Apologies for my late reply, I hope the lenght of this ess-- reply will give some indication as to why I've been so eager to put off responding.
Raamsade wrote:
Wow! GG finally accepts the fossil record can actually tell us something.
Don't pretend to be dumb.
This is a such a warped (and erroneous) understanding of science that it is no wonder that you reject it. I'll ignore the factual errors for now and focus on your garbled conception of science.
Please don’t. Go on with the factual errors.
First, the evolution of humans from an ape-like ancestor is contingent historical event. Meaning it is a process that occurred at specific time given specific prevailing initial conditions that can not be reproduced in a lab.
You still haven't been able to prove it happened.
Past evolutionary events are necessarily contingent. Actually, same is true for all history. Past events can not be reproduced in a lab. Why, then, would expect to do so?
Clearly my example went to waste.
We know humans evolved from ape-like ancestors because we have the empirical evidence for it -- from fossils, population genetics, molecular biology, biochemistry, comparative anatomy, biogeography, biostratigraphy etc --
Do elaborate, please.
In labs we've observed evolution -- under controlled conditions (therefore, reproducible!) -- taking place with yeasts, bacteria and drosophila flies. In fact, scientists have repeated tested the core postulates of Evolution Theory in labs. In nature, we've observed evolution taking place with peppered English moth and other species.
You're confusing terms here. Those claimed examples of ‘evolution-in-action’ are actually examples of variation within a kind; antibiotic resistance, insecticide resistance, even the peppered moths you mentioned, all these are examples of rearrangement of existing genetic information, or loss of information, there’s no new genetic information.
Originally posted by G G:
There are 2 types of evolutionary scientists. Those who believe birds evolved from dinosaurs, and those who don't. Do you agree or disagree with this claim?
Rubbish. The consensus in the scientific community regarding birds is that they evolved from theropod dinosaurs.
It is interesting you say 'consensus in the scientific community', as if scientists who support creationism aren't part of the scientific world. And consensus means unanimity, so there is no consensus if there is even one scientist who disagrees. And believe me there are thousands, if not more, who disagree.
In any case, this brings us to Alan Feduccia and Larry Martin – both highly regarded fellow evolutionists, who defend the view that birds evolved from an unknown reptile long before dinosaurs. Clearly the fact that you did not acknowledge this, speaks volume for the internal conflicts within evolutionary theory.
This is so characteristic of you. You miscontrue what others say and you contradict yourself. First, please provide the actual quotation from Mayr, not your paraphrasing.
Second, it is population that evolve not individuals.
Because what Mayr says completely contradicts what you say, you think I misconstrue what others say? Here is the actual quotation, word by word, from Mayr:
"... most treatments of evolution are written in a reductionist manner in which all evolutionary phenomena are reduced to the level of the gene. An attempt is then made to explain the higher-level evolutionary process by "upward" reasoning. This approach invariably fails. Evolution deals with phenotypes of individuals, with populations, with species; it is not a "change in gene frequencies." The two most important units in evolution are the individual, the principle object of selection, and the population, the stage of diversifying evolution."
Now lets have a look at what you wrote:
Evolution impacts populations not individuals. Any one individual is irrelevant. At the most basic level, evolution can be defined as the change in gene or allele frequency of a population over many generations.
Both since we agree on what evolution says.
You think so? Or are you just pretending that you can’t see how incredibly contradictory your definitions are? Because everybody who will be reading this will have no problem seeing it.
I did but you rejected it. I'll try it again but this time I'll quote from National Academy of Sciences (from the link above): "Biological evolution refers to changes in the traits of organisms over multiple generations." The report goes on to say: Until the development of the science of genetics at the beginning of the 20th century, biologists did not understand the mechanisms responsible for the inheritance of traits from parents to offspring. The study of genetics showed that heritable traits originate from the DNA that is passed from one generation to the next.They are passed on to future generations.
Who asked you about genetics? I’m sorry, is this proving too hard? After 2 chances, you fail yet again. The first quote: “biological evolution refers to changes in the traits of organisms…” contradicts your first definition “any one individual is irrelevant”. The second quote talks about DNA.
That you quoted mutation theory shows you ARE perusing creationists websites because mutation theory is NOT the generally accepted by scientists today"
That you did not know what I was quoting shows how little you know. It is pointless talking about what is "generally accepted by scientists today" if you do not know what was generally accepted before. And for your information, nowhere have I said it was accepted today – although I am inclined to say there are still some who leave the door wide open:
"Evolution, being on the whole a population turnover, is ordinarily a gradual process, except for certain chromosomal processes that may lead to the production of a new species-individual in a single step." – Ernst Mayr ‘What Evolution is’ 2001 page 174
Second, I know more about evolution than you do. This much is self-evident to everyone.
What is self-evident to everyone, is that you repeat evolutionist lies like a parrot (and with great errors), without the ability to stop and think about what it is that you are actually parroting.
FYI, I DID NOT copy the fossils I presented from a site called "Finally tangible PROOF of MACRO-EVOLUTION."
Funny that the only place that list comes up in that exact same order, is in a thread called Finally tangible PROOF of MACRO-EVOLUTION. Just a coincidence? Your “another car in the driveway” analogy springs to mind.
Your lame quibble is akin to rejecting chemical properties of a substance someone provides because it came from site x or y. That's not acceptable objection
Bad example. I did not reject the list because it was from a website with such title. I told you why I rejected it, so you are either doing this on purpose, or you have an extremely selective memory:
September 15 (my first post addressed to you) to your question to Siren: “I'm curious, what kind of evidence will convince you that birds descended from dinosaurs?” I replied: I'm not the Siren but... The same kind of evidence that would convince your own fellow evolutionist, I suppose. You now, those who also reject the idea birds evolved from dinos?”
What I do object, however, is the fact that when losing, you resort to such search words (what else does it tell of but desperation) when you should be keeping an open mind so that you might have a chance to see through the evolutionary lie.
It's pretty clear to everyone that you're terrified, much like your co-creationist Norsky, of the evidence for evolution.
Do not flatter yourself. You couldn’t fright a child with your knowledge on evolutionary theory.
Yes; I don't write only for you but all the silent readers who stand to benefit from this debate.
I honestly hope people benefit from this, too – and especially from my 2nd post on page 1.
You have provided no good reasons for why you reject the fossil evidence for human evolution.
I will answer this in the same as this bit:
The neanderthal came first. I would say Homo floresiensis resembled modern humans more but neanderthals had bigger brains. In fact neanderthals had bigger brains (as measured by average brain sizes) than us.
This is an illustration of a neander:
and here is one of floresiensis:
And you claim floresiensis looks more human to you? Why are you being dishonest?
You also asked:
I'm at a loss as to the purpose of these questions? How do they further your argument?
When clearly you knew exactly the purpose of the question, which is why you dodged it in the first time. Lets recap what you’ve said earlier, so we know exactly why this is relevant. I asked you whether you could provide irrefutable evidence that Australopithecus was a human ancestor, to which you replied: “This species was clearly an intermediate between apes and humans. For instance, its brain was about the size of chimpanzee but it was bipedal and had anatomical features resembling more closely humans as opposed to apes. Furthermore, its teeth looked more human than apes.”
I asked for IRREFUTABLE evidence, keep in mind.
And that is what you came to me with. The fact that they RESEMBLED more humans than apes. Now with this logic, with this irrefutable method of yours, we could come to the conclusion that because the Neanderthals looked more human (although - not surprisingly - you decided to deny this obvious fact) they must be closer to modern humans. And yet they supposedly aren’t – floresiensis with smaller brain and physique, and which quite frankly looks like a step back in evolution, is supposedly closer to modern humans.
So the purpose of the question was to falsify the method by which you concluded that Australopithecus was a human ancestor.
“[Radiometric dating]Very reliable and consistent with other methods of dating. We have no good reasons to doubt the accuracy of of radiometric dating.”
You still did not answer the question: “For example, could one misestimate by hundreds of thousands of years, even over a million years? Is it possible?” A simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ will do.
“No body said that DNA repair mechanisms don't fix mutations but that is beside the point. “
How so? DNA repair mechanisms are precisely there to protect genetic instructions from copying errors. Do you not find it odd natural selection created these protections against the very thing that enables evolution (beneficial mutation)?
“As you finally admit "some errors slip through" and it is those that count.”
Yes, some errors slip through and it affects the information it encodes. They are mostly detrimental; mutations are responsible for thousands of inherited diseases and diseases such as cancer. There are some which are neutral, and some which are beneficial (as you noted), but the truly beneficial mutations (not talking about beneficial as in helps the bacteria resist antibiotics) are so rare that there are, quite frankly, none. On top of that, all examples of mutations are actually loss of information, even the beneficial ones. So if natural selection and mutation result in LOSS of information, then how can evolution of increasing complexity occur?
“You're changing the subject and conflating different theories/disciplines.”
Let me refresh your weak memory. You wrote:
“There are still single celled organisms. That alone demonstrates Evolution doesn't proceed ahead from less complex to more complex.”
To which I then replied: “And where did they come from? Or have they always been, and we've solved the mystery of life, and these single celled organisms are the origin of all life, our forefathers?”
You: “These questions are irrelevant to Evolution Theory since the theory assumes the existence of one or few living organisms.”
Now how does this follow? One would think evolutionists would be interested in today’s organisms and not dismiss them as irrelevant to evolution. And now you accuse me of changing the subject and conflating different theories, when all I did was ask a simple question (the origin of single celled organisms), derived directly from something you had said.
