Specifically, it's a parrot.
A parrot is a dinosaur, but not all dinosaurs are parrots.

When you show me how a biro can become a ballpoint pen (note: it already is) then I will show you how a dinosaur can "evolve into" a bird.

The actual story of how birds descended from theropod dinosaurs and what cousins they share (like Compsognathus, T. Rex and Archaeopteryx) is one I hope to discuss in a blog post when I've got a bit more free time.

Like for example bacteria you give a person anti-biotics knowing before you even give it the bacteria is going to adapt to the hostile environment caused by the anti-biotics and then be immune to it after it adapts, it still never evolves as it remains bacteria.

Again I would like to point out that your understanding of evolution is flawed. Creationists typically assume that modern species will "evolve into" other modern species, like cats giving birth to dogs or crocodiles and ducks having offspring or other absurdities no serious scientist would promote. This is not how evolution works and I'll try to explain it by way of a metaphor.

My family name is Lernhart. My brother is a Lernhart, my sister is a Lernhart, my mother is a Lernhart and my Father is a Lernhart. I am a Lernhart.
Before my mother married my father, her family name was Brunner.

When she married my father, did she stop being the daughter of her father or mother? Did she stop being her brothers sister simply because she now has a different name? Or in other words: Did she become something completely different, something she was not before?
No, of course not. Her ancestors stayed the exact same: Her father is still her father, her mother is her mother and so on.

In almost exactly the same way, you can't escape your ancestry in evolution.No, of course not. Its ancestors have stayed the exact same: The original ancestor is still Bacteria g. and the one after that is still Bacteria a. Biggus d. is a bacteria, has been a bacterium and will remain one until its strain dies out. Even though it now looks totally different and has evolved by any account, it is still a bacterium. If it were something else, that would violate at least one law of evolution.

Now I know that you have been taught adaptation is a mechanism of evolution but if it is there is no evidence in science that I know of that demonstrates life evolves so I believe word games are being played on you and others who accept and assume life will evolve when it only adapted.No reason to assume.The evidence shows us the virus remains a virus and this is important that should not be overlooked.

You also believe that science is a huge conspiracy and that magic happens, so I won't take your word for it.
Instead, I will learn the correct definitions, not the bizzare ones you have learnt.

If I were to claim that Christianity is the belief that giant mutant mushrooms roamed the earth and sacrificed Jesus so they could have bread and wine, you would call me an idiot. You would tell me to shut up, read some books on the topic and come back when I'm more informed.
You claim that evolution is something it's not, something that's equally ridiculous as the mushrooms I mentioned. I will therefore tell you to (shut up and) listen, read some proper books on the subject and come back when you're more informed.

But this is just variation of the kinds and the evidence they present as evidence actually proves some of this wrong like natural selection for instance the evidence they present as evidence demonstrates that natural selection has no effect on life.But yet they tell us all the things it can do.

Are you aware that there are two rather excellent papers by P Senter (number one and number two) that explore evolution using the methods and ideas of creationists? Guess what, it still confirms that evolution happens and that birds are definitely dinosaurs.

So then you must ignore the lack of evidence and go by fossils,genetics,speciation,the evolution tree,etc in order to keep believing life evolves eventhough none of this means much if you cannot demonstrate life evolves like you teach it does.

You place "evidence" apart from fossils, genetics, speciation and the evolutionary tree. Are you telling me that fossils are not evidence? That genetics is not evidence?

This is why I always tell people to read at least a few books on the subject. Read at least one book on the philosophy of science, perhaps Popper ("Logic of scientific discovery" or "realism and the aim of science" or "science as falsification"). Read at least one book on how science actually works, perhaps Berkley's science 101 or something to that extent. (Maybe others will have better ideas.) I would also recommend you have taken at least some course in tertiary education, but that last one is optional.

When you've read at least these two texts, you'll have some understanding of what scince is. It certainly isn't going to make you an expert, but at least you will understand why your ideas sound so incredibly ludicrous.

It does not prove life evolves just because all life is related

Actually, yes it does. If all life is related, then creationism is certainly wrong and evolution must be correct.

and you've assumed life evolves and built all of this evidence around the idea life evolves yet you have no way to demonstrate it does evolve.Science normally does not work this way but it does when it comes to evolution.

Except for the hundreds of thousands of papers written on the subject, explaining the evidence in great detail. Simply because you ignore it does not mean it's not there.

All you are doing is preaching to the choir life evolves and totally ignore my point about there being no evidence that demonstrates life evolves and I noticed you don't provide any instead you preach life evolves just like the preacher preaching about Jesus Christ,repentance and salvation.

You are assuming life evolves based on micro-evolution and adaptation but refuse to admit it. You act like none of us understand evolution when we ask for evidence and point out there is no evidence that demonstrates life evolves.You just ignore it and keep preaching it. But your jig is up because you cannot have life evolving with only micro-evolution and adaptation no matter how much you think life evolves.

Micro-evolution and adaptation does not even come close to demonstrating macro-evolution all you have for evidence is finches,frogs,salamanders,viruses,bacteria,etc as evidence and in every case none of it evolves yet you teach dinosaurs evolved into birds and then when called on it say look at the evolution tree birds are dinosaurs thinking you have an excuse.It does not matter to you that you have no evidence? You say this " A random Bacteria (Bacteria glucosis, to invent a name) is in a laboratory. It feeds on glucose and lives in a warm, moist environment. The conditions are changed and now it feeds on citric acid. The bacteria is now called Bacteria acidis, just for larks. It is still a bacteria."
Billions of years pass. The strain of bacteria has undergone slight changes and over time, it has become a large (5cm), green organism that looks remarkably like a slug. It is now called Biggus dickus. Has it stopped being a bacteria?

This is all assumption with no evidence to demonstrate it as the only evidence you have proves the bacteria always remains bacteria even when it adapts and survives a hostile environment. Where is natural selection you preach about?

We know life adapts to survive hostile environments like bacteria that grows near raditation but notice it never evolves it just adapts,yet you assume without knowing and tell us it will eventually look like a slug not knowing it but assuming it. And notice you back away from saying it evolves into a slug,you won't say that because you'd contradict yourself claiming life does not evolve,then denying it trying to confuse everybody about what evolution is.

Evolution is dinosaurs evolving into birds and without this you have no evolution at all. It is you that are the confused one,not me,because you agree with the term micro-evolution they feed you and don't realize it is just variation of the kinds of life that reproduce and not evolution like it implies.It will not give you a dinosaur evolving into a bird,it is just a dog giving birth to a different color dog and based on this you think it is evolving.

You overlook this and are confused because of the definition they give you for micro-evolution,evolution,adaptation and macroevolution.Evolution is just what they want the evidence to show but it doesn't.You are using their definitions to look at the evidence and it messes you up,not me.

Then they tell you adaptation is a mechanism of evolution and so you think life is evolving when it just adapts and survives a hostile environment totally ignoring the fact that all kinds of life has adapted to survive hostile environments all around us and if it doesn't it goes extinct.This causes you to think the bacteria evolved when they gave you anti-biotics and the bacteria remained bacteria and only adapted,so then they give you another anti-biotic until it works that the bacteria cannot adapt and it dies,you think it evolved when it didn't abd even if the anti-biotic does not work it is still just bacteria but you think it is evolving eventhough it is still bacteria.

Then you try to point us to evidence built on top of this idea you have that life evolves and expect us to believe it like you do - speciation,genetics,etc when it is all built on assumption.Then you try to say I don't understand evolution and I need to be educated about it trying to make me look ignorant.

No I know about evolution and I have actually taken the time to look for evidence unlike you and I know life does not evolve based on the evidence this is how I can point it out to you and you can only try to make me look ignorant about it. It makes no difference if you reject God,the bible,creationism,etc the evidence for evolution proves you wrong about dinosaurs evolving into a bird,primates evolving into a man,etc the evidence shows us life does not evolve and all you have is variation of the different kinds of life reproducing producing the same kind of life and being able to adapt to survive hostile environments and you are claiming and telling us it is evolving when it isn't.

You are overlooking that in all cases you start out with a plant and it only produces another plant and you say it evolved just because it cannot reproduce,it did not you only proved reproduction happens and a plant produces a plant and this is what the evidence shows us,not evolution,by their definition too.

 

[Mugnuts]

ACB, guess which one you are.

 

[Visaki]

For that Life of Brian reference I'm finally calling it. Abelcainsbrother is a poe.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

For that Life of Brian reference I'm finally calling it. Abelcainsbrother is a poe.

Actually, it's from "Monty Python and the Holy Grail".

Kindest regards,

James

 

[SpecialFrog]

For that Life of Brian reference I'm finally calling it. Abelcainsbrother is a poe.

The "Biggus Dickus" bit was from Inferno's post and was just quoted badly.

 

[Visaki]

For that Life of Brian reference I'm finally calling it. Abelcainsbrother is a poe.

The "Biggus Dickus" bit was from Inferno's post and was just quoted badly.

Well, I take it back then. Is the quote and preview functions really that hard to use? Or is it a sign of something that the people having most problems with them are creationists?

Gragan Glas: Of course the Black knight picture is from the Holy Grail, I was referring to the Biggus Dickus part, who is, of course, from Life of Brian and a close personal friend of Pontius Pilate (if I remember correctly). http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Biggus_Dickus

 

[Mugnuts]

It makes me giggle with nerdy delight that Monty Python made it into the thread. One subtle, and one not so much.

Also, would Biggus Dikkus be related to micrococcus? Seems like a connection.

 

[Inferno]

Ablecainsbrother responds to a post, detailing his misunderstandings about biology,... with more misunderstandings about biology.
I fucking wept.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

The "Biggus Dickus" bit was from Inferno's post and was just quoted badly.

Well, I take it back then. Is the quote and preview functions really that hard to use? Or is it a sign of something that the people having most problems with them are creationists?

Gragan Glas: Of course the Black knight picture is from the Holy Grail, I was referring to the Biggus Dickus part, who is, of course, from Life of Brian and a close personal friend of Pontius Pilate (if I remember correctly). http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Biggus_Dickus

Understood.

I always thought that the "Biggus Dickus" name in the film was a poor joke-name for a Roman senator.

A more obvious one was "Gluteus Maximus" - a hint at his having a vast behind - then his wife being "Incontinentia" would have made more sense (since "Gluteus" sounds like "glutinous" to the unwashed masses in the cinema).

But that's just my take on it ...

Kindest regards,

James

 

[malicious_bloke]

don't worry, we still found it wisible

 

[Deleted member 619]

Oh dear. It seems we need to go through the baby steps here.

The macro/micro distinction is a valid distinction in evolutionary biology, but it doesn't mean what the cretinists think it means.

Evolution is defined as variation in the frequencies of alleles, where an allele is a specific iteration of a given gene. Microevolution is defined as variations in the frequencies of alleles below species level, in a population of organisms. Macroevolution is defined as variations in the frequencies of alleles at or above species level, or in populations of populations. The easiest way to think about this is that evolutionary biologists study frequencies of alleles that are shared between two species so, for example, there are many genes that are shared between humans and chimpanzees, which is to say that humans and chimps carry exactly the same version of the gene.

Another useful example is extinction, in which the frequency of all alleles in a species go from some to none.

What the creationist is actually talking about here is something that would falsify evolutionary theory wholesale, namely a cat giving birth to a dog. This, of course, doesn't happen. What does happen, though, is speciation, and in fact there is a beautiful example of extinction and speciation in a single event, namely an extinction event in a ring species. If a selection of sub-species in the middle of the ring go extinct, by a bolide impact, for example, and the remaining subspecies are no longer reproductively compatible, then we have an extinction event that is also a speciation event, both of which are correctly defined as macroevolution.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Oh, and regarding the 2LT:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/general-science/ratskep-science-writing-competition-hall-of-fame-t16752.html#p631016

 

[abelcainsbrother]

Oh dear. It seems we need to go through the baby steps here.

The macro/micro distinction is a valid distinction in evolutionary biology, but it doesn't mean what the cretinists think it means.

Evolution is defined as variation in the frequencies of alleles, where an allele is a specific iteration of a given gene. Microevolution is defined as variations in the frequencies of alleles below species level, in a population of organisms. Macroevolution is defined as variations in the frequencies of alleles at or above species level, or in populations of populations. The easiest way to think about this is that evolutionary biologists study frequencies of alleles that are shared between two species so, for example, there are many genes that are shared between humans and chimpanzees, which is to say that humans and chimps carry exactly the same version of the gene.



Another useful example is extinction, in which the frequency of all alleles in a species go from some to none.

What the creationist is actually talking about here is something that would falsify evolutionary theory wholesale, namely a cat giving birth to a dog. This, of course, doesn't happen. What does happen, though, is speciation, and in fact there is a beautiful example of extinction and speciation in a single event, namely an extinction event in a ring species. If a selection of sub-species in the middle of the ring go extinct, by a bolide impact, for example, and the remaining subspecies are no longer reproductively compatible, then we have an extinction event that is also a speciation event, both of which are correctly defined as macroevolution.

You say this."Evolution is defined as variation in the frequencies of alleles, where an allele is a specific iteration of a given gene. Microevolution is defined as variations in the frequencies of alleles below species level, in a population of organisms. Macroevolution is defined as variations in the frequencies of alleles at or above species level, or in populations of populations. The easiest way to think about this is that evolutionary biologists study frequencies of alleles that are shared between two species so, for example, there are many genes that are shared between humans and chimpanzees, which is to say that humans and chimps carry exactly the same version of the gene."


You see I am right they are assuming life evolves and looking at the evidence as if it does without evidence.There is a difference in micro evolution,adaptation and macro-evolution. You cannot prove life evolves by looking at genes that are shared yet they do assuming it does.

Also then you make up a fable about creationists thinking a cat giving birth to a dog would prove evolution,this is not true at all evolution teaches dinosaurs evolved into birds,primates evolved into man and we want evidence it can happen like they say and teach and there is none.

I do not want to see a cat give birth to a dog at all.

I want to see scientific evidence that demonstrates life evolves like they teach and there is none it is all based on assumption life evolves and everything is looked at from this perspective.

 

[Prolescum]

Oh lordy...

You'd better take foetal steps, Hackenslash.

Sent from my Commodore 64

 

[Mugnuts]

Pay notice to the fact Hackenslash was quoted both in the BBcode and separately underneath with "quotations.
:facepalm:

ACB is not answering any questions at all. He only responds to people he hasn't talked to before rehashing his assertions like they are brand new.

Prove me wrong ACB and have a conversation. Answer some fucking questions directly for a change.

Why are you here?

And two new ones

Do you believe your assertion "evolution teaches primates evolved to man" is coherent?
Do you understand man (humans) are primates?

 

[Deleted member 619]

You say this."Evolution is defined as variation in the frequencies of alleles, where an allele is a specific iteration of a given gene. Microevolution is defined as variations in the frequencies of alleles below species level, in a population of organisms. Macroevolution is defined as variations in the frequencies of alleles at or above species level, or in populations of populations. The easiest way to think about this is that evolutionary biologists study frequencies of alleles that are shared between two species so, for example, there are many genes that are shared between humans and chimpanzees, which is to say that humans and chimps carry exactly the same version of the gene."

You already quoted this, why quote it twice?

You see I am right they are assuming life evolves and looking at the evidence as if it does without evidence.

Which bit of it having been observed constitutes a fucking assumption, genius?

There is a difference in micro evolution,adaptation and macro-evolution. You cannot prove life evolves by looking at genes that are shared yet they do assuming it does.

Utter fucking bollocks, and only exposes your abject ignorance of the subject matter. All those are examples of evolution.

BTW, you should go and learn the distinction between 'proof' and 'evidential support'. Proof is a formal procedure applicable only to axiomatically complete systems of deductive logic.

Also then you make up a fable about creationists thinking a cat giving birth to a dog would prove evolution,

Not a fucking fable. This exact trope has been wheeled out by ignorant cretins on any number of occasions.

this is not true at all evolution teaches dinosaurs evolved into birds,

No it doesn't. Birds ARE dinosaurs, specifically theropods.

primates evolved into man

Again, no. Humans ARE primates.

and we want evidence it can happen like they say and teach and there is none.

The evidence is there is swathes. That you're too stupid or ideologically motivated by your imaginary celestial peeping-tom is neither here nor there. Evolution is an observed fucking fact. Deal with it.

I do not want to see a cat give birth to a dog at all.

That makes one of you.

I want to see scientific evidence that demonstrates life evolves like they teach and there is none it is all based on assumption life evolves and everything is looked at from this perspective.

Then you need to go an study the topic. There are no assumptions, because, wait for it EVOLUTION HAS BEEN OBSERVED OCCURRING, including macroevolution.

I can cite one instance, in Heliconius butterflies, in which a speciation event occurred in a wild population, was replicated in the lab, and neither daughter population was interfertile with the parent population, but both daughter populations were interfertile with each other.

Speciation By Hybridisation In Heliconius Butterflies by Jesús Mavárez, Camilo A. Salazar, Eldredge Bermingham, Christian Salcedo, Chris D. Jiggins and Mauricio Linares, Nature, 441: 868-871 (15th June 2006)

Full paper downloadable from here:

http://si-pddr.si.edu/dspace/bitstream/10088/4131/1/Mavarez_Salazar_Bermingham_Salcedo_Jiggins_and_Linares_2006.pdf

That's macroevolution, as the term is used by those who actually know what they're talking about, as opposed to you, who extracts all his knowledge on the subject directly from his fucking arse.

 

[Mugnuts]

What do you want to bet that the reply to the butterflies will go something like this...

Show More Hide

{TEXT}

 

[abelcainsbrother]

hackenslash you are doing the same thing they are doing presenting evidence that proves butterlies do not evolve as the evidence you just presented demonstrates and proves.Look I know you think reproduction is proof life evolves but it isn't.Show evidence that demonstrates a dinosaur can evolve into a bird,a primate can evolve into a man,etc because the evidence you are looking at proves butterflies do not evolve and natural selection is nowhere to be found either these butterflies did not evolve.Animal breeders are already well aware of the evidence you are presenting and were long before Charles Darwin wrote his book.

 

[Mugnuts]

 

[Deleted member 619]

hackenslash you are doing the same thing they are doing

Yes, also known as fucking your ignorant crap over.

presenting evidence that proves butterlies do not evolve as the evidence you just presented demonstrates and proves.

Proof? Proof is a formal procedure applicable only to axiomatically complete systems of deductive logic.

As for the rest, it's observation OF evolution. That experimental evidence is an example of evolution. That you're too ignorant to understand what evolution actually is, and too ideologically motivated by your childish masturbation fantasy to learn, is neither here nor there.

Look I know you think reproduction is proof life evolves

No I don't, not least because I actually understand both reproduction AND evolution. Those experiments demonstrate an example of evolution.

but it isn't.

You mean it doesn't match YOUR fuckwitted understanding of evolution.

Show evidence that demonstrates a dinosaur can evolve into a bird,a primate can evolve into a man,

Would you like me to show you a bird evolving into a duck? What about a dog evolving into a dachshund? You clearly have no fucking idea of what you're talking about, as this snippet demonstrates all too readily.

etc because the evidence you are looking at proves butterflies do not evolve

You can keep extracting this statement from your arse, but can you actually back it up? Show your working out.

and natural selection is nowhere to be found either these butterflies did not evolve.Animal breeders are already well aware of the evidence you are presenting and were long before Charles Darwin wrote his book.

Animal breeders are also an example of natural selection. The breeder is simply a feature of the organism's environment. When we breed for certain traits, not only is it evolution, it's fucking natural selection. Man simply constitutes a selection pressure.

Get an education before you encounter something sharp.