You are repeating yourself from five years ago Veg! Why should I even bother replying to this again when you will strive to forget the answer to maintain your mental health?vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sun Jan 29, 2023 1:43 pm Do you even know what a 'theory' is with regard to science? You do realise that 'evolution' only means gradual change over time don't you? It applies to anything. Stick your cherry picked religious garbage and 'answers in genesis' crap up your arse.
Theory of Evolution
Re: Theory of Evolution
-
- Posts: 2598
- Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm
Re: Theory of Evolution
There are no sequence of words you can read on a philosophy forum that would PROVE evolution to you. My interest isn't proving evolution. I didn't use the word proof, I used the word evidence - evidence is not proof.
My goal here is merely to point you to information about the *evidence*, not proof, that we have, that wasn't available to Darwin. You seen to think the scientific community hasn't gained any evidence over the past 160 years. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that you think that because of ignorance.
I cannot make you look at the evidence, and I cannot make you believe in what the evidence points towards, but once you're aware that there is all this stuff that's been discovered since Darwin's time, you now know that it's up to you to look at it.
Here's how you look at it: you Google "fossil evidence for evolution" and "Dna evolution for evolution" and you read about it. There are countless university resources that discuss what that evidence is and why it's seen as evidence for evolution.
You can no longer honestly say "there's been no new evidence over the last 160 years". If you refuse to look, the best you can say is "I haven't seen the evidence, because I refuse to look it up". After you look, the best you can say is "I've seen what they think is the evidence, and I disagree that it's evidence." It's your right to disagree, of course.
But I'm not going to try to prove anything to you, because I know that I cannot. I'm just, as you say, some dude on a forum. Words on a forum usually can't prove anything on their own. You have to read about the evidence for yourself, and why scientists consider it evidence. I encourage you to do that
My goal here is merely to point you to information about the *evidence*, not proof, that we have, that wasn't available to Darwin. You seen to think the scientific community hasn't gained any evidence over the past 160 years. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that you think that because of ignorance.
I cannot make you look at the evidence, and I cannot make you believe in what the evidence points towards, but once you're aware that there is all this stuff that's been discovered since Darwin's time, you now know that it's up to you to look at it.
Here's how you look at it: you Google "fossil evidence for evolution" and "Dna evolution for evolution" and you read about it. There are countless university resources that discuss what that evidence is and why it's seen as evidence for evolution.
You can no longer honestly say "there's been no new evidence over the last 160 years". If you refuse to look, the best you can say is "I haven't seen the evidence, because I refuse to look it up". After you look, the best you can say is "I've seen what they think is the evidence, and I disagree that it's evidence." It's your right to disagree, of course.
But I'm not going to try to prove anything to you, because I know that I cannot. I'm just, as you say, some dude on a forum. Words on a forum usually can't prove anything on their own. You have to read about the evidence for yourself, and why scientists consider it evidence. I encourage you to do that
Last edited by Flannel Jesus on Sun Jan 29, 2023 2:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Theory of Evolution
The following contradicts this assertion, does not it not?Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sun Jan 29, 2023 1:06 pm Darwin did not have access to DNA, DNA evidence has lent a significant amount of credence to the evolutionary theory.
This means that although natural selection favours particular behavior, behavior does not cause a change in a DNA sequence, and therefore cannot result in a new species.What is Epigenetics?
“Epigenetics is the study of how your behaviors and environment can cause changes that affect the way your genes work. Unlike genetic changes, epigenetic changes are reversible and do not change your DNA sequence, but they can change how your body reads a DNA sequence.” - CDC
https://www.cdc.gov/genomics/disease/epigenetics.htm”
-
- Posts: 2598
- Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm
Re: Theory of Evolution
Evolution in no way relies on any sort of assumption that behaviour itself causes a change in a DNA sequence.
Re: Theory of Evolution
And then there is also the puzzle of why on earth would natural selection produce something like you.
There clearly remains much work to be done.
Re: Theory of Evolution
I see that you agree with the CDC statement that asserts natural selection caused by behavior does not result in a new species.Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sun Jan 29, 2023 2:10 pmEvolution in no way relies on any sort of assumption that behaviour itself causes a change in a DNA sequence.
Wasn't that what Darwin asserted, and doubted?
-
- Posts: 2598
- Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm
Re: Theory of Evolution
I think you're misinterpreting a lot of things to be honest. If you're curious to understand the relationship between DNA and evolution, or how the process of evolution could result in a new species, I can certainly try to help you find some reading material.Walker wrote: ↑Sun Jan 29, 2023 2:15 pmI see that you agree with the CDC statement that asserts natural selection caused by behavior does not result in a new species.Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sun Jan 29, 2023 2:10 pmEvolution in no way relies on any sort of assumption that behaviour itself causes a change in a DNA sequence.
Wasn't that what Darwin asserted, and doubted?
Re: Theory of Evolution
I was using the word "prove" according to the following common English dictionary definition, and not in a mathematical sense or other specialised sense.Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sun Jan 29, 2023 2:03 pm There are no sequence of words you can read on a philosophy forum that would PROVE evolution to you. My interest isn't proving evolution. I didn't use the word proof, I used the word evidence - evidence is not proof.
verb
verb: prove; 3rd person present: proves; past tense: proved; gerund or present participle: proving; past participle: proven
1. demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument.
If you are having some cognitive dissonance with that word, then I take it back and rephrase my statement as follows, so as not to distract us from the main subject of this discussion:
"The fossils do not provide any evidence whatsoever for the theory of evolution, not even close."
That should do it!
That's all I am asking of you. Provide me some links or references from what you take to be peer reviewed trustworthy publishings that you think shows that the fossil record provide evidence for the theory of evolution of Darwin.Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sun Jan 29, 2023 2:03 pmMy goal here is merely to point you to information about the *evidence*, not proof, that we have, that wasn't available to Darwin.
And, what among these do you consider to be evidence concerning the fossil records? Pick one or two of your best and give it to me and let me read your so-called evidence.Here's how you look at it: you Google "fossil evidence for evolution" and "Dna evolution for evolution" and you read about it. There are countless university resources that discuss what that evidence is and why it's seen as evidence for evolution.
Thank you for you encouragements, I will read them as soon as you post me a credible link/reference.
-
- Posts: 2598
- Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm
Re: Theory of Evolution
Following up on my previous offer, here's two interesting reads on the process of speciation:Walker wrote: ↑Sun Jan 29, 2023 2:15 pmI see that you agree with the CDC statement that asserts natural selection caused by behavior does not result in a new species.Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sun Jan 29, 2023 2:10 pmEvolution in no way relies on any sort of assumption that behaviour itself causes a change in a DNA sequence.
Wasn't that what Darwin asserted, and doubted?
https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowled ... 20genetics.
https://cosmosmagazine.com/science/biol ... nerations/
These are by no means a comprehensive view into the topic, but they give a general idea about how speciation might work, and the second link is an example of it happening live! It's definitely a fascinating and challenging topic.
Re: Theory of Evolution
Walker wrote:Wasn't that what Darwin asserted, and doubted?
I think that is the gist of what Darwin asserted, and doubted, because he lacked evidence that behaviours resulting in natural selection do not result in a change of species, i.e., changes in DNA sequencing that would support a link between natural selection and change in species, otherwise known as evolution.Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sun Jan 29, 2023 2:33 pm Following up on my previous offer, here's two interesting reads on the process of speciation: ...
Take Harbal, for instance. Athough hare-brained, he is still human, which indicates an overlapping of behaviours amongst the species, although behaviours do not define the species, or change the species. Changes in DNA sequencing does that.
-
- Posts: 2598
- Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm
Re: Theory of Evolution
There's no single comprehensive link. The information is spread all over the place. I can give you examples.Averroes wrote: ↑Sun Jan 29, 2023 2:31 pmAnd, what among these do you consider to be evidence concerning the fossil records? Pick one or two of your best and give it to me and let me read your so-called evidence.Here's how you look at it: you Google "fossil evidence for evolution" and "Dna evolution for evolution" and you read about it. There are countless university resources that discuss what that evidence is and why it's seen as evidence for evolution.
Thank you for you encouragements, I will read them as soon as you post me a credible link/reference.
https://www.ck12.org/book/ck-12-biology ... ion/10.21/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 5846000325
(You may have to pay for that article, or contact the writers for a free copy)
This one is promising:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/657057
So that one's directly pertinent to the question at hand: evidence post-darwin that we have gained.Abstract: Of all of the sources of evidence for evolution by natural selection, perhaps the most problematic for Darwin was the geological record of organic change. In response to the absence of species‐level transformations in the fossil record, Darwin argued that the fossil record was too incomplete, too biased, and too poorly known to provide strong evidence against his theory. Here, this view of the fossil record is evaluated in light of 150 years of subsequent paleontological research. Although Darwin’s assessment of the completeness and resolution of fossiliferous rocks was in several ways astute, today the fossil record is much better explored, documented, and understood than it was in 1859. In particular, a reasonably large set of studies tracing evolutionary trajectories within species can now be brought to bear on Darwin’s expectation of gradual change driven by natural selection.
And some stuff about DNA:
https://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidenc ... on_descent
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... -ancestor/
Again, no single link to prove anything, but this stuff presents information that wasn't available to Darwin, that is seen as evidence for evolution by today's experts.
-
- Posts: 2598
- Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm
Re: Theory of Evolution
It's not, for one simple reason: Darwin had never conceived of the concept of epigenetics.Walker wrote: ↑Sun Jan 29, 2023 2:51 pmWalker wrote:Wasn't that what Darwin asserted, and doubted?I think that is the gist of what Darwin assertedFlannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sun Jan 29, 2023 2:33 pm Following up on my previous offer, here's two interesting reads on the process of speciation: ...
Re: Theory of Evolution
Good grief. No wonder folks here abandoned this ship.
Here's the gist that as I see, Darwin saw:
Natural selection caused by behavior does not result in a new species.
-
- Posts: 2598
- Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm
Re: Theory of Evolution
Natural selection itself, alone, is not what causes new species to appear. Changes in behaviour, itself, alone, is not what causes new species to appear.
You quoted a definition of epigenetics and asked if that's why Darwin was not confident in his own idea. I don't know that there's any evidence whatsoever that Darwin thought about epigenetics even once in his life. The theory of evolution doesn't revolve around epigenetics.
Edit: just a supporting source in case it's relevant:
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/ ... .2020.0111
Epigenetics plays only a minor role in evolution. Epigenetics is not one of the central mechanisms of how the process of evolution progresses. Genetics, without the "epi" in front, is much more important. Just plain genetics.Epigenetic mechanisms are often held to make a minor contribution to evolutionary change because epigenetic states are typically erased and reset at every generation, and are therefore, not heritable.
Last edited by Flannel Jesus on Sun Jan 29, 2023 4:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Theory of Evolution
Is this what you referred previously as peer reviewed scientific journal?! You are not serious dude, this is propaganda material for high school students in the US. Now, I understand why you are so misinformed.Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sun Jan 29, 2023 2:54 pm There's no single comprehensive link. The information is spread all over the place. I can give you examples.
https://www.ck12.org/book/ck-12-biology ... ion/10.21/
It is you who should be paying not me. The burden of evidence is on you!Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sun Jan 29, 2023 2:54 pmhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 5846000325
(You may have to pay for that article, or contact the writers for a free copy)
I asked you to provide me with scientific evidence of the theory of evolution and you give me an abstract of an article that I have to pay to read! And it does not even give any evidence in the abstract! Why are you so inclined to take from my pocket to buy into a theory that is known to be unfounded??
I did not ask you about DNA by the way. This is a waste of time. According to the scientists, we share 90% of our DNA with felines, 86% with dogs, more than 60% with a banana, and about the same with a cucumber. Good luck trying to convince someone of the theory of evolution with DNA, but with me it is useless. I know the figures and the reason for the similarities. And besides, the golden ratio is found in the DNA! Anyway, that's another topic altogether which we can address later if time permits.Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sun Jan 29, 2023 2:54 pm So that one's directly pertinent to the question at hand: evidence post-darwin that we have gained.
And some stuff about DNA:
https://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidenc ... on_descent
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... -ancestor/