red blood cells found in trex fossil

General Forums Off-topic Chat
41

A wolf didn’t give birth to chihuahuas one day, so where did they come from? If Creationism is true, why did they not just pop into existence?

Human’s bred dogs from wolves by picking out traits they liked to pass on, which eventually resulted in a chihuahua. They didn’t instantly get a chihuahua though. This process of evolving over the course of many generations by artificial selection (eg Humans did it) to result in a chihuahua is what Evolution is. It isn’t some comical thing where bacteria suddenly grows an arm.

It seems conveniently arbitrary what counts and what doesn’t if you ask me. I mean how can someone claim that these dog skulls are all too similar to each other to be evidence of Evolution, while apparently these primate skulls are too different to be evidence of Evolution? Evolution is simply saying, life isn’t static – clearly that seems to be the case.

42

I never said that chihuahuas were suddenly birthed from wolves, neither is it true that creationists believe that every breed of every type of animal existed through all of history. Again, the ‘micro-evolution’ thing which we don’t have an issue with and is the driving force behind breed creation. I personally wouldn’t really consider a wolf and a chihuahua to be of a completely different ‘species’, more like different breeds of the same basic type of animal.

Also, you need to look at more than just the skulls, but the DNA as well (which also includes the vast amount of mitochondrial DNA which doesn’t produce a major effect on appearance, some DNA is even just there to act as a regulatory function for genes, proteins, and other components).

Also, the idea of breeds and overall types can apply to primates as well, one thing that seems to hobble the idea of early forms of humanity is that there’s been cases where they simply draw out a entirely new species from a very small selection of bones or from a skeleton that shows minor differences explainable by the expression of different traits. They might’ve very well found a variant of the exact same type of animal, but too often they file it under the title of finding a ‘completely new species’.

43

Scientists, especially Biologists, do look at DNA (they discovered it lol). DNA just further establishes that there are relationships between animals giving more credibility to Evolution.

Science is an iterative process. When they discover something they try to place it somewhere. As new evidence comes in they make adjustments based on that evidence. Dogs have been reclassified to compensate for new information since we keep using them as an example. Sometimes their initial hypothesis is wrong and they have to move things; what a crime.

“Micro” vs “Macro” isn’t part of the Theory of Evolution. Evolution has Artificial Selection (breeding) and Natural Selection (survival of the fittest). Trying to debunk a Scientific theory by changing what the Scientific theory states is a strawman.

Anyway, it makes no difference to me if you understand Evolution or not. That talkorigins link I posted earlier has the info if you’re interested – but you probably aren’t. :stuck_out_tongue:

44

I have stated before that creationists do indeed agree that evolution is a ‘thing’, just that there are limitations. Take a look at any breed of dog and they all share the same major body features inside and out (unlike a similar comparison with other carnivorous mammals). Evolution can bring out different traits and allow some level of adaption, but don’t expect the offspring of your pooch to sprout wings one day. The concept of Macro vs. Micro is mainly there to categorize the net amount of change seen in the animal over a long period of time, no one said that Darwin himself coined them.

Also, it’s shaky at best to argue that for creationism to hold water, animals have to be completely different from each other. Chances are a person who somehow had the power to create his own animals would have each of them have similar parts simply because those parts are a proven solution at providing a certain need to the animal.

Anyway, it seems a lot of people still believe that creationists deny such ideas as dogs descending from wolves, the idea that creationism rejects all form of change within an animal as well as the idea of adaptation (with noted limitations) is simply not true.

45

Something else to bear in mind about the Theory of Evolution lies in the title of Darwin’s book: The Origin of Species.

“Kingdon … Phylum … Class … Order … Family … Genus … Species.”

(That, by the way, is the sum-total of what I learned in 7th-grade Science class.) :slight_smile:

Although we can clearly demonstrate the existence of Evolutionary processes in nature … call it a self-tuning mechanism, if you will … we also observe that animals reproduce “after their own kind.” That mating between species almost never works, and in the rare cases where it does (e.g. donkeys), the offspring is sterile. There is some kind of mechanism in place which constrains the genetic recombinations that actually lead to viable offspring. We don’t know what it is.

Darwin was knowingly engaging in a pursuit called scientific philosophy: “Thinking About Thinking™ About Science.” He explored whether the process of Evolution could be extrapolated to account for “Species,” without apparent contradiction with any other then-known science, and concluded (fairly convincingly) that it could.

But he did not, and could not, say, have said: “therefore, man came from monkeys.” Not only is that an unreasonably-far leap of faith, it’s also fairly contra-indicated by what we do see. The process of Evolution is obviously demonstrable, but it is also just-as-obviously self-constrained in some way that we really don’t understand. If he had actually speculate further than he did, he would have broken the rules of his pursuit, and his work would have been (rightly) pummeled by his peers.

Also, remember that it’s quite(!) a different thing to say, “I see no apparent contradiction with now-known science,” which is a valid conclusion, and “therefore, this is,” which is not. “I observe no reason why this could not be true” is not the same as, “this is true.”

We see the same biological self-correcting process at work when any animal (or human) “has a miscarriage.” Somehow, the pregnancy is self-aborted. We don’t necessarily know why. Sometimes we can detect that something has gone physically wrong with the physical development of the fetus, but sometimes we really have no idea. “Yet, the mechanism, being capable of self-destroying defective(?) potential-offspring, obviously is there.” Some non-human (monkey?) would have had to give birth to some non-monkey (human or proto-human?), and this would have had to continue for many generations … and to have inexorably progressed in that “direction.” We simply don’t see that in nature. In fact, we think we see the opposite.

Darwin, I think, did very good scientific work for his time. He was also a good writer and a meticulous observer and record-keeper. And, he stuck to his data. His purpose was “to speculate,” but he adhered to the rules of the game.

46

Back then though, the idea of life evolving out of a primordial soup seemed a lot more plausible. People had no idea about DNA and the genome structure and it was thought that animal cells were simple blobs of protoplasm.

Since then, we keep finding out how complex life really is (down to the molecular level), which keeps decreasing the chance that nature could’ve brought life onto the planet without any semblance of intelligence.

Also, if you really believe that each breed of a certain animal can be classified as a new species, why do we not consider an African man or a Chinese man a different species of human, why don’t we then call it the human races rather than the human race?

47

@Ace
If species evolve from parent species, one would expect similarities.

Again placing an expectation of randomization on Evolution is just a misunderstanding of the process all together. Randomization tends to be weeded out by extinction.

With emergence comes entropy and novelty. You are expecting the entropy and discounting the novelty.

48

If you mean creationists expecting evolved animals to be completely random, that’s not true. Rather, it’s more common for evolutionists to use the fact of animal designs not being completely random against creationists. It would make a ton of sense for a creator to produce similar parts to a wide array of his work simply because it works and works well (not to mention making it easier for us to understand how said things work).

And evolution is in a sense supposed to be based off of random mutations that happen to be beneficial and stick with a species indefinitely afterward. Otherwise, how could it be explained that the process of mutation knows exactly what an animal needs for an environment or to have an advantage?

And if entropy can actually decrease, why is it that among the human race at least, we continually see cases of previously unheard of genetic deformities and diseases and an increase in others? This apparent genetic decay is consistent with creationism because I am not hearing of populations getting stronger and stronger genetically that can’t be explained by things such as diet and environmental changes. Now there is indeed a way to repair genetic decay, but it’s through genetic engineering and other technology, not evolution.

49

This is from my post 36 and it is from the link i posted.
While the males are sterile, females of either hybrid are often fertile, and both ti-ligers and ti-ligons have been confirmed.

50

What I meant was; you were using that argument against Evolution because you didn’t take the time get an understanding of the process to begin with. You still don’t get it.

I would like to see evidence of decreases in entropy. I would like to see decreases in extinction. This however isn’t happening. There really is no evidence for intelligence as we think of it.

I don’t take issue with belief systems. I take issue with willful ignorance.

51

I personally have not-much time either for Creationists nor Evolutionists. Both of whom, more than anything else, simply want to “have all the answers.” Each, in their own way, just wants to Be Right.™ “Just give me a ‘pat answer,’ please.” Nothing’s really that simple, but they’re not really looking for discussion, anyway.

And, as for Entropy, we should assume that DNA-replication (like any other information handling process) is not going to be 100% accurate nor successful. Therefore, there exist some kind of error-detection and correction process, operating on both a micro- and a macro-level. We can demonstrate that evolutionary processes do exist … that they are fact … and yet, we just don’t know why nor where the process (self-)stops. Entropy would likely be recognized as an error, and dealt with as such.

On the one hand, there is a seemingly-limitless variety of “life on Earth,” but on the other hand, the only modifications to those varieties that we have ever witnessed are: species. Why? No one knows, and “billions and billions” to me is hand-waving. I see nothing to suggest that the self-correction process would ever shut down, let alone produce another viable form-of-life, if it did. No matter how much time was assumed to have passed. “The passage of (suitably vast amounts of …) time” does not seem to me to be “the magic elixir.”

52

Evolution and creation are one in the same when correcting for the context. Viewing natural systems as unintelligent physical systems leads to the perception that biological systems evolve. Viewing natural systems as living systems leads to the perception that biological systems were created by an intelligent bulk. The choice of either really has no bearing on the efficacy of humanity in a naturalist sense. There is nothing unnatural about settling into a niche or advancing with scientific understanding. Breadth of understanding has a degree of accuracy. Truth is relative.

53

Difference being, one is based on science, and one is not… makes a whole world of difference, you know. Of course we all want to be right, but one side choses to close themselves in between the covers of a book (the bible), while the other does the heavy lifting in the field or in the lab. One starts with the conclusion, and tries to fit the evidence, the other starts with the evidence and then form a conclusion. To say that evolutionary biologists are not looking for a discussion is just silly.

Well, yeah, it´s called meiosis, or sexual reproduction. Combining two genepools goes a long way to correcting deviations, but there are still going to be errors that propagate. The process you´re referring to does not “stop”. it´s just not foolproof, and that´s the simple answer.

Here we go with the “hand-waving” again:rolleyes: Please qualify why billions of years is hand-waving. Like I said before, the answer is simply that the self-correction process is not foolproof. Tiny changes slip through and propagate, and that you don´t think billions of years is enough time for these small changes to accumulate to bigger changes is an argument from incredulity, and nothing more. I mean, ignoring the obvious progression from simple to advanced life in the fossil record, doesn´t exactly suggest an open mind on the matter…

54

@BrilliantApe

“Difference being, one is based on science, and one is not… makes a whole world of difference, you know. Of course we all want to be right, but one side choses to close themselves in between the covers of a book (the bible), while the other does the heavy lifting in the field or in the lab. One starts with the conclusion, and tries to fit the evidence, the other starts with the evidence and then form a conclusion. To say that evolutionary biologists are not looking for a discussion is just silly”.

If you are referring to professor Dawkins, your wrong. He’s not looking for a conversation. He’s selling Evolution with a polemic. If you’re referring to the bulk of scientists, then you have a point.

Humans tend to truncate and cherry pick data. We begin with methodologies that are un-scientific and then use science to support them. We do this frequently. It’s rooted in the manner in which cognition naturally occurs within us. We are naturally dogmatic. Until our emergence, biological systems filled niches. This entropy that heightened awareness likely is, has yet to normalize into novelty. We are behaving as though it has already done so when we judge the system and ourselves by common usage of rational inquiry. The expectation that the scientific method be the central dogma of humanity is a great expectation by human nature alone. Nature has provided us a choice as to whether or not we advance with science. Science is more likely the extinction of humanity through non-evolutionary development than a consequence of evolutionary development. It seems that the propagation of biological systems may be much more interesting than our theories can provide for.

I wouldn’t say that Evolution is not the best explanation of biological development to date. I do however doubt that it will be the only game in the near future.

Our unique awareness changes everything. It has shocked the overarching systems.

55

I think it was fairly obvious I meant evolutionary biologists as a group. And when I say discussion, I mean a scientific one, of course (ruling out creationism/ID, or whatever they call it these days).

Sure, good then that Darwin didn´t go on his journey on the Beagle with the preconcieved notion that life had evolved, but was convinced of the fact from what he there saw, and then spent decades of research before publishing his findings, in fear of being proven wrong. I´m sure he cherry-picked alot… I do understand your point (some new-age mumbo jumbo apart) about dogmatism, but I welcome you to find an alternative method that is more successful than science.

Yeah, I wouldn´t hold my breath if I were you…

56

Show me one paradigm that hasn’t changed to the point that it is no longer recognizable. Technologies are allowing us to get beyond our neurological limitations and develop more concise models of systems. ID will be the origin of the AI. It is what it is and dogma is dogma, no matter who regurgitates it.

Darwin did cherry pick and he did fall prey to dogma. The first draft of Natural Selection was competition based and justified the class system of the time that allowed him to sign his name to someone elses engine. He had second thoughts about this in his later works where he realized that Natural Selection was more cooperative.

You’re getting defensive for the reasons that I have described.

[Edit] BTW Evolution came before Darwin. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection was Darwins’ work which an understudy provided the engine for.

57

Both sides do science, but both sides do it from a different point of view, evolutionists go out with a strong impression that their research will only confirm their overall theory (I mean, they believe there is no debate so every discovery will prove evolution by default) and creationists go out and do it from the point of view that everything has been created. The early scientists in the 1600’s had no problem making their ground-breaking discoveries from the perspective of glorifying their creator.

Also, it’s a patently false statement to say it’s just the creationists who are closed-minded, there are many cases in universities where creationists are bullied and harassed even by their professors just because of their belief. For those in the faculty, there is more or less a specific rule enforced by some universities that their scientific findings cannot allow the possibility of an intelligence behind what we know as nature. Even Richard Dawkins has once said to a large crowd that they should reject civility in such discussions and instead belittle and verbally attack those who disagree.

58

Not sure what all this talk about paradigm has to do with the theory of evolution. I´m not sure you understand

  1. How much evidence there is in support for the theory of evolution (and here I mean the basic premise of the theory, that change in traits over time is responsible for the diversity of life) and
  2. How strong that evidence is

This is why I say that there´s not likely to be a competing theory. The existing theory has, will, and should evolve to accomodate for new data. If there were dogma involved, we would still accept Darwin´s word as law. We don´t. The “dogma” that life evolved from a common ancestor is not accepted as true because someone said so, it is accepted because it´s an idea that has passed every single test thrown at it. I repeat, every test. That´s how science is done. Again, do you have any viable alternative to the scientific theory or are we going to have another “just you wait and see”-moment?

And yes, I´m very aware of Erasmus Darwin, Lamarck and Malthus. No scientist lives in a vacuum.

Anyway, I feel that this discussion is basically an iteration of pointless what-ifs so I´m out. Have a good weekend, guys! :slight_smile:

59

Honestly Ace, it´s friday, so I´ll let you have the last word. Have a great weekend! :slight_smile:

60

Personally, I’m just waiting for all this evidence of a creator I keep hearing about. Once we gather all that data and confirm there is in fact a creator, we can then attempt to find evidence for the creator of that creator and so forth.
Oh but wait, it doesn’t work like that does it? The argument only goes so far for creationists at which point they begin to special plead that there just cannot be a creator of their creator which just goes to show you it’s all dogmatism otherwise they would be whole-heartedly willing to try to find evidence of their creator’s creator or at the very least be open to the idea that it’s only logical(using creationist logic) that there would be a creator of their creator.
Honest and objective they are not. But i guess you don’t need to be when you start your ‘scientific’ journey with a conclusion already in-hand.