Where Forbes Disproves Natural Selection

[ReignIB]

[quote]Pangloss wrote:

Yeah, but right now all you’ve at best shown is that there are things we don’t know - and I’m not even sure you’ve done that.

If that’s what your content with, fair enough. It’s not a rational reason to reject evolutionary theory though, since it is the best explanation (combination of explanations) that we have.

So I guess I’m a bit puzzled by what you hope to achieve and what you think you’ve achieved.
[/quote]

I’m not buying the “best explanation” thing. The best explanation for thunder used to be Thor’s chariot. You see the point right?

[Pangloss]

[quote]apbt55 wrote:
orion not directed to you.

But humans are apes, wiki says so.

what a freaking joke.

macroevolution is a theory of chaos, and technically we are supposed to be moving towards more chaos not more structure, given the systematic and measurable phenomena in nature I would presuppose this already to be false. [/quote]

?

What exactly do you think macroevolution is?

Also, why are we supposed to be ‘moving towards more chaos’?

[quote]apbt55 wrote:
But hey let’s run with it.

so where are empirically derived data showing speciation of complex organisms. You have none and never will because it doesn’t exist.
[/quote]

Why do you suppose we have none? The nested heirachy is empirical evidence as are ring species. Here’s a link to the infamous 29 evidences for macro evolution: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

[quote]apbt55 wrote:
And I will condition this with a mammal since humans are apes, preferably one in the same supposed ancestry of humans or primates, [/quote]

How do you explain the evidence I already put forward regarding vitamin C?

[quote]apbt55 wrote:
show me real data and then you have an argument, otherwise what you provide is horrible retrospective speculation. [/quote]

Already have - you’ve apparently ignored it. I have no desire to personally convince you. If you want to disagree with the majority of the experts in the field, go right ahead. I care not.

[Pangloss]

[quote]ReignIB wrote:

[quote]Pangloss wrote:

Yeah, but right now all you’ve at best shown is that there are things we don’t know - and I’m not even sure you’ve done that.

If that’s what your content with, fair enough. It’s not a rational reason to reject evolutionary theory though, since it is the best explanation (combination of explanations) that we have.

So I guess I’m a bit puzzled by what you hope to achieve and what you think you’ve achieved.
[/quote]

I’m not buying the “best explanation” thing. The best explanation for thunder used to be Thor’s chariot. You see the point right?

[/quote]

Fine, put forth a better one. The onus is on you.

It’s called the relativity of wrong (http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm)- if you are expecting science to be a quest for certainty, then you don’t understand science.

It could very well be that what we currently believe about common descent/natural selection is incorrect. The fact of the matter is, it’s currently the best explanation out there. If you disagree, you can certainly present a better one and we can evaluate it.

Right now, the only competing theories that I’m aware of have been disproven.

[ReignIB]

[quote]Pangloss wrote:

[quote]ReignIB wrote:

[quote]Pangloss wrote:

Yeah, but right now all you’ve at best shown is that there are things we don’t know - and I’m not even sure you’ve done that.

If that’s what your content with, fair enough. It’s not a rational reason to reject evolutionary theory though, since it is the best explanation (combination of explanations) that we have.

So I guess I’m a bit puzzled by what you hope to achieve and what you think you’ve achieved.
[/quote]

I’m not buying the “best explanation” thing. The best explanation for thunder used to be Thor’s chariot. You see the point right?

[/quote]

Fine, put forth a better one. The onus is on you.
…
[/quote]

it would’ve been if we were two scientists arguing over the subject.
this is definitely not the case here lol.
so I’m just pointing out that the theory you are defending has holes in it so big that even someone on my level of competence (layman level of course) can see them, point them out and have you admit that you don’t know the answer even after immense research efforts have been made attempting to find those answers.

[Pangloss]

[quote]ReignIB wrote:
it would’ve been if we were two scientists arguing over the subject.
[/quote]

Um…What?

You specifically stated "I’m not buying the “best explanation” thing. "

Your right to do so, I’m just calling you on it and now you are saying that we have to be scientists to do so. So color me puzzled now.

[quote]ReignIB wrote:
this is definitely not the case here lol.
[/quote]

I completely agree with you - I’m no scientist. I’m not even all that familiar with the current research anymore. Still, I’m confused as to what you are arguing now.

[quote]ReignIB wrote:
so I’m just pointing out that the theory you are defending has holes in it so big that even someone on my level of competence (layman level of course) can see them, point them out and have you admit that you don’t know the answer even after immense research efforts have been made attempting to find those answers.
[/quote]

There’s a few things here to unpack:

1. My level of competence is the same as yours - interested layman.
2. You specifically disagreed with the best explanation thing - and now you aren’t going to defend whatever it is you think IS the best explanation.
3. “Holes so big” sounds rhetorically powerful, but right now I’m having trouble figuring out exactly what you are referring to. You haven’t pointed to any holes in the theory. You’ve only pointed out that we don’t have a direct genomic map of our ancestry. Which, while true, is rather trivial.
4. Immense research is being done - but not into what you are asking, since it’s rather inconsequential and there’s no reason to believe that such a full picture could be accomplished. In short, it seems to be a waste of time.

Yet you think this is some how a categorical falsification of the theory of evolution?

I fail to see how. I don’t know exactly what the order was of the knife slashes that killed Ron Goldman and Nicole Simpson, but the evidence leads me to rationally concluded that OJ did it. Presumably you would need a detailed account of the timing of each slash.

Granted, you are free to agree with the jury in dismissing all the evidence. That’s your right.

[MattyG35]

Pangloss, about the Vitamin C thing.
Has the gene been found in any other species? non-ape/primate?

[Pangloss]

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Pangloss, about the Vitamin C thing.
Has the gene been found in any other species? non-ape/primate?
[/quote]

A gene has been found in guinea pigs that prevents synthesis, but it is not similar to ours in the same way as the primates have been: "And, as predicted, the malfunctioning human and chimpanzee pseudogenes are the most similar, followed by the human and orangutan genes, followed by the human and macaque genes, precisely as predicted by evolutionary theory. "

[ReignIB]

[quote]Pangloss wrote:

[quote]ReignIB wrote:
it would’ve been if we were two scientists arguing over the subject.
[/quote]

Um…What?

You specifically stated "I’m not buying the “best explanation” thing. "

Your right to do so, I’m just calling you on it and now you are saying that we have to be scientists to do so. So color me puzzled now.

[quote]ReignIB wrote:
this is definitely not the case here lol.
[/quote]

I completely agree with you - I’m no scientist. I’m not even all that familiar with the current research anymore. Still, I’m confused as to what you are arguing now.

[quote]ReignIB wrote:
so I’m just pointing out that the theory you are defending has holes in it so big that even someone on my level of competence (layman level of course) can see them, point them out and have you admit that you don’t know the answer even after immense research efforts have been made attempting to find those answers.
[/quote]

There’s a few things here to unpack:

1. My level of competence is the same as yours - interested layman.
2. You specifically disagreed with the best explanation thing - and now you aren’t going to defend whatever it is you think IS the best explanation.
3. “Holes so big” sounds rhetorically powerful, but right now I’m having trouble figuring out exactly what you are referring to. You haven’t pointed to any holes in the theory. You’ve only pointed out that we don’t have a direct genomic map of our ancestry. Which, while true, is rather trivial.
4. Immense research is being done - but not into what you are asking, since it’s rather inconsequential and there’s no reason to believe that such a full picture could be accomplished. In short, it seems to be a waste of time.

Yet you think this is some how a categorical falsification of the theory of evolution?

I fail to see how. I don’t know exactly what the order was of the knife slashes that killed Ron Goldman and Nicole Simpson, but the evidence leads me to rationally concluded that OJ did it. Presumably you would need a detailed account of the timing of each slash.

Granted, you are free to agree with the jury in dismissing all the evidence. That’s your right.
[/quote]

To use your OJ analogy - we’re not arguing whether OJ did it or not.
You’re saying he used the knife to kill his victims, I’m asking for evidence that this was the actual cause of death which any forensic pathologist would be able to prove by examining victim’s bodies. Furthermore if there was more than one slash the pathologist could tell you which wounds were the mortal wounds and in some cases determine the sequence of slashing as well.

As for the research - proponents of the theory of evolution via natural selection have been looking for the missing link since day 1, providing false evidence occasionally. Origin of Homo Sapiens is inconsequential? Don’t think so.

And as for the holes in the theory - every time you’re saying “I don’t know” that’s it - that’s the hole.

And yes. I don’t know what the explanation is.
Since you brought up criminal justice as a source of analogies - a man kills another man,
then runs away. Someone proposes that he did that to cut his face off and wear it as a mask.
Someone proposes that it was robbery. Based on the evidence - you don’t think either of them are correct. What is the actual reason? You don’t know. Same here.

[Pangloss]

[quote]ReignIB wrote:
To use your OJ analogy - we’re not arguing whether OJ did it or not.
You’re saying he used the knife to kill his victims, I’m asking for evidence that this was the actual cause of death which any forensic pathologist would be able to prove by examining victim’s bodies. Furthermore if there was more than one slash the pathologist could tell you which wounds were the mortal wounds and in some cases determine the sequence of slashing as well. [/quote]

I don’t think that’s actually accurate. They would be able to tell me which wounds would do the most damage, but not which wounds specifically resulted in the death. They also would not be able to determine the precise order of the wounds. They would be able to make general statements about the wounds.

Further, the DNA evidence (which should have convicted him), was the conclusive factor. it’s the conclusive factor in paternity suits, after all. DNA evidence shows common descent.

[quote]ReignIB wrote:
As for the research - proponents of the theory of evolution via natural selection have been looking for the missing link since day 1, providing false evidence occasionally. Origin of Homo Sapiens is inconsequential? Don’t think so.
[/quote]

The ‘missing link’ is a term used primarily by the press - not scientists. There is no ‘one’ link.

I didn’t say the origin of homo sapiens was inconsequential - I was referring to the precise mutations and order of them. We have a fairly general picture of our ancestors. Here’s a good link: Fossil Hominids: the evidence for human evolution

[quote]ReignIB wrote:
And as for the holes in the theory - every time you’re saying “I don’t know” that’s it - that’s the hole.
[/quote]

So, then, by hole, you simply mean something we don’t know. That’s rather trivial. It is not a refutation of natural selection or common descent.

We don’t know what the first hominid looked like. That doesn’t mean there wasn’t one.

[quote]ReignIB wrote:
And yes. I don’t know what the explanation is.
[/quote]

Then even by your standards, evolutionary theory is the best explanation. You might not necessarily think that it’s true, but it’s the best we got.

Do you agree?

[quote]ReignIB wrote:
Since you brought up criminal justice as a source of analogies - a man kills another man,
then runs away. Someone proposes that he did that to cut his face off and wear it as a mask.
Someone proposes that it was robbery. Based on the evidence - you don’t think either of them are correct. What is the actual reason? You don’t know. Same here.
[/quote]

Natural selection is not a conscious decision. The analogy you are using presumes intent.

All we can do is examine the evidence and come up with the best explanation for that evidence. We have a bunch of humanoid fossils, our DNA is close to other primates, etc. Common descent is the rational answer.

Now, when we look at how organisms reproduce and we look at their DNA we can come up with a few theories that explain common ancestry. Natural selection, sexual selection, genetic drift, etc, etc are the best explanations we’ve got.

So the rational thing to accept is common descent and the theory of evolution. Are we certain of this?

No, but then again, nothing in science is certain.

This being the case, I fail to see what you think you are arguing for. That we don’t know everything?

Conceded.

That we don’t know everything about evolutionary theory/common descent?

Conceded.

With those concessions in mind, what you haven’t even begun to demonstrate is problems in rationally accepting evolutionary theory.

[swoleupinya]

[quote]ReignIB wrote:
As for the research - proponents of the theory of evolution via natural selection have been looking for the missing link since day 1, providing false evidence occasionally. Origin of Homo Sapiens is inconsequential? Don’t think so.
[/quote]

Sorry, but nobody who understands Natural Selection or modern evolutionary biology is looking for the “missing link.” This is a red herring that creationists have been casting about for the last thirty years or so with diminishing success.

Let’s say for argument’s sake that rats and dogs share a common ancestor (I think they do, but I can’t remember exactly) and that we could line up an example from every generation of rats and dogs that existed since the mutation that caused the split towards speciation. There would be no “rat-dog.” Nor would there be any obvious hybrid of the original common ancestor and rats or dogs. There would just a long line of thousands of generations of animals that had no noticeable physiological differences from the generation to either side of any individual one.

The differences here play out over the course of millions of years and thousands of generations.

[quote] And as for the holes in the theory - every time you’re saying “I don’t know” that’s it - that’s the hole.

[/quote]

These may be holes, but they are not disproofs. If a little uncertainty is too much for you, I recommend you stick with Intelligent Design. It may be bullshit, but at least you won’t have to think too hard about it.

[Pangloss]

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
Sorry, but nobody who understands Natural Selection or modern evolutionary biology is looking for the “missing link.” This is a red herring that creationists have been casting about for the last thirty years or so with diminishing success.

Let’s say for argument’s sake that rats and dogs share a common ancestor (I think they do, but I can’t remember exactly) and that we could line up an example from every generation of rats and dogs that existed since the mutation that caused the split towards speciation. There would be no “rat-dog.” Nor would there be any obvious hybrid of the original common ancestor and rats or dogs. There would just a long line of thousands of generations of animals that had no noticeable physiological differences from the generation to either side of any individual one.

The differences here play out over the course of millions of years and thousands of generations.
[/quote]

To add to this - we can actually observe something similar, with ring species.

You’ve got two species that don’t interbreed and another species that can interbreed with both. The original two species can’t interbreed because they were genetically isolated from one another.

Also, everytime a fossil is found (say homo erectus) suddenly there are two more ‘missing links’ (prior to erectus and after). It’s a rhetoric trick.

[ReignIB]

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]ReignIB wrote:
As for the research - proponents of the theory of evolution via natural selection have been looking for the missing link since day 1, providing false evidence occasionally. Origin of Homo Sapiens is inconsequential? Don’t think so.
[/quote]

Sorry, but nobody who understands Natural Selection or modern evolutionary biology is looking for the “missing link.” This is a red herring that creationists have been casting about for the last thirty years or so with diminishing success.

Let’s say for argument’s sake that rats and dogs share a common ancestor (I think they do, but I can’t remember exactly) and that we could line up an example from every generation of rats and dogs that existed since the mutation that caused the split towards speciation. There would be no “rat-dog.” Nor would there be any obvious hybrid of the original common ancestor and rats or dogs. There would just a long line of thousands of generations of animals that had no noticeable physiological differences from the generation to either side of any individual one.

The differences here play out over the course of millions of years and thousands of generations.

[quote] And as for the holes in the theory - every time you’re saying “I don’t know” that’s it - that’s the hole.

[/quote]

These may be holes, but they are not disproofs. If a little uncertainty is too much for you, I recommend you stick with Intelligent Design. It may be bullshit, but at least you won’t have to think too hard about it.
[/quote]

don’t like the term “missing link” eh? how about the closest previous link in the chain of speciation? can you point me at that?

[ReignIB]

[quote]Pangloss wrote:

[quote]ReignIB wrote:
To use your OJ analogy - we’re not arguing whether OJ did it or not.
You’re saying he used the knife to kill his victims, I’m asking for evidence that this was the actual cause of death which any forensic pathologist would be able to prove by examining victim’s bodies. Furthermore if there was more than one slash the pathologist could tell you which wounds were the mortal wounds and in some cases determine the sequence of slashing as well. [/quote]

I don’t think that’s actually accurate. They would be able to tell me which wounds would do the most damage, but not which wounds specifically resulted in the death. They also would not be able to determine the precise order of the wounds. They would be able to make general statements about the wounds.

Further, the DNA evidence (which should have convicted him), was the conclusive factor. it’s the conclusive factor in paternity suits, after all. DNA evidence shows common descent.

[quote]ReignIB wrote:
As for the research - proponents of the theory of evolution via natural selection have been looking for the missing link since day 1, providing false evidence occasionally. Origin of Homo Sapiens is inconsequential? Don’t think so.
[/quote]

The ‘missing link’ is a term used primarily by the press - not scientists. There is no ‘one’ link.

I didn’t say the origin of homo sapiens was inconsequential - I was referring to the precise mutations and order of them. We have a fairly general picture of our ancestors. Here’s a good link: Fossil Hominids: the evidence for human evolution

[quote]ReignIB wrote:
And as for the holes in the theory - every time you’re saying “I don’t know” that’s it - that’s the hole.
[/quote]

So, then, by hole, you simply mean something we don’t know. That’s rather trivial. It is not a refutation of natural selection or common descent.

We don’t know what the first hominid looked like. That doesn’t mean there wasn’t one.

[quote]ReignIB wrote:
And yes. I don’t know what the explanation is.
[/quote]

Then even by your standards, evolutionary theory is the best explanation. You might not necessarily think that it’s true, but it’s the best we got.

Do you agree?

[quote]ReignIB wrote:
Since you brought up criminal justice as a source of analogies - a man kills another man,
then runs away. Someone proposes that he did that to cut his face off and wear it as a mask.
Someone proposes that it was robbery. Based on the evidence - you don’t think either of them are correct. What is the actual reason? You don’t know. Same here.
[/quote]

Natural selection is not a conscious decision. The analogy you are using presumes intent.

All we can do is examine the evidence and come up with the best explanation for that evidence. We have a bunch of humanoid fossils, our DNA is close to other primates, etc. Common descent is the rational answer.

Now, when we look at how organisms reproduce and we look at their DNA we can come up with a few theories that explain common ancestry. Natural selection, sexual selection, genetic drift, etc, etc are the best explanations we’ve got.

So the rational thing to accept is common descent and the theory of evolution. Are we certain of this?

No, but then again, nothing in science is certain.

This being the case, I fail to see what you think you are arguing for. That we don’t know everything?

Conceded.

That we don’t know everything about evolutionary theory/common descent?

Conceded.

With those concessions in mind, what you haven’t even begun to demonstrate is problems in rationally accepting evolutionary theory.[/quote]

You brought up a criminal justice analogy where intent is one of the cornerstones of the process, besides “intent” in this case is just an example of an unknown variable so to speak, whether it’s intent or smth else is immaterial.

And again, I’m not arguing against common descent or the fact that organic forms of matter are evolving over time.
I simply don’t see how mechanisms offered by the scientific community as an explanation for this are sufficient.

As for the “the best we got” thing again - what you got is so lame that using word “best” in the same sentence is just wrong

[orion]

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]apbt55 wrote:
ooh genetics, yay lets start.

so can sometime define recombinance specifically as it applies to less plastic genomic species. species that have hard coded conserved regions. And how speciation can occur with such regions not being open to mutation without it being terminal or causing sterile offspring. [/quote]

perhaps they cant, perhaps they die if their environments change too much.

[/quote]

orion not directed to you.

But humans are apes, wiki says so.

what a freaking joke.

macroevolution is a theory of chaos, and technically we are supposed to be moving towards more chaos not more structure, given the systematic and measurable phenomena in nature I would presuppose this already to be false.

But hey let’s run with it.

so where are empirically derived data showing speciation of complex organisms. You have none and never will because it doesn’t exist.

And I will condition this with a mammal since humans are apes, preferably one in the same supposed ancestry of humans or primates,

show me real data and then you have an argument, otherwise what you provide is horrible retrospective speculation. [/quote]

Ring species-

That is all.

[Makavali]

Irreducible complexity - “I can’t personally think of a way for this to have occurred naturally (meaning no one else possibly could), therefore it must be intelligently designed. By pretending to disprove evolution in this way, I will claim my theory is right”.

Irreducible complexity at it’s core is sheer intellectual laziness and arrogance.

Missing link - Won’t be happy until you line up the fossils mother to daughter all the way back to complex amino acids. Every new fossil discovered creates two new gaps, providing more to complain about. Slow and gradual change will not show major changes between one generation, because as was astutely pointed out - that would result in sterilization and whole host of problems. MINOR changes, however, happen and are even documented. Over the endless (not really endless, but you know what I mean) millenia, these changes add up.

Despite being more than happy to use inference for things that have a much larger separation and tenuous evidence at best for things that support their worldview, creationists* will beat their chests black and blue trumpeting that there is simply “not enough evidence” to show evolution.

With our ability to sequence genetic code and further upcoming breakthroughs in science, the gaps creationists are hiding in grow smaller and smaller. Perhaps this is why their ignorance is getting more and more pervasive, the final, loud, messy and embarrassing death throes of an archaic way of thinking.

• Despite what people say, Intelligent Design is Creationism dressed up in a cheap (and I mean CHEAP) tux.

[Pangloss]

[quote]ReignIB wrote:
don’t like the term “missing link” eh? how about the closest previous link in the chain of speciation? can you point me at that?
[/quote]

Sure, the previous link in the chain was my parents. Before that my grandparents, etc, etc.

[quote]ReignIB wrote:
You brought up a criminal justice analogy where intent is one of the cornerstones of the process, besides “intent” in this case is just an example of an unknown variable so to speak, whether it’s intent or smth else is immaterial.
[/quote]

No analogy is perfect, and ‘intent’ demonstrates this. We are getting off track here - my point in bringing it up was to demonstrate an analogy of theories from evidence.

[quote]ReignIB wrote:
And again, I’m not arguing against common descent or the fact that organic forms of matter are evolving over time.
[/quote]

Ok.

[quote]ReignIB wrote:
I simply don’t see how mechanisms offered by the scientific community as an explanation for this are sufficient.
[/quote]

An argument from incredulity doesn’t have much force, I’m afraid.

How does the scientific community know what will personally convince you? Why should they seek to personally convince you?

[quote]ReignIB wrote:
As for the “the best we got” thing again - what you got is so lame that using word “best” in the same sentence is just wrong
[/quote]

“Lame” is subjective.

Your criticism can be leveled at the entire scientific enterprise, since it works off of induction/abduction and falsification. So by extension you are saying that science is lame.

That’s fine, if that’s your stance. My guess is that your demand for certainty ends with this subject though.

Which makes your position very weak.

[Pangloss]

[quote]Makavali wrote:

• Despite what people say, Intelligent Design is Creationism dressed up in a cheap (and I mean CHEAP) tux.[/quote]

Meh, i look at it as a throw back to yester-year, when Paley was big on the scene.

Of course that was the 1800’s.

[MaximusB]

Proof? I have some…

Here in Los Angeles, we have had about 5 straight days of rain. Not just sprinkling, but down right nature’s takin’ a piss on the city and state. Then we have some stupid fuck deciding to go hiking when we have homes sliding down the hills off of their foundations.

How about that?

Fucking Social (De)Evolution.

I say fuck these people, let Darwinism run it’s course, we as a people do not need mentally irregular people like this breathing or breeding.

[Sifu]

[quote]ReignIB wrote:
This looks like a carry-over from some other thread, but let’s see…
Well, how about you describe the origin of Homo Sapiens Sapiens.
Specifically I am interested in hearing which ape the said species evolved from, and in the step-by-step illustration of how their slowly-accumulating “evolutionary” traits gave them a competitive advantage over the “non-evolved” ape populace thus promoting the fixation of these traits.
[/quote]

The origin of Homo Sapiens Sapiens came about recently after they found a few 160,000 year old Homo Sapiens skulls that had enough distinctive features from modern Homo Sapiens that they could be classified as a sub species of Homo Sapien. So they needed a name to distinguish modern Homo Sapiens from the elder Homo Sapiens.

Now do I get a prize?

[ephrem]

A spectacular haul of 20,000 fossils including plants, carnivorous fish and large reptiles, has been found in a hillside in Luoping, southwestern China

Fossil hunters uncover complete 252m year-old underwater world