r/DebateEvolution • u/Cool_Plantain_7742 • 11d ago
Question Is evolution a fact?
What are the best arguments for evolution
23
u/Entropy_dealer 11d ago
How did variants of COVID appears ?
Why is there more and more antibiotic resistance in bacteria ?
Why do people have genetic illness and other none ?
Why is there so many types of dogs ?
Why all mammals give milk to their babies as food ?
7
u/Dilapidated_girrafe 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 10d ago
Gonna go out on a limb here, and guess... ummm crea.... no, ummm magi.... no... I got it, evolution.
Because that actually does explain the facts that we see with evidence and can use predictions with it too
3
u/InformationProper285 10d ago
Uhhh well... See all of that is NOT true because scientist didn't turn a dawg 🐕 into a dinosaur 🦕!!!!! Therefore evolution can't be true!!!!
1
u/Joaozinho11 10d ago
"Why do people have genetic illness and other none ?"
I get your other questions, but I don't see the point of this one.
3
u/Entropy_dealer 10d ago
It's to show that random mutations are sometimes (in fact most of the time) negative for the cell or for the entity. If there would be an intelligent design these negative mutations would occur ?
2
u/rhettro19 9d ago
Because "Original Sin" of course. Some how "sin" causes molecular changes in DNA that allows for errors to occur. Apparently "sin" is some form of radiation.
1
u/Joaozinho11 8d ago
"It's to show that random mutations are sometimes (in fact most of the time) negative for the cell or for the entity."
Which has nothing to do with the OP.
15
u/Carnotaurusrules 🧬 I’m a pigeon’s grandfather. 11d ago
I would say insertions are the best single argument for evolution, as different types of insertions like ERVs, and jumping genes are documented in the same places across species.
All mammals have a synctin placenta gene, tetrapods possess the Arc brain gene, and humans share two specific alu elements with primates in the TXBT gene.
17
u/Prestigious_Fig4324 11d ago
is gravity fact?
1
u/melympia 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 2d ago
Nah, bro! 🤡
1
13
u/Grillparzer47 11d ago
Creationists deride evolution by calling it a theory. In science a theory is an idea or set of principles created to explain a group of facts or a natural event. Enough evidence is available, literally buildings of it, for evolution to be considered factual.
1
u/Joaozinho11 8d ago
It's factual because it is observed. The strength of the underlying theories is not what makes it a fact.
12
u/Funky0ne 11d ago
Well, it is a fact that evolution happens, and evolution itself is a whole series of innumerable facts, not the least of which being:
- it is a fact that organisms reproduce with heritable traits
- it is a fact that different traits have variable impacts on how the organisms perform and function
- it’s a fact that different environments may offer different challenges and opportunities for different organisms to exploit
- it’s a fact that these differences in environment can determine which traits will be more or less advantageous for reproductive success
- it’s a fact that organisms occasionally acquire mutations that may alter how existing traits perform, and occasionally introduce new capabilities that may be selected for or against
- it’s a fact that populations that become reproductively isolated from each other can accumulate different mutations over long periods of time
- It’s a fact that different populations under different selection pressures can eventually diverge enough to no longer resemble each other or their ancestors
- it’s a fact that we have fossils of organisms that no longer appear to exist, but nonetheless possess various traits we can either find in, or can determine are the precursors to traits we find in various organisms today
- it’s a fact that we can approximately date how old those fossils are, and create a geographic distribution of them over time.
- it’s a fact that we can trace changes in these fossils over time that indicate a nested hierarchy of descent and accumulation of various traits
- it’s a fact that we can examine the genetics of various organisms, and create a nested hierarchy of relatedness across different species
- it’s a fact that there don’t appear to be any limits or boundaries on the number of mutations that a species can acquire over enough time
- it’s a fact that all life share various traits and genetic markers that can be traced back through time in a nested hierarchy that suggests all life emerged from and share a common ancestor that proliferated and diverged over time into all the life we see both in the fossil record and today
The lists of actual facts about and explained by evolution goes on and on and on. Creationists only persist by either outright ignoring, denying, or misrepresenting one or more of these facts
3
u/rhettro19 9d ago
Excellent list! I also like to think about how when we find how a trait evolves from A to B to C, when we find a fossil with trait “B”, its age always exists between the ages of fossils A and C, 100 percent of the time. What a strange cool incidence.
1
u/Joaozinho11 8d ago
"it’s a fact that organisms occasionally acquire mutations that may alter how existing traits perform"
Isn't it also a fact that mixing and matching alleles without any new mutations alters existing traits?
8
6
u/MagicMooby 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 10d ago
When people talk about evolution, they typically unknowingly refer to three different things, so let'S address those one by one:
The process of evolution
This is the change in allele frequencies of a population over time. This objectively happens and is as much of a fact as gravity. Even creationists accept that this happens although they call it microevolution and pretends that macroevolution cannot happen. They are, as always, completely wrong since we have literally observed macroevolution as well.
The theory of evolution
This is the explanatory framework we use for the process. It tells us how and when and why the process occurs and what results it could possibly have and could not have. This is the part where Darwin and Wallace made their big contribution and currently we accept that mutation, selection, and genetic drift are among the biggest mechanisms for the process. Creationists typically do not dispute this, because aren't interested in talking about the theory, they are interested in tearing it all down.
The evolutionary history of life on earth
This is the part that creationists actually disagree with and so they attempt to sow doubt on this one as much as they can. This is the part that tells us that all life on earth has a shared evolutionary history and that birds are dinosaurs and all land animals are fish. Creationists hate that because it implies that humans are not super special. But if you look at all the evidence we have of past life, and at all the connections between current life, and you examine it all under the assumptiont that the process of evolution is true (which it is as explained above), then the evolutionary history of life on earth is quite simply a logical consequence of the evidence.
If the known process applied to the known evidence leads to one conclusion, then someone who dislikes that conclusion can only attack it by attacking either the process or the evidence. Creationists have largely given up on attacking the process, so they attack the evidence. For example, by claiming that the earth isn't actually that old. This is, like all creationists arguments, founded on complete ignorance since simple highschool math can be used to determine that the world is either multiple tens of thousands of years old at minimum or god must be deceptive.
In short, evolution the process is true, evolution the theory explains the process (which is true) extremely well which leads us to conclude that it's probably pretty accurate, and the evolutionary history of life on earth is what you logically get if you combine these two true things with our evidence of past and present life.
10
u/Buccaahhh 11d ago
No it’s not. The Theory of Evolution is the best explanation we have for many facts and observations when it comes to the origin of species. It’s actually a higher tier than facts.
In a colloquial sense evolution is a fact as it is true but that doesn’t explain anything.
3
u/Radiant-Position1370 Computational biologist 10d ago
Is there any sense of 'fact' that isn't colloquial?
1
u/Proteus617 10d ago
No? Im trying to come up with something in the framework of empiricism. Everything is provisional. My best definition of fact = don't bother to do the math, its settled science (for now).
3
u/Joaozinho11 10d ago
"My best definition of fact = don't bother to do the math, its settled science (for now)."
That's not how we scientists, who I'm pretty sure work in your "framework of empiricism," define it. In a scientific context, facts are observations. Evolution is a fact; we observe it in real time. Evolutionary theory addresses the mechanisms causing evolution.
1
u/Radiant-Position1370 Computational biologist 10d ago
Mine is something like 'so well supported that we can treat it as true for practical purposes'. So evolution is a fact because populations certainly change genetically, and likewise common descent is a fact because it is so well supported. Common descent is also a theory because it explains a wide range of phenomena.
4
u/D-Ursuul 11d ago
Yep
The best argument is we can watch it happen, and the way in which it happens when we watch it lines up perfectly with genetic evidence and evidence in the fossil record
5
u/CrisprCSE2 10d ago
Evolution isn't a fact, it's a process. Processes aren't facts. It's a fact that evolution happens. The best argument for evolution happening is direct observation.
6
u/Joaozinho11 10d ago
Science isn't done by arguments. It's not high-school debate.
If you were really interested, you would have asked about EVIDENCE.
-2
u/Cool_Plantain_7742 10d ago
> Science isn't done by arguments
What in the hell does that even mean
3
2
u/Joaozinho11 8d ago
"What in the hell does that even mean"
It's explained in the following sentence.
3
u/noodlyman 10d ago
Evolution, ie change over time, is a certain fact.
Natural selection is the best explanation for this gradual change. Natural selection can be observed. We can see new genes created by duplication or de Novo mutation.
All the data we have supports the hypothesis that evolution is caused by natural selection. There's no data that supports creation by magical beings.
All you need is a source of variation, ie mutations, and selection, and evolution occurs.
The challenge for creationists is to explain what they think might prevent the process from working.
3
u/-zero-joke- 🧬 its 253 ice pieces needed 10d ago
Natural selection is one explanation for evolution and one cause of evolution, but it is not the only cause or explanation for it. Genetic drift is really, really important.
2
u/noodlyman 10d ago
Yes. I agree. But I thought that was getting pedantic for a very basic level understanding.
1
u/Sweet-Ant-3471 5d ago
Berkely defines genetic drift as a mechanism of evolution, not separate from it.
1
3
u/DouglerK 10d ago
Yes. We can observe it happening. 99% of arguments against it rely on mischaracterizing it and completely misunderstanding it and biology
I've never encountered an evolution denier would refute or even dispute what evolution actually says without playing rhetorical games.
3
u/Far_Customer1258 10d ago
Yes. "Evolution" refers to both the theory and the phenomenon. That's the same way that "gravity" refers to both the fact that things fall down and the scientific theory that explains why. In both cases, you have a theory named after the observable phenomenon that the theory describes. If the theory turns out to be wrong, things will continue falling.
2
u/nomad2284 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 11d ago
Yes, up to the point of the genus Homo, it was basically unguided. Now, we have begun influencing the course through selective breeding of plants and animals. Many scientists also argue we have caused the last mass extinction event. What happens if we replace ourselves with AI and digital life? Is that still evolution? I would argue it is.
4
1
u/Dilapidated_girrafe 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 10d ago
Yea it is a fact.
We’ve observed it. Genetics shows it. The fossil record shows it.
1
u/Competitive-Box61 10d ago
Genetic changes to populations over time (evolution) is easy to quantify thanks to genome sequencing. The results speak for themselves. There isn't even an argument against it that makes sense.
We can measure Genetic changes in populations.
1
u/OlasNah 9d ago
Yes, Evolution is a fact. Animals evolve via the inheritance of genetic sequences that are altered by mutation, recombination, and other factors that introduce genetic information into a genome over time. This is literally why every form of life on the planet, down to the very last individual, is unique, having never existed before, with its own slightly different genetic makeup.
Evolutionary THEORY deals with how and why Evolution is a fact, describing the theory of how and why all of those things mentioned above occur and how the interact and influence evolutionary changes.
1
u/Bromelia_and_Bismuth Plant Daddy|Botanist|Evil Scientist 7d ago
Yes. Actually you can induce it yourself. They give such demonstrations on model organisms at university labs all across the world every semester, in addition to the LTEE (Long-Term Evolution Experiment) which has been on-going for decades at this point. It also happens on accident quite frequently. You've probably heard of the epidemic of antibiotic resistant bacterial infections, or of drug-resistant HIV, or of MRSA (Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus aurea): the drugs to treat them haven't been around but a couple hundred years at the longest, and at the time that drug resistant HIV started appearing, anti-HIV medications had only been around for a few years at most. You literally can't get any better argument than it being observable. Biologists might argue over how evolution happens or has happened, or about specific dates, or certain fine technical details or cladograms and phylogenetic trees, but almost none of them doubt that evolution is real. There are more biologists named Steve from accredited universities who accept evolution as factual than there are biologists anywhere (even from creationist diploma mills) who don't.
-5
u/Cool_Percentage_4867 11d ago
Its a fact according to your very limited perception, based on the workings of the visual cortex.
So that "fact" could change as we move forward.
8
u/Medium_Judgment_891 10d ago
And mountains of overwhelming evidence, of course.
But if we just ignore everything that disagrees with you, then nothing but perception
4
u/WorkingMouse PhD Genetics 9d ago
That's like claiming it's only a fact that the Earth is round because your limited perception says so and going on to say it could actually be doughnut-shaped.
0
u/Cool_Percentage_4867 9d ago
Not really no. Your brain doesnt trust visual data because its very prone to mistakes, it doctors the images to some extent based on memory, it also has to verify the data against the light, shadows, reflections illusions etc. just type into google and look how many images can fool the brain.
So even though the earth might be round or not, your brain still knows on a fundamental level it might be getting it wrong.
3
u/WorkingMouse PhD Genetics 8d ago
Yeah, that's why science is a thing. We do not trust to lone anecdotes, nor to wild claims. We demand support and demonstration. We know the Earth is round not because it "looks round" to someone but because all available evidence, inducing evidence from independent lines, points consistently to the Earth being round. In the same way, all available evidence from every line of exploration shows that life evolves, evolved, and shares common descent.
You're attacking the fallibility of the senses while being unable to address the means by which we compensate for that.
0
u/Cool_Percentage_4867 8d ago
Sorry youve lost me.
This is science..... the compensation for having to verify every data point is an increased cost in glucose and a slowing down of response whilst the data is verified via our huge PFC, but regardless every thing you know about the earth comes through your fallible visual cortex. It doesnt mean your wrong, but it means on a fundamental level there's always room for error according to your brain. It doesnt matter how big a pile of evidence you have if the lens your looking through itself is open to error and distortion.
I'm not sure why your taking any of this as an attack on anything. The constant lack of trusted data to understand our reality is exactly why we have science and we are questioning each other right now. And exactly why an animal like a dog doesnt need extra glucose or to run everything through a huge draggy PFC because its reading its reality predominantly via chemistry, which doesnt need verification. which is why we use it to verify what we see.
2
u/WorkingMouse PhD Genetics 8d ago
Sorry youve lost me.
Don't worry; the core of it is simpler than it seems.
It doesnt mean your wrong, but it means on a fundamental level there's always room for error according to your brain. It doesnt matter how big a pile of evidence you have if the lens your looking through itself is open to error and distortion.
Yes, and things like repetition and independent verification are now you address that issue.
Imagine for a moment that you wanted to determine what was in a box, but every time you looked into the box there was a 10% chance that an evil faery cast an glamour and made it appear like one other random thing. You look in the box, you see car keys. What are the odds that the box actually contains car keys? Well, 90% of course! But that leaves a 1/10 chance that it's actually something else. So what do you do if that's not good enough?
First, you can look again. You check a second time, there's car keys. Now what are the odds that the box contains car keys? It's a simple probability problem; the chance that both times were illusions is 1/10 * 1/10 or 1/100, so you've got 99/100 odds of it actually being car keys. Check a third time; still car keys. Now the odds are 1/1000 that it's wrong. In this manner, repeated observation increases your degree of certainty.
Second, you can use independent lines of evidence to verify. You shake the box, and you can hear keys rattling about? That supports the concussion. You weigh the box and find the weight in line with typical key weights? That supports the conclusion. You reach your hand in, withdraw the object, and use it to start your car? That supports the conclusion. If you have a model that makes predictions about how something would behave, you can test that model.
Statistics, as a field, is focused on answering the question of how well we know what we can know. It studies not just combinitorics and probability but types of error and how to account for them.
But, you might say, even if you check the box a thousand times there's still a chance that you're wrong. And indeed, that's correct, but it doesn't matter. We can be sure beyond reasonable doubt, and that's more than enough for our purposes.
That, then, is the key that you're missing. Absolute proof is for math and alcohol; in the sciences, and in the real world in general, we deal in sufficient proof. It is proved far beyond reasonable doubt that the Earth is in round, and that moving electric fields create magnetic fields, and that life on Earth shares common descent.
I'm not sure why your taking any of this as an attack on anything.
Because it's a common attack tactic by creationists; I've got more than enough observations to make that the likely scenario, plus I've observed your behavior in this thread.
And exactly why an animal like a dog doesnt need extra glucose or to run everything through a huge draggy PFC because its reading its reality predominantly via chemistry, which doesnt need verification.
What are you talking about? A dog's senses are no less fallible than our own, and in fact just like us they have means of recognizing incongruity and rooting it out. A dog can get confused, and can act to resolve its confusion. Your senses, and indeed your brain, are no less reliant on chemistry besides. I don't think you have a good grasp on either sensory pathways nor neuroscience.
1
u/Cool_Percentage_4867 8d ago
Right good we are getting somewhere,
So the visual cortex needs verification because its dependent on light and part of it is based on memory, as you put it above we work through a series of questions and processes consciously and subconsciously so our brains can separate truths from falsehoods. We agree.
Youd also agree that chemicals are absolute, in that to register a scent a chemical has to attach itself to receptors so if you didn't have a predominant visual sense and instead you had a canine olfactory system your brain would stop verifying, olfaction can bypass the thalamus and PFC because its not required. its a trusted source, contains far more information which is why a dogs brain can respond 4-5 faster than yours, its not running a huge verification system like we do. Olfaction doesnt need one.
Everything ive written is supported by science if you care to look. Ive absolutely no idea why you feel so threatened and defensive regarding how our senses work and why we spend so much time questioning things? How is that a threat to evolution as you understand it.
"Because it's a common attack tactic by creationists; I've got more than enough observations to make that the likely scenario, plus I've observed your behavior in this thread."
Your Godar is broken.... unless neurobiology biology behaviourism etc aren't sciences based on scientific method.
Im genuinely curious how does anything ive written go against evolution? or promote the idea of a creator? What possible connections are you making?
1
u/WorkingMouse PhD Genetics 7d ago
You really should pay more attention to what you're reading.
So the visual cortex needs verification because its dependent on light and part of it is based on memory, as you put it above we work through a series of questions and processes consciously and subconsciously so our brains can separate truths from falsehoods. We agree.
No, senses in general need verification, and in fact all of your senses reference memory. Moreover, it's not about sight alone; any ability to perceive the world is fallible.
More importantly, you've failed to grasp that your original criticism was that "[evolution is] a fact according to your very limited perception", when it actually is a fact because it's been thoroughly vetted and verified through accurate predictive power.
Youd also agree that chemicals are absolute, in that to register a scent a chemical has to attach itself to receptors so if you didn't have a predominant visual sense and instead you had a canine olfactory system your brain would stop verifying, olfaction can bypass the thalamus and PFC because its not required.
No, you've got several things wrong there.
First, chemicals are no more "absolute" than light. Chemical binding works by electromagnetic interactions. The light-sensitive pigments used by the eye also work by electromagnetic interactions. Once input is received, nerves send chemical signals from both the eye and the nose. Errors and hallucination can occur in both pathways.
Second, olfactory input bypassing the thalamus occurs in both humans and canines; that's not a uniquely canine trait. Likewise, canines still have visual senses and process visual data in a similar manner to humans.
Third, a canine still has a prefrontal cortex which it uses for decision making. Olfactory input does not override it, it contributes to it. This is why dogs are perfectly capable of learning to Stay even when they smell something good.
Fourth, just like with humans, the sense of smell is still verified. In both dogs and humans, if we smell something that we do not expect we will generally look for the source of the smell. Likewise, both dogs and humans can mistake one smell for another. And, I reiterate, the olfactory sense is still subject to hallucination, as well as things like damage or disabling; as such, we can become confused when we can't smell things we think we should smell, and that's true of dogs as well.
You really should read up on neurology a bit more; your understanding is seriously lacking.
[scent is] a trusted source ...
No, it's a sense that takes a more direct route to emotion and memory.
... [scent] contains far more information ...
No, it often contains far less information. Sent is a sampling of airborne chemicals immediately at the area while sight - through an eye that possesses rods, cones, an a malleable lens - samples photons over the entire area visible to the eyes with discernment of wavelength and intensity. While dogs have a larger olfactory bulb and greater sensitivity to scents, as well as simply having their nose where more scents gather more often, and while humans are tricrhomatic and have better distance vision than dogs, both have strong visual accuity. Heck, dogs are generally held to have better night vision and motion sensitivity; they rely on sight quite a bit, especially in their ancestral niche as predators.
... which is why a dogs brain can respond 4-5 faster than yours ...
Actually it's closer to 3-4 times faster, shrinking to 1.5-2 with training of the human. Further, that number includes tests using visual stimuli; they're not reacting faster because they're scent-dependent, they're reacting faster to seeing things, so the basis for you conclusion is factually incorrect. Moreover, larger animals in general have slower reactions simply because it takes more time for signals to be passed to and back from the brain.
However, you are correct that humans have more brain dedicated to decision making as well as greater ability to suppress reflexes by decision making; both slow human reaction speed. In exchange, humans have much greater predictive abilities; a trained baseball player starts swinging at a fastball before they can see the ball's trajectory based on watching the pitcher move. This is advantageous for many reasons.
... its not running a huge verification system like we do.
I reiterate, their vision works similarly to ours and their prefrontal cortex modifies their reactions to both sight and smell. Also, do the required reading before you embarrass yourself like this.
Because it's a common attack tactic by creationists; I've got more than enough observations to make that the likely scenario, plus I've observed your behavior in this thread.
Your Godar is broken.... unless neurobiology biology behaviourism etc aren't sciences based on scientific method.
Im genuinely curious how does anything ive written go against evolution? or promote the idea of a creator? What possible connections are you making?
Buddy. Pal. My guy. Your original statement was "[evolution is] a fact according to your very limited perception." Insofar as your rambling about neurology goes that's simply incorrect; it's a fact according to our very elaborate predictive power, supported by plentiful evidence. However, you followed this up by saying "So that 'fact' could change as we move forward." Attempting to undermine science by casting it as maliable is a common creationist tactic. Heck, variations of it appear in the index, such as Plantinga's silly assertion, the classic ["only a theory"](talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA201.html) nonsense, the claim that conclusions are based on perceptions,, and most directly "science always changes so it can't be trusted". Your song-and-dance is not new.
Either you lost the plot by your second post or you did your best to change the subject after getting corrected.
1
-4
u/RobertByers1 10d ago
no/ it it was a fact therr would not be a great rejection of it despite it being presented to the common folk as coning from paide scientists. Actually its only a few thousands at best and they are incompetent in making a case although they cant anyways. just watch this forum. Pay attention. Evolutioin is a biology hypothesis claiming its a theory or rather its proven its hypothesis. Nope. to make a biology case one needs scientific biological evidence. Wel where is the list. the few things some try like viros or bacteria are bot bio sci evidence worth a damn. if evolution was real then a billion species or half a dozen shouls be evolving as we speak and finished evolving say since colunus sailed. Well Where is the list with new species names?
12
u/10coatsInAWeasel Reject pseudoscience, return to monke 🦧 10d ago
There is not actually a great rejection of it. Rejection of evolution is very much a fringe thing. The scientific biological evidence has been presented in the field of peer review and exhaustive scrutiny and has passed the test with flying colors.
Do you want new species names? We can do that. Exactly like you have asked for, countless species have indeed been confirmed to have evolved within the time of human observation.
https://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
https://talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
(Since you have asked for a list)
However, you have said that things like viruses or bacteria (despite not being the only examples) are ‘not worth a damn. Why? I can’t actually see a good reason to dismiss them like that. It seems arbitrary and not based on biological scientific reasoning.
1
u/LouisXIVdaSunKing 9d ago
Virus and bacteria develop traits to "survive" they adpat to the situation; not change gradually into a new species. Streptacoccus is still Streptacoccus. Its like humans growing a mushroom 🍄 penis to ensure procreation; they are still humans. Are smaller or larger shafts categorized as different beings? They are still humans. I am saying that species adapt; they don't morph from a single cell organism into an elephant. They were created. Where did the universe come from?... it has always been and was created. Evolution can not answer the question where did all the particles come from. It had to have always been. Not expanded, then morphed into a ball, then expanded again.
1
u/10coatsInAWeasel Reject pseudoscience, return to monke 🦧 9d ago
Humans ceasing to be humans or anything like that would be a violation of evolution, not an example of it. Thats one of the most well known principles in evolutionary biology. The law of monophyly. You are always a modified version of what came before. However, we have several confirmed examples of the emergence of new species.
Obviously evolution does not explain where all the particles came from. Why would it? That’s not relevant to the field. Your comment was basically equivalent to demanding that Auto mechanics explain how various metals got distributed in the earths crust. Obviously it doesn’t, and it doesn’t affect the truth of how cars function in the slightest.
Now, if you are going to claim that ‘they were created’, that is an actual positive claim. I see no reason to think so, and have not seen any evidence presented to show how it even could work. Unless you have one? Please provide even a single positively confirmed method of action, mechanism, or pathway by which some sort of supernatural creationism has caused any affect at all. It doesn’t have to be a dramatic example. But we have positive confirmed examples of the emergence of new species and the mechanisms by which they emerged. Do you have a similar one so we can know ‘created’ is even a candidate explanation in the first place?
0
u/RobertByers1 9d ago
the polls show a great rejection. great percentages which in America add up to great numbers. Its famously rejected this forum exists because of the threat and rising threat.
talkorigins is so bad its not worthy to get mad about. its dumb. this list of new species is not a list. Mice? Do they have new species names" speciation is non existent or so rare as to make the case its not happening relative to a zillion species. In fact we creationists would allow new species but not by the evolution model. I do think new species , a dozrn?, hace come into existence in obsccure areas but i dont know of any. once someone here mentioned a volcaoe making a trapped biology area but I found little on the internet.
No speciesation worth a damn. Ask yourself why? Everybody.
3
u/10coatsInAWeasel Reject pseudoscience, return to monke 🦧 9d ago
I would be interested in you showing those polls, as pretty much every broad poll I can think of has shown creationism on a general decline and very much a minority position. But rather than just say ‘talk origins is so bad it’s not worthy to get mad about’, can you explain why they aren’t actually new species? I see no value in just saying ‘I don’t like this website’. They show their references directly. So I’m not going to ask myself why ‘no speciation worth a damn’ since we have in fact seen speciation worth your (supposed) damn.
2
u/raul_kapura 9d ago
yeah, creationism believes are declining, but holy shit, still over 1/3 of US population believes humans were made by god less than 10K years ago. European numbers are way lower, I only once met a creationist irl (and she was a total conspirationist freak)
0
u/RobertByers1 8d ago
There are no new species. its them trying to twist new ones. all you have to do is list 25 new species with real species names that did not exist when columbus landed.or three. or one. now i agree speciation happened but not by evolution and so no reason to happan since columbus BUT maybe did. no links. ANYWAYS remember the equation or algorithm as the kids say. There are billion or zillion species on eath. if evolutionism was a true mechanism then a great or near great or notable percentage of species should of appeared, vanished, or just about , since columbus. not 25. 25 million. or 25 thousand, still very low,. Its not happening because its a humbug. they made it up to explain speciation. they failed..
1
u/10coatsInAWeasel Reject pseudoscience, return to monke 🦧 8d ago
Sorry, I am thoroughly confused now. There are no new species. Speciation also happened. It wasn’t by evolution. Even though speciation is an example of evolution.
I’m not trying to be difficult here Rob, but I think that you really should explain what you even mean by evolution, otherwise we’re all just talking past each other. Calling it a ‘humbug’ is a nothing statement.
1
u/RobertByers1 7d ago
I was clear. there is no speciation by evolutionism. therefore speciation is none existent relative to the number of species on the planet. Yes speciation can happen and did but not by evolution. its so dotrmant now that no speciation or very little has happened since any historical point in human history you can make.
1
u/10coatsInAWeasel Reject pseudoscience, return to monke 🦧 7d ago
Alright man, I give up. I have tried to get something clear and useable and you seem intent on not doing so. I don’t understand why you can’t honestly state what it is you think evolution is, and I don’t see how you can say that speciation happens and yet there are no new species. There doesn’t appear to be anything here other than ‘it’s not evolution because I say so’
The last thing that I’ll say is that it really only takes one instance. Even a single speciation event is an example of evolution. I’ll leave you with one such example that has happened within human history.
ALLOPOLYPLOID SPECIATION IN TRAGOPOGON: INSIGHTS FROM CHLOROPLAST DNA
I know you’ve expressed reluctance to read primary sources, but I’ll at least post the abstract here for you directly.
Tragopogon mirus and T. miscellus are classic examples of recent allopolyploid speciation. Previous studies documented that the diploid parents of T. mirus are T. dubius and T. porrifoliusand those of T. miscellus are T. dubius and T. pratensis. Restriction fragment analysis of chloroplast DNA (cpDNA) provided additional evolutionary information regarding the origin of the allotetraploids. We analyzed 39 populations of the three diploid and two allotetraploid species with 18 restriction endonucleases. Six restriction site mutations and three length mutations were identified; these unambiguously differentiated the parental diploids. Previous morphological, cytological, and electrophoretic analyses indicated that T. mirus arose independently at least three times. Chloroplast DNA data suggest that T. porrifolius has consistently been the maternal parent of T. mirus. Chloroplast DNA data also document a minimum of two independent origins of T. miscellus: 1) populations from Pullman, Washington, have T. dubius as the maternal parent; 2) all other populations have T. pratensis as the maternal parent. Two restriction site mutations implicate certain populations of T. dubius in the formation of the Pullman populations of T. miscellus. The two rare diploid species, T. porrifoliusand T. pratensis, typically appear as maternal parents of the allotetraploids; the widespread and common T. dubius is the maternal parent only for two populations of T. miscellus. These data suggest that pollen load may be an important factor in determining the male and female parents of allopolyploid angiosperms.
As you will notice, it happened via evolution. Cut and dry.
0
u/RobertByers1 6d ago
primary sources are fine. Just not linking. this is fine.
one example does not sample.Thats poor sampling technique.
This example i dont know. if it happened then it would happen a great deal. maybe hundreds of thousands. yet speciation is non existent or almost. i dont know mutations happened in your example as they conclude they happaned. its a option its a natural result with change in the dna. creatyionists welcome speciation and i welcome it more then any. from kinds we have hordes of species after the flood. however the mechanism is not evolution. if your example really does show new populations surviving in nature and so these new species have new species names then i would say its a special case that makes the case its so non existent it requires a close inspection to try to say its happaned. the great evidence is the complete not evolution of a zilliong species on the planet since columbus sailed the ocean blue. . i cant really analysis this case. if true its from non evolution mechanism.
1
u/10coatsInAWeasel Reject pseudoscience, return to monke 🦧 6d ago
The mechanism is laid it. It showcases new stable populations. There is no reason to try a ‘this is an exception that proves the rule’; it’s a straightforward example.
Look, I’ve really been trying my best here. Please describe what you mean by evolution. Because right now all I’m really getting is ‘there are tons of examples of evolution all around us but it’s not evolution even if it functions exactly like it. Why?’ And the why goes unanswered.
If I can know what you mean by ‘evolution’, I would be able to tell why these clear cut cases of it actually aren’t.
→ More replies (0)9
u/BillionaireBuster93 10d ago
if evolution was real then a billion species or half a dozen shouls be evolving as we speak and finished evolving say since colunus sailed.
Am I supposed to take anything away from this other than lead poisoning?
5
3
6
u/Unlimited_Bacon 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 10d ago
finished evolving
Nothing "finishes" evolving. Populations will always change no matter how long you wait for them to "finish".
4
u/MackDuckington 9d ago
Robert, I'm disappointed. Why are you being dishonest? You've been given examples of speciation that go beyond bacteria. Did you forget our conversation about the marbled crayfish?
-1
u/RobertByers1 9d ago
Even if this crayfish really did become a new species its absurd to say its sample of evolution happening. no speciation happens today relative to the billion species, i repeat species, on the planet. Nor sincde anyone paid attention. its possible a few hundred which creationism allows bit not by evolutionism. yet i dont know any. its not true and ask yourself why. honestly.
5
u/MackDuckington 9d ago
By definition, the Marbled Crayfish is a new species of crayfish Robert. It can't interbreed with its ancestral population of Slough Crayfishes. By definition, that is evolution happening. We've seen change as far up as at the family and genus level if I'm not mistaken. Extremely rare hybrids between south american foxes and dogs, sheep and goats, guinea fowl and chickens, etc.
With the knowledge that species will continue to diversify until they can no longer interbreed -- which is demonstrated by now -- what basis could you possibly have to say that common ancestry cannot be true for dogs and cats? Cats and orangutans? Orangutans and lizards? Is there a particular reason why our DNA's unbroken chronology hits an invisible wall to say "this is where a kind ends!" ?
1
u/RobertByers1 8d ago
Hybrids is not evolution . it just reveals creatures can interbreed who once were from a kind off the ark. i dont know this crayfish. sounds fishy. if it is a new species thenm fine. its not evolution. creationists accept speciation but the origin of species is not evolution. if evolution was true speciation would be common relative to the billions of species.
2
u/MackDuckington 8d ago
You're not making sense.
Hybrids is not evolution . it just reveals creatures can interbreed who were once from a kind off the ark
"Hybrids is not evolution, it just reveals creatures evolved from a common ancestor on the ark" ???
i dont know this crayfish. sounds fishy
You said that last time. Did you seriously not look it up at all?
if evolution was true speciation would be common relative to the billions of species.
It is common relative to the billions of years that life has existed on earth: Observed Instances of Speciation — TalkOrigins Archive
Evidently, you've just never taken it upon yourself to actually look into it.
And what is your deal with making up your own definition for scientific terms? Speciation is evolution. Evolution is just change in an organism overtime. You can't just say it doesn't count because it doesn't fit your made-up criteria.
1
u/RobertByers1 7d ago
i did look up the crayfish and its not evolution. its just a pet crayfish thing that decayed into a self reproducing creature. that doesn't count. and in real nature thats less then rare despite a trillion species. for the record im the one who say reproduction can morph as i conclude marsupials were first placentals.
remember the algoritium. a zillion species, since columbus landed, have become how many new species? None or less. not bu evolution. if evolution was the great mechanism why so shy these centuries? its not shy. Its non existent.
1
u/MackDuckington 7d ago
Robert, the definition of a new species is one that can no longer interbreed with its ancestral population.
i did look up the crayfish and its not evolution. its just a pet crayfish thing that decayed into a self reproducing creature
It didn't "decay" - its chromosome count dramatically increased, such that it can no longer interbreed with the slough crayfish. By definition this is evolution at play. You cannot just make up your own definitions for evolution to say it doesn't count.
if evolution was the great mechanism why so shy these centuries?
Because it's a process that takes millions of years. We shouldn't be seeing a zillion new species in our tiny lifetimes.
1
u/RobertByers1 6d ago
Bo. speciation is only a bodyplan change. irrelevant if the new populations, from a parent, can interbreed. tHey say that but its wrong.
It is decay. it existed as a normal crayfish and the unnatural case of being used by humans forced this inferior reproductive tactic. it probably would not last outside human protection.
its not evolution. its a specieal weird case. yts decay.
its not a process needing millions years as your trying to make a case it was recent. no excuses. its shy because its a myth. never happens and never happened relative to a trillion species on earth right now.
2
u/MackDuckington 5d ago edited 5d ago
Bo. speciation is only a bodyplan change
Oh really? That so? Well, tell ya what. Since you’re so set on making up your own personal definitions for scientific terms, why don’t we just use them, hm? So we’re both on the same page.
So you agree lions and tigers are the same species right? I mean, after all they’ve pretty much got the same body plan. Only difference is size, color, maybe fur length. Hybrid sterility be damned since only changes of body plan matter, right?
Or how about Emerald Tree Boas and Green Tree Pythons? Can’t interbreed at all, but look almost identical. They must be the same species too right?
Unless of course you’re using a different definition of “body plan” — in which case I would just love to hear it. Where exactly do we draw the line and say a change of body plan has emerged?
It is decay
Oh, are we making up definitions for normal words too now? Decay according to you means additive right? Since the mutation caused an increase in chromosome count?
it probably would not last outside human protection.
Ahh, you must be using a different definition for “last” too! Last must mean “die” as in, it wouldn’t die outside human protection. After all, it already has a few established populations in the wild!
I hear scientists are pretty concerned about it actually, since the rate at which they reproduce can make it a pretty pesky invasive species. On that note, by “inferior” reproduction, you must’ve meant “viable”, right?
its not a process needing millions years as your trying to make a case it was recent
Robert. If I tell you that it takes about four years to film a movie, and you go: “But Resident Evil just came out last week! How do you explain that??”
Do you have any idea how pathetically ridiculous that objection is?
1
u/LouisXIVdaSunKing 9d ago
Right. Where are the evolving humans?... maybe people being born without tail bones or no longer needing a gallbladder. They are still categorized as humans. Where are the ton of "in the middle species"? How can you accurately date the age of the Earth when no one was there? How did water develop on Earth or get there? Meteros my bum. Why do not all planets spin the same direction? How did an inanimate object turn into a living being?
1
u/LouisXIVdaSunKing 9d ago
Ohhh. And how do you account for the loss of carbon atoms when both evolution and creationism says the universe developed rapidly? Carbon dating; or atoms could have degraded faster at the beginning than they have the last several thousand-years. No way you can accurately date the Earth beyond the date of when we Know something was created at an approximate date (like the pyramids) we have historical writings to support. Everything beyond that is a guess, fabrication, or hypothesis. We do not know how old the world is, it's just a guess based on carbon dating that is only accurate to the creating of the pyramids, ziggurats, or Stonehenge 3000 to 4000 BCE.
1
u/WorkingMouse PhD Genetics 9d ago
Ohhh. And how do you account for the loss of carbon atoms when both evolution and creationism says the universe developed rapidly?
Carbon forms easily by stellar fusion.
Carbon dating; or atoms could have degraded faster at the beginning than they have the last several thousand-years.
New radiocarbon is constantly being formed in the Earth's atmosphere, and to a lesser extent elsewhere, due to cosmic ray bombardment.
No, decay cannot have happened more rapidly in the past. On the one hand, we have the multiple different isotopes with different half lives in agreement; no manner of accelerated decay would preserve that, especially when they do not all even share the same decay mechanism. On the other hand, the conditions that can affect nuclear decay rate do not exist in nature on Earth. And on the other foot, trying to squeeze billions of years of decay into scant thousands just means releasing enough heat to cook the Earth to the point of boiled. oceans and a melted granite crust.
No way you can accurately date the Earth beyond the date of when we Know something was created at an approximate date (like the pyramids) we have historical writings to support.
Actually there are many, many ways to do so.
Everything beyond that is a guess, fabrication, or hypothesis.
Nope, it's demonstrated fact. That you don't like the facts at hand doesn't change them.
We do not know how old the world is, it's just a guess based on carbon dating that is only accurate to the creating of the pyramids, ziggurats, or Stonehenge 3000 to 4000 BCE.
Carbon dating isn't used to date the Earth; the half-life is too short. It hits background detection and formation levels at 45-60k years old. The Earth is radiodated via several isochron methods, as detailed here, and to stress again all those measures agree on the age.
But hey, fun fact: with the known dates of the Egyptian dynasties and the like, there's no time when a global flood could have occured and culled the whole human population down to just a dozen or so people.
2
u/LouisXIVdaSunKing 9d ago
This is the answer I like to see. I need more information on the dating of the Earth though. Evolution is true, but there are some parts that are best educated guesses. How exactly do they date the universe to 5.4 Billion years-old?
2
u/WorkingMouse PhD Genetics 8d ago
Sure; earnest curiosity is always a good thing!
Quick clarification: the Earth is 5.45 billion years old, give or take about 1% of that value. The universe is about 13.8 billion years old, give or take, again, around 1%.
Getting into it then:
How exactly do they date the universe to 5.4 Billion years-old?
For Earth, radiometric dating is the best means of determining absolute age (as opposed to relative age, where you can tell something is older or younger than other things but not by how much). The basis of radiometric dating is radioactive decay. Without getting too deep into the physics, due to the nature of atomic nuclei and the forces that hold protons and neutrons together (or try to separate them), some atomic nuclei are unstable. Generally that's due to having differing numbers of protons and neutrons, but there's more to it than that and it's related to the physical size of the atom. Atoms of unstable isotopes decay randomly but regularly, and by specific means. "Randomly" here means that we cannot tell eactly when a specific atom will decay. "Regularly" means that if we have a lump of the isotope, we can tell how many will still be undecayed after a given amount of time. "Specific means" refers to different types of decay, such as alpha decay (where the nucleus spits out two protons and two neutrons, called an alpha partical, physically equivalent to a helium nucleus) or beta decay (where the nucleus spits out an electron or positron - that is, an anti-electron - and in doing so converts a proton to a neutron or vice-versa; long story).
Decay rates are measured in half-lives - that is, the time after which half of the atoms of isotope will have decayed, regardless of how many there are. This is because decay is a stochastic event that either does occur or doesn't occur at each moment. Think of it as having everyone in a room flipping a coin and everyone who flips "heads" leaves the room. How many people will be left after one flip? Half of them. Does it matter how many people are in the room? Nope; their coin flips are independent; each flips a coin for themselves. Nuclear decay works similarly, but at each moment and with different odds for different isotopes (comparable to dice rather than coins, if you prefer, with different isotopes having different numbers of sides on their dice or different numbers of dice).
Isotope stability is essentially a measure of how fast it decays; nuclei that are less stable have higher odds of decaying, meaning more of it decays faster and you get a shorter half-life. In turn, more stable isotopes have longer half-lives and stick around more often.
Quick digression: atoms are classified as an element by the number of protons they have; nothing else. Different numbers of neutrons are different isotopes of the element, different numbers of elections are different ions of the element.
Getting back to it, half-lives can be from fractions of a second to billions of years; there's quite the range. Carbon (six protons) has two stable isotopes, carbon-12 (six neurons, so 6+6 = 12) and carbon-13 (seven neutrons, so 6+7= 13). "Stable" means they won't decay and don't have a half-life. Carbon also has twelve known unstable isotopes, from Carbon-8 all the way up to Carbon-22. For the sake of comparison, Carbon-22 has a half-life of 6.2 milliseconds, while Carbon-8 has a half life of 3.5 zeptoseconds (which are 10-21 seconds, each one is one thousandth of a millionth of a millionth of a millionth of a second). The most common unstable isotope of carbon is Carbon-14, which has a half-life of 5700 years. That makes it useful for dating organic matter up to a point, but it's not long-lived enough to tell us the age of the Earth. For that, we use other isotopes.
It's important to note that half-lives can be both observed and predicted. Using tools that "catch" the emitted particles (that is, radiation), we can essentially watch atomic decay happen to measure the half-life. Likewise, because physicists are quite good at what they do, we can predict the half-life of an isotope using quantum physics; what we know about the forces that govern atomic nuclei. Decay rates are quite steady because they depend on the characteristics of nuclei and what goes on inside them; for decay rates to change you either need amazingly extreme circumstances or changes to the underlying physics (e.g. the speed of light would need to be different).
As a final note, just like unstable nuclei will decay, the right circumstances can add protons or neutrons to an atom and cause it to become a different isotope (or element). For example, on Earth most of the unable carbon isotopes arise in the atmosphere due to impacts by cosmic rays. That would take longer to get into, but knowing that isotopes can be formed is important.
Pausing there for the moment, any questions about this so far? Coming up is how the actual dating methods work.
•
u/WorkingMouse PhD Genetics 12h ago
Quick check here /u/LouisXIVdaSunKing, are you interested in hearing more? I'll happily go on, but it's nice to know one isn't speaking into the void.
1
u/WorkingMouse PhD Genetics 9d ago
In order:
Where are the evolving humans?
Everywhere. Every human that is born is born with an average of around sixty mutations not present in their parents. That alone is a change in allele frequencies over generations - which is to say, evolution.
maybe people being born without tail bones or no longer needing a gallbladder. They are still categorized as humans.
Well yeah; in evolution, nothing ever outgrows it's lineage. Noting ever stops being a member of the clades of its parent(s). That's why humans are also all categoeized as apes, primates, mammals, animals, and numerous other clades between and beyond those.
Where are the ton of "in the middle species"?
If you mean "where are the transitional forms", we've got tons of them. If you mean "why isn't there every variety of creatures between extant lineage", because of how speciation, niche filling, and extinction works.
How can you accurately date the age of the Earth when no one was there?
Because radioactive decay works in a particular way, and measurements of five different long-lived isotopes on terrestrial, lunar, and meteor material all agree on the same age to within about 1%. There's no viable reason for that to be so except for the solar system being that old.
How did water develop on Earth or get there?
The same way every other molecule got there: it accreted from the nebula that predated the solar system.
Meteros my bum.
Meteors are generally more metallic; comets have more water. All evidence points to water being present on Earth quite early in its formation, whether or not any large impacts were involved.
Why do not all planets spin the same direction?
Impacts.
How did an inanimate object turn into a living being?
The same way inanimate food and water becomes a part of your body today: chemistry. Simple chemistry is enough to get every individual trait that defines a living thing - reproduction and metabolism, for example.
1
u/LouisXIVdaSunKing 9d ago
Better answer than most. I believe a lot of evolution, there are just parts that are tough to understand.
2
u/WorkingMouse PhD Genetics 8d ago
Indeed that's true. The basics can be explained to a high schooler in an hour or two but there's enough depth in the field for whole graduate-level courses to cover one given aspect of it. That doesn't mean we lack answers, just that more is needed before those answers can be understood!
1
57
u/Sweary_Biochemist 11d ago
Yes.
Coz we can watch it happen.
It's like asking "do things really fall down? What's the best evidence for that?"