Evolution: the Facts.

Kotatsu said:
randman said:
None of them do.
Click to expand...

As in, "none of the trees contain groupings that would not be predicted by evolutionary theory"? If so, what did you mean when you wrote:

randman said:
Even looking at phylogeny, the pattern of how species seem to be grouped together, it's not what "evolution" in the sense of Darwinism would predict, but you have to take the time to look at the patterns and consider the arguments closely.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Well randman, do you stand by your words?

This what i mean you make claims, now it is timne to substantiate them.
 
It's odd that randman insisted that ANTpogo go through a great deal of time and effort to support her statements--MUCH more than is the norm on an internet forum like this--and still refuses to accept what's been proven true, preferring to move the goalposts and change what his argument is, and demanding even MORE proof, yet refuses to back up his own statements.
 
A very good video, Paulhoff. Thank you.

I do have one caveat to add, though. In paleontology we often discuss paraphyletic groupings (an ancestor and some, but not all, of its descendants). This is because paleontologists deal with multiple time slices. The convention we generally use is that if at the time the organisms were alive they were a legitimate taxa we can call them that, and generally ignore the ancestors. For example, "non-avian dinosaurs" is a paraphyletic group, but during the Triassic, Jurassic, and early Cretaceous all extant dinosaurs were non-avian dinosaurs; thus we can discuss the taxa. Also, there's problems with speciation events. If one species produces a daughter species, but the original species remains, that original species name is now a paraphyletic group. Yet it obviously has biological relevance. Things like this are preventing us from adopting fully a cladistic/phylogenetic framework for discussing biology, and are why we still have vestiges of the old taxonomic system in our current one.

Well, that and the fact that there are a bunch of old guys who refuse to change. You can never discount the power of a bunch of old guys who refuse to change (no sexism here--nearly everyone I've spoken with who insists on Linnaean taxonomy is old and male).
 
I should email AronRa and ask him to do a video on the fact that not everything losses information as it changes to a new species and in fact many times new information is added to the gene pool.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
Excellent video, I've always wondered at the distinction I've seen debated between the subject of 'monkeys or apes'. Now I am proud to be a monkey.
 
randman said:
None of them do.
Click to expand...

So take up the challenges, then. Be a little specific. Come on, honest debate, remember? Scientific basis for your claims, remember? This is your chance to prove that you're right. What reason could you possibly have for avoiding these challenges if you're right and your claims are based on real science?
 
Paulhoff said:
I should email AronRa and ask him to do a video on the fact that not everything losses information as it changes to a new species and in fact many times new information is added to the gene pool.

Paul

:) :) :)
Click to expand...


I've been trying to stay out of this, because others are doing perfectly well, but this is one of my hobby horses...


New information is added in every random mutation. The fact that much* of this is either deleterious or neutral doesn't matter. Some mutations are beneficial, and some of these are preserved.

Lots of random information is created by mutation, and some of the "good information" is preserved by natural selection.




*This is where one of the claims in favour of ID- that mutations are deleterious is nearly right, but incorrect in a very important way:

If an organism is well adapted to its ecological niche, differences are more likely to be deleterious; if the environment changes, then alterations will be more likely to be advantageous than in the stable case. The speed of evolution will increase in changing environment.

And of course, even in situations where organisms are well adapted, some mutations will be beneficial.
 
Dancing David said:
Kotatsu said:
randman said:
None of them do.
Click to expand...

As in, "none of the trees contain groupings that would not be predicted by evolutionary theory"? If so, what did you mean when you wrote:

randman said:
Even looking at phylogeny, the pattern of how species seem to be grouped together, it's not what "evolution" in the sense of Darwinism would predict, but you have to take the time to look at the patterns and consider the arguments closely.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Well randman, do you stand by your words?

This what i mean you make claims, now it is time to substantiate them.
Click to expand...
Bumpity bump bump
 
Dancing David said:
Bumpity bump bump
Click to expand...
Already stated.

The "pattern" refers to the whole pattern, not just single "trees."

None of the single trees are good evidence for ND due a variety of factors: first the fossil record and living biota do not show the transitions. Second, subgroup isolation (microevolution) entails a decrease in genetic variability.

But since you yourself haven't grasped that sequential speciation is the process of how evos claim the higher taxa evolved, it's not worth taking the time to go further. You'd have to understand that's basic evo theory and haven't seen you do that yet.

Phylogenetic trees can be used as a scientific argument for common descent, just not microevolution as the means by which it happened, imo.
 
Paulhoff View Post said:
I should email AronRa and ask him to do a video on the fact that not everything losses information as it changes to a new species and in fact many times new information is added to the gene pool.
Click to expand...
Hybredization in plants often adds whole genomes to the plants. This is obviously added information (and, incidently, one of the reasons why randman's definition of species is horribly, horribly insufficient).

jimbob said:
If an organism is well adapted to its ecological niche, differences are more likely to be deleterious; if the environment changes, then alterations will be more likely to be advantageous than in the stable case. The speed of evolution will increase in changing environment.
Click to expand...
Natural selection often acts as a stabilizing force. As Gould and Eldretch put it, "Stasis is data"--meaning that the long stretches of time when organisms show little change are actually telling us something. Specifically it tells us that the organism reached a local high in fitness space (not, as would be expected if they were designed, a global high), and any change is going to push the offspring into less favorable portions of fitness space. This can be overcome by a number of mechanisms, and as soon as the environment changes fitness space changes (and the environment is constantly changing), but generally speaking, for certain taxa, natural selection acts to stabilize the population rather than creating directional evolution.
 
randman said:
The "pattern" refers to the whole pattern, not just single "trees."
Click to expand...

Ah, so you can't back your assertion up at all, then? Seems not.

If there is something in phylogeny which is not as the theory of evolution would predict, then you should be able to demonstrate what that is.

None of the single trees are good evidence for ND due a variety of factors: first the fossil record and living biota do not show the transitions. Second, subgroup isolation (microevolution) entails a decrease in genetic variability.

[...]

Phylogenetic trees can be used as a scientific argument for common descent, just not microevolution as the means by which it happened, imo.
Click to expand...

Not the claim you made. Your assertion was: "[...]looking at phylogeny, the pattern of how species seem to be grouped together, it's not what "evolution" in the sense of Darwinism would predict[...]". Now, can you substantiate that claim or not? Either substantiate it or retract it. This thread, after all, is concerned with science. And, as I've pointed out to you before, if you're making statements that even you realise you have to qualify with an "imo", then what you're posting is opinion, not science.

So, can you show scientific evidence that phylogeny contradicts the theory of evolution by natural selection, or are you going to retract that statement?
 
We should add that SOCIETIES also evolve!

It is not a mystery why we have managed to accumulate the vast human total cultural heritage. We are very different from the CroMagnon Man but not biologically! It is our societies that evolved, that were subject to natural selection--or survival of the fittest if you will.

Millions of years of biological evolution as hunting/gathering groups has made us instincively attuned to small group living. Only in them do we feel secure and instinctively feel compassion and even friendship for less than a couple of hundred people. That has been thoroughly studied; it is the way we are.

Language enabled us to develop ideolgical systems that served to bond us into much larger groups so we could develop kingdoms, nations and societies. It is the competition of these societies and their bonding ideologies that is the natural selection process. Societies (large groups bonded by ideology) that evolve.

Social evolution is the way to understand man's past and his future. What it will take to unite our world will be for a new ideology to replace all the old ones. Now, that is a tall order! But I'm working on it . . .we all should.
 
randman said:
Already stated.

The "pattern" refers to the whole pattern, not just single "trees."
Click to expand...
And the patterns you have sked for are sadly lacking, whatever they are, restate them and present them.

Can you do that or is it just bait and switch with you?

You made teh claim that there are patterns that can not be explained by mainstream theory, what are they?

Hmmm?
None of the single trees are good evidence for ND due a variety of factors: first the fossil record and living biota do not show the transitions. Second, subgroup isolation (microevolution) entails a decrease in genetic variability.

But since you yourself haven't grasped that sequential speciation is the process of how evos claim the higher taxa evolved, it's not worth taking the time to go further.
Click to expand...
Unsupported assertion 4: who said that where?
You'd have to understand that's basic evo theory and haven't seen you do that yet.
Click to expand...
Nope you need to present the data to back your assertions, otherwise you are just some guy on the internet making stuff up.
Phylogenetic trees can be used as a scientific argument for common descent, just not microevolution as the means by which it happened, imo.
Click to expand...
 
randman said:
The patterns emerging do not indicate they were driven strictly by random mutations and the environment. Even looking at phylogeny, the pattern of how species seem to be grouped together, it's not what "evolution" in the sense of Darwinism would predict, but you have to take the time to look at the patterns and consider the arguments closely.

Lots of scientists, even some of great reputation, came and come to the same conclusions that NeoDarwinism just doesn't explain the data.
Click to expand...

And when will you present these patterns and this data?

Huh Spike, huh huh, when are you going to present these patterns and this data?

Huh Spike, huh?
 
Dancing David said:
And when will you present these patterns and this data?

Huh Spike, huh huh, when are you going to present these patterns and this data?

Huh Spike, huh?
Click to expand...
When you admit and understand the concept of sequential speciation so we can discuss whether the pattern fits the model.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom