Evolution is a fact.
Evolution.
Posts
Total:
121
-->
@Dynasty
Microevolution is a straight up fact, I agree, the idea that from fish or dinosaurs mammalian creatures would just 'evolve' is pretty ridiculous though. There's definitely something strange or just flat out 'wrong' about the timeline we're told about our original speciation and how the offshoots began.
-->
@RationalMadman
All evolution is microevolution. So-called macroevolution is just the cumulative effects of microevolution.
-->
@Dynasty
Evolution is a fact.
That argument has yet to be substantiated. Why don't you give it a try?
It is possible to walk ten meters, but there is no way anyone could ever walk a thousand kilometers
- The guy that came up with the term 'microevolution'
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
It is possible to walk ten meters, but there is no way anyone could ever walk a thousand kilometers- The guy that came up with the term 'microevolution'
Well put.
-->
@Athias
Reality in so much as we are able to know what reality possibly is, substantiates evolution.
As one assumes that the human one is the only argument. Therefore, human arguments are just that.
The existence of the human and the development of the argument and the possibility of a conclusion.
And the bleeping of the device.
-->
@zedvictor4
How does reality, as far as you can tell, substantiate evolution?Reality in so much as we are able to know what reality possibly is, substantiates evolution.
As one assumes that the human one is the only argument. Therefore, human arguments are just that.
You've made a statement similar to this one quite some time back, so I'll ask you the same question: if you have no conception of "the whole" then how can you relate the extent of your knowledge to it in any way? Why are presuming that they are just assumptions?
-->
@Athias
How does reality, as far as you can tell, substantiate evolution?
At a general level:
- The commonality of genetic code among all living organisms;
- The natural hierarchical grouping of species implying a branching evolutionary process;
- Agreement among independently derived phylogenetic trees
- Agreement of phylogenetic tree with fossil records
- Existence of vestigial structures;
- Existence of atavism;
- The agreement of phylogeny with ontogeny;
- The agreement of phylogeny with geographical distribution of animals;
- The existence of similar structures among animals used for different purposes;
- The existence of structures that are suboptimal for their function;
- The existence and replication of transposons;
- The direct observation of individual elements of evolution, such as morphological changes, functional changes, different stages of speciation, and actual instances of speciation.
Which would you like to discuss more in-depth?
-->
@drafterman
Which would you like to discuss more in-depth?
All of it. Make sure, however, you incorporate each point to the question I asked.
-->
@zedvictor4
Despite drafterman's inclusion, I request that you still answer the question I posed.
-->
@Athias
I think it'd be best if we take things one at a time.
-->
@drafterman
Why? Why would you list all of those points if you're not prepared to discuss them all, especially in the context of my question? Feel free to go at your own pace. I will examine your response once all points have been addressed as well as the relation to my question is made clear. The floor is yours.I think it'd be best if we take things one at a time.
-->
@Athias
Why?
Because it is a broad range of topics that that covers a lot of ground. If you really, really, want me to address every single point at once, I'm just going to provide you a link with all of the information, but I'm not thinking that's what you want.
Why would you list all of those points if you're not prepared to discuss them all, especially in the context of my question?
I'm prepared to discuss any of them that you want. I just don't think it is useful to try and do them all at once.
Feel free to go at your own pace.
I am already going at the pace I wish to go.
I will examine your response once all points have been addressed as well as the relation to my question is made clear. The floor is yours.
I turn the floor over to you, and await selection of any point you wish to delve into more deeply. If you do not wish to delve into any of those points, then I will take refusal as either lack of genuine interest in the subject matter or concession of the point at hand.
If you really, really, really, want to tackle every single point rightthisminute, then here you go:
-->
@drafterman
Because it is a broad range of topics that that covers a lot of ground. If you really, really, want me to address every single point at once, I'm just going to provide you a link with all of the information, but I'm not thinking that's what you want.
No it isn't. If I sought to have the information repeated to me, I could easily do the research myself--and I've done so in the past. You asked, "Which would you like to discuss more in-depth?" I cannot have a discussion with a web-page.
I'm prepared to discuss any of them that you want. I just don't think it is useful to try and do them all at once.
Then why would you list them all at once? And if you're prepared, then have at it.
I am already going at the pace I wish to go.
Good.
I turn the floor over to you, and await selection of any point you wish to delve into more deeply.
I already told you, "all of it." You offered all those points in response to my question. So I'm going to assume all of those points are relevant.
If you do not wish to delve into any of those points, then I will take refusal as either lack of genuine interest in the subject matter or concession of the point at hand.
You're not in position to take anything as anything. You responded to a question that wasn't directed at you. As is your prerogative, you can participate in any query on a public forum. As is my prerogative, I am now indulging you. You listed your points in response to my question. I'm going to presume they are relevant. I am "interested" in seeing how you substantiate this relevance. Hence, I'm "interested" in discussing all of your points. So in essence, get to your points.
If you really, really, really, want to tackle every single point rightthisminute,
Who said anything about "right this minute?" I said, "feel free to go at your own pace." If you need to divide your response into several posts, then do so. If you want to consolidate each of your posts into one post, then do so. I don't mind reading the entirety of your prospective post(s).
-->
@Athias
Who said anything about "right this minute?" I said, "feel free to go at your own pace." If you need to divide your response into several posts, then do so. If you want to consolidate each of your posts into one post, then do so. I don't mind reading the entirety of your prospective post(s).
No, I am not going to cut and paste several essays worth of text onto this forum. I have provided the material. The floor is now yours. You can read and respond at your own pace if you have any questions or objections.
-->
@drafterman
I did not ask you to provide the material; nor did my question supplicate the reference to your specific material. If you want to use the material as a reference and basis for you argument, then by all means, do so. But you would still have to provide an argument. Not merely parrot what you've read. If not, then move along, and have a nice day.No, I am not going to cut and paste several essays worth of text onto this forum. I have provided the material. The floor is now yours.
-->
@Athias
The material contains the arguments. If you have any questions or objections about them, please let me know.
-->
@drafterman
I'm not interested in their arguments; once again, I cannot have a discussion with a web-page; I'm not seeking to verify or falsiify your points; I'm seeking your argument that explains the relevance your points have to the question I asked. Remember, you're the one who responded to my question. If you cannot/will not do this, then stop wasting both of our time.The material contains the arguments. If you have any questions or objections about them, please let me know.
-->
@Athias
I see no benefit to me simply copying and pasting information from one place to another. The arguments are there if you are truly interested in having a conversation about it.
I am not asking you to have a conversation with a website, I'm asking you to have a conversation with me about information that happens to be contained on a website.
Do you have any questions or objections you would like to raise to me about that information?
-->
@Athias
A. I think therefore I am, as far as I can be certain, which is all there is. So I evolved. As far as I am aware I am not a carbon copy of everything that predates me.
B. I communicate with you electronically.
A. and B. are both relative to the processes of Material evolution, as is Darwinian Theory.
As far as I can be aware A. and B. are real.
-->
@drafterman
He seems okay with you going more in-depth on one thing at a time he just doesn't want to choose which one. Just start at the top of your list and work your way down, the two of you are both being overly pedantic.
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Over-pedanticism concerning subject matter, rather than an actual interest in the subject itself, is to a greater or lesser extent often the reason why some people debate.
And to be honest.
Myself included.
-->
@zedvictor4
Obstinate may have been a better choice of words.
What I mean is that the both of them are intentionally going out of their way to avoid advancing the conversation. That is not what the word debate means. It's like a pair of six year olds shouting "yeah-huh" and "nuh-uh" at each other repeatedly.
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Dude, his question is tantamount to "prove science."
-->
@Athias
Find, let's start again:
At a general level, the following observations substantiate evolution:
- The commonality of genetic code among all living organisms, as there are any number of genetic combinations that produce identical effects, yet all organisms share based building blocks and codings for identical proteins. The only known mechanism for this is inheritance across generations.
- The natural hierarchical grouping of species which implies a branching evolutionary process;
- Agreement among independently derived phylogenetic trees, which supports the objective validity of phylogenetic organization of living organisms (see above);
- Agreement of phylogenetic tree with fossil records; Again, independent support of phylogenetic organization;
- Existence of vestigial structures, implying that organisms inherit structures from previous generations which must then be reused for other purposes;
- Existence of atavism, implying that organisms inherit structures which lose their purpose altogether;
- The agreement of phylogeny with ontogeny; the developing of organisms in utero parallels evolutionary developments among related species;
- The agreement of phylogeny with geographical distribution of animals; more independent support of phylogenetic organization.
- The existence of similar structures among animals used for different purposes; see: vestigial structures;
- The existence of structures that are suboptimal for their function, implying that organisms can only use the structures they are provided with via inheritance.
- The existence and replication of transposons; transposons being alien genetic material whose primary replication mechanisms is via genetic inheritance.
- The direct observation of individual elements of evolution, such as morphological changes, functional changes, different stages of speciation, and actual instances of speciation.
-->
@drafterman
@Athias
In so much as Creation and evolution might be regarded as opposing hypotheses.
Nonetheless creation starts at the beginning of something, whereas the possibility of species evolution comes a long while later, rather towards the current end of a process.
I would suggest that evolution should actually take into account every phase of a developmental process, rather than just the particular bit that is relevant to ourselves.
Though If one does focus on the very latter stages of material development, that is to say the exponential movement from the organic to the technological, then evolution would seem to be patently obvious..
The fact that we are the architects of this movement, is what it is.
And perhaps is also what it was meant to be.
Creation-Evolution-Creation etc.
-->
@zedvictor4
In so much as Creation and evolution might be regarded as opposing hypotheses.
Creation is not an opposing thesis, it is an unnecessary thesis.
Nonetheless creation starts at the beginning of something, whereas the possibility of species evolution comes a long while later, rather towards the current end of a process.
Evolution is the process, which is ongoing. It has no end unless all life ceases to exist.
I would suggest that evolution should actually take into account every phase of a developmental process, rather than just the particular bit that is relevant to ourselves.
Evolution refers to how life evolves and it covers that process rather well.
Though If one does focus on the very latter stages of material development, that is to say the exponential movement from the organic to the technological, then evolution would seem to be patently obvious..
No, transhumanism is not in the scope of evolution.
The fact that we are the architects of this movement, is what it is.And perhaps is also what it was meant to be.Creation-Evolution-Creation etc.
-->
@drafterman
Creation is not an opposing thesis, it is an unnecessary thesis.
That is of course if you accept that processes occur by themselves and can't answer why. To put it bluntly...bull shyt. "Unnecessary" is subjective.
-->
@zedvictor4
In so much as Creation and evolution might be regarded as opposing hypotheses.Nonetheless creation starts at the beginning of something
Smart fella, good thinking.
BTW evolution is surely compatible with a creation hypothesis. It's a shame that it's considered opposing, when in fact you are absolutely correct creation has a starting point to get from nothing to something. God doesn't just poof things into existence I don't care what book says what.