Is evolution true?

[A Shieldmaiden]

JSS wrote:

But what is the cause of evolution?

I would like, very much, to hear you answer your own question James.

"What is the cause of evolution James?"

[James S Saint]

JSS wrote:

But what is the cause of evolution?

I would like, very much, to hear you answer your own question James.

"What is the cause of evolution James?"

That's easy..
The thing that they called "God".

.. which is why this discussion has been so ridiculous.

[Peter Kropotkin]

[quote="James S Saint"]

There is no chef.
What caused the cake and the pie? The chef or the oven? If merely the oven, shouldn't we see cake-pies or pie-cakes in development? Which led to which? How did one ever evolve into the other?

Can a conversation get more ridiculously ignorant?

Evolution is not "Science". Evolution is a principle theorized as A cause of life in all of its forms. Evolution is worshiped by atheists as the First Cause of life, their "God".

K: wrong as usual... I don't in any way shape or form "worship" evolution....
that is what you do... I think evolution answers the question how we got
here better then any other way.....it is not the "cause of life".... and
evolution doesn't even say how life got started... that part is unknown and most
likely will stay unknown...evolution is simply a means to resolve the question
of, how did we get here.. in fact, given the choices offered, evolution is by far
the most logical way we got here..... using Ockham's razor, evolution makes
the best sense of all the theories of how we got here....

Kropotkin

[James S Saint]

K: I don't in any way shape or form "worship" evolution....

You wouldn't know it one way or another. You simply love to hate those other guys.

it is not the "cause of life".... and
evolution doesn't even say how life got started...

There you go. End of argument.

that part is unknown and most
likely will stay unknown...

To you, what doesn't fall into that category?

using Ockham's razor, evolution makes
the best sense of all the theories of how we got here....

Kropotkin

"Wrong as usual". That is not what Occam's Razor is about. And even if it was, the "God did it" ontology is far, far, far simpler than the "for unknown reasons, it kept changing microscopically until it just became what it is in all of its variety and nuances".

[Peter Kropotkin]

we have evidence for evolution and no, zero evidence for
god.... you don't have any evidence for god, so how can you
bring in god into a conversation about science? You can't....
as far as being the simplest explanation for evolution...
it isn't the simplest.... to accept god as an explanation is to
accept all kinds of stuff like heaven and hell and angels
and sin and guilt, the bible, the list goes on and on of things
that must follow if you accept god... I don't accept the idea of god,
so I don't have to worry about all that crap that goes with the belief
in god........it is not simple to believe in god......... very complicated stuff
and confusing stuff.... like the trinity, to give one example.....

Kropotkin

[James S Saint]

we have evidence for evolution and no, zero evidence for
god....

Exactly wrong. You have speculation of Evolution and zero evidence for the lack of God.

The truth is that you don't know one from the other because you haven't the sense to define either in any meaningful way. And when pressed, you merely invent a strawman to satisfy your habit of hate.

[Xunzian]

I mean, we can prove evolution in a few days with bacteria. Then it becomes "micro vs maco" evolution. Then we show macro using dogs and other bred pets. Then it's some other objection . . . at which point it's more a matter of not really getting it.

[James S Saint]

I mean, we can prove evolution ...

Not until you define it as a falsifiable concept.

[A Shieldmaiden]

That's easy..
The thing that they called "God".

.. which is why this discussion has been so ridiculous.

HA! Good one.

[Ecmandu]

Actually bacteria can be used to demonstrate evolution because they can exchange genetic information with each other...

http://www.hammiverse.com/lectures/18/3.html

In order for a new species of bacteria to arrive, it has to not be able to exchange genetic information at all with another species.

So, humunculus, you were wrong to state that we can't prove evolution through bacteria. It would be international news if we ever saw it!!!

[humunculus]

You have speculation of Evolution and zero evidence for the lack of God.

So, this is the crux.
Compare a positive to a negative.
If one tiny doubt can be manufactured in the case for a science, all of that science falls.
If no incontrovertible proof is found against the claim for a deity, all of religion stands.

Try this instead:
On on side,
pile all of the evidence that supports evolution.
Next to it, pile all of the proofs that any specific observation in evolutionary biology is untrue or incorrect.

Then, on the on the other side,
pile all the evidence that supports the factuality of Abrahamic religions.
Next to that, pile all the specific proofs that negate individual claims within those religions.

Before wading in to evaluate the quality of each datum, it might be useful to compare the individual piles for size and weight.
You know, just to be fair.

[humunculus]

In order for a new species of bacteria to arrive, it has to not be able to exchange genetic information at all with another species.

Where did you get this obsession? What made you think it defines or limits the concept of evolution?

So, humunculus, you were wrong to state that we can't prove evolution through bacteria.

I didn't say that. Evolution is demonstrated in bacterial cultures, routinely, every day. It's not international news (!!!)
What they won't demonstrate is your idee fixe about speciation.
I said you can't get them to mate.
Ingesting fragments of chromosome from other bacterial strains in the same culture medium can also be construed as modifying the species, and thus evolving.
What they will not do, for you or anyone else, is reproduce sexually to recombine their DNA.

[Ecmandu]

In order for a new species of bacteria to arrive, it has to not be able to exchange genetic information at all with another species.

Where did you get this obsession? What made you think it defines or limits the concept of evolution?

So, humunculus, you were wrong to state that we can't prove evolution through bacteria.

I didn't say that. Evolution is demonstrated in bacterial cultures, routinely, every day. It's not international news (!!!)
What they won't demonstrate is your idee fixe about speciation.
I said you can't get them to mate.
Ingesting fragments of chromosome from other bacterial strains in the same culture medium can also be construed as modifying the species, and thus evolving.
What they will not do, for you or anyone else, is reproduce sexually to recombine their DNA.

You're being dense.

Evolution (not growth, not adaptation) is SOLELY defined by speciation. "Origin of SPECIES". Remember???

A bear cannot fuck a lion and produce offspring!!!

That means they are a different SPECIES!!

In order for bacteria to speciate, new bacterium have to only be able to exchange DNA with each other, and no other bacterium on earth.

Like I said, talking to you and Peter is literally like talking to a 5 year old who's never studied evolution!

[Peter Kropotkin]

In order for a new species of bacteria to arrive, it has to not be able to exchange genetic information at all with another species.

Where did you get this obsession? What made you think it defines or limits the concept of evolution?

So, humunculus, you were wrong to state that we can't prove evolution through bacteria.

I didn't say that. Evolution is demonstrated in bacterial cultures, routinely, every day. It's not international news (!!!)
What they won't demonstrate is your idee fixe about speciation.
I said you can't get them to mate.
Ingesting fragments of chromosome from other bacterial strains in the same culture medium can also be construed as modifying the species, and thus evolving.
What they will not do, for you or anyone else, is reproduce sexually to recombine their DNA.

E: Evolution (not growth, not adaptation) is SOLELY defined by speciation. "Origin of SPECIES". Remember???
A bear cannot fuck a lion and produce offspring!!!
That means they are a different SPECIES!!

K: evolution is partly speciation, partly other stuff... that is what you don't get....
speciation is part of evolution but not the whole thing.. Natural selection has
a role and genetics plays a role... randomness has a role... that is what people
don't get about evolution... its random nature... and you can show me where
exactly in "origin of species" does it say speciation is the ONLY aspect of evolution...
I have read the "Origin of Species" and I don't recall it saying exactly that... so
point out the exact chapter in the book where it says "speciation is the only aspect of
evolution" and I will recant every word I said.....

Kropotkin

[Ecmandu]

Peter, the book itself is called "origin of species"

It's not called, "the reason children don't look exactly the same as their parents, parents they could reproduce with"

If you really think, like humunculus, that any change through generations is "origin of species", you are defining species as adaptation ...

Does it ever occur to you that Darwin himself jumped to conclusions ?

[Peter Kropotkin]

Peter, the book itself is called "origin of species"

It's not called, "the reason children don't look exactly the same as their parents, parents they could reproduce with"

If you really think, like humunculus, that any change through generations is "origin of species", you are defining species as adaptation ...

Does it ever occur to you that Darwin himself jumped to conclusions ?

K: yes, the "Origins of Species" is how do we get different species? by such things
as speciation and natural selection and genetics, (although in his time, Darwin
had no idea about genetics and the introduction of genetics greatly helped
Darwin's theory by putting into place the mechanism of how in mating we
differ from our parents.... which is why we have children who don't look
exactly like their parents....that is part of evolution) now note Darwin didn't
address the actual ORIGINS of the species, be it god or some other mechanism...
but he did address the reason why we have man and lions and tigers and bears, oh my....
Darwin didn't jump to any conclusions, in fact if you read about how the book of
the "origins of species" came about, you will see that he worked on the theory itself
for over 20 years until pushed into publishing his book by Wallace
who was going to publish his book which said pretty much
what Darwin was going to say....his voyage to the Galapagos islands
was around 1830 and he didn't publish his book until 1859....

you are fixated on only one aspect of evolution and missing the whole
other side of why evolution is so successful in understanding how
we have the species we have..... natural selection and genetics
and speciation are all part of evolution.. learn ALL the aspects of
evolution and you will find all your answers......

Kropotkin

[Ecmandu]

Natural selection - I don't disagree with

Speciation, which is really the whole point of Darwin's book - has never been observed

[mannikin]

lol

[Peter Kropotkin]

Natural selection - I don't disagree with

Speciation, which is really the whole point of Darwin's book - has never been observed

K: oh, for the love of god.... I give up...you are too stupid to learn....
I have already given you an example of speciation and Darwin's book isn't
all about speciation and you would know that if you had read it and
speciation has been observed because you don't understand what
speciation is, that is why you don't think it has been observed....
Jesus on a stick..... I am done... I can't deal with your special brand of stupidity...

Kropotkin

[Ecmandu]

Peter, you don't know the difference between adaptation and speciation.

Not my mistake

[Kriswest]

According to different science sites that I just read, evolution is the process and speciation is the end results. (That is the simplified version of what I read.)

[Ecmandu]

According to different science sites that I just read, evolution is the process and speciation is the end results. (That is the simplified version of what I read.)

That's because, unlike what Peter and humunculus is saying, Darwinism is fundamentally a theory of speciation. As in: different species

It's not foundationally a theory of adaptation

[Ecmandu]

Really, what Darwinism is is the collection of observable adaptations theorized to cause speciation through random mutation.

Darwinism actually presupposes that there was a first "ancestor" it's own "Big Bang"

The "ancestor" (common ancestor) could be hydrogen.

The problem with this God type necessary inference of Darwinism is that, while adaptation through decent through modification has been observed and is easy to observe, speciation never has been observed.

[humunculus]

According to different science sites that I just read, evolution is the process and speciation is the end results. (That is the simplified version of what I read.)

Maybe a little oversimplified. How can there be an "end result" to an ongoing process?

Taxonomy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxonomic_rank is simply a way of classifying biological entities as we observe them in the present.
If a specimen is mistakenly classified as one species, because its outward characteristics resemble those of a closely related genus in its family, but on closer examination, its genetic code reveals it to belong to another branch of the same family, it gets reclassified. No big deal. The whole system of ranking is for the purpose of keeping tidy books. It doesn't in any way affect the process of random mutation, natural selection, adaptation and survival.

Speciation is a concept some creationists have got the wrong end of and keep trying to milk, even though it's a male.

[humunculus]

Evolution (not growth, not adaptation) is SOLELY defined by speciation.

I keep asking you: According to whom?

"Origin of SPECIES". Remember???

Yes, I do, even though that title was chosen a century and half ago. There were some chapters inside.

Chapter I - Variation under Domestication.
Causes of Variability—Effects of Habit—Correlation of Growth—Inheritance—Character of Domestic Varieties—Difficulty of distinguishing between Varieties and Species—Origin of Domestic Varieties from one or more Species—Domestic Pigeons, their Differences and Origin—Principle of Selection anciently followed, its Effects—Methodical and Unconscious Selection—Unknown Origin of our Domestic Productions—Circumstances favourable to Man's power of Selection7–43
CHAPTER II. -Variation under Nature.
Variability—Individual Differences—Doubtful species—Wide ranging, much diffused, and common species vary most—Species of the larger genera in any country vary more than the species of the smaller genera—Many of the species of the larger genera resemble varieties in being very closely, but unequally, related to each other, and in having restricted ranges 44–59
CHAPTER III. -Struggle for Existence.
Bears on natural selection—The term used in a wide sense—Geometrical powers of increase—Rapid increase of naturalised animals and plants—Nature of the checks to increase—Competition universal—Effects of climate—Protection from the number of individuals—Complex relations of all animals and plants throughout nature—Struggle for life most severe between individuals and varieties of the same species; often severe between species of the same genus—The relation of organism to organism the most important of all relations Page 60–79
CHAPTER IV. - Natural Selection.
Natural Selection—its power compared with man's selection—its power on characters of trifling importance—its power at all ages and on both sexes—Sexual Selection—On the generality of intercrosses between individuals of the same species—Circumstances favourable and unfavourable to Natural Selection, namely, intercrossing, isolation, number of individuals—Slow action—Extinction caused by Natural Selection—Divergence of Character, related to the diversity of inhabitants of any small area, and to naturalisation—Action of Natural Selection, through Divergence of Character and Extinction, on the descendants from a common parent—Explains the Grouping of all organic beings 80–130
CHAPTER V. - Laws of Variation.
Effects of external conditions—Use and disuse, combined with natural selection; organs of flight and of vision—Acclimatisation—Correlation of growth—Compensation and economy of growth—False correlations—Multiple, rudimentary, and lowly organised structures variable—Parts developed in an unusual manner are highly variable: specific characters more variable than generic: secondary sexual characters variable—Species of the same genus vary in an analogous manner—Reversions to long-lost characters—Summary 131–170
CHAPTER VI. - Difficulties on Theory.
Difficulties on the theory of descent with modification—Transitions—Absence or rarity of transitional varieties—Transitions in habits of life—Diversified habits in the same species—Species with habits widely different from those of their allies—Organs of extreme perfection—Means of transition—Cases of difficulty—Natura non facit saltum—Organs of small importance—Organs not in all cases absolutely perfect—The law of Unity of Type and of the Conditions of Existence embraced by the theory of Natural Selection Page 171–206
CHAPTER VII. - Instinct.
Instincts comparable with habits, but different in their origin—Instincts graduated—Aphides and ants—Instincts variable—Domestic instincts, their origin—Natural instincts of the cuckoo, ostrich, and parasitic bees—Slave-making ants—Hive-bee, its cell-making instinct—Difficulties on the theory of the Natural Selection of instincts—Neuter or sterile insects—Summary 207–244
CHAPTER VIII. - Hybridism.
Distinction between the sterility of first crosses and of hybrids—Sterility various in degree, not universal, affected by close interbreeding, removed by domestication—Laws governing the sterility of hybrids—Sterility not a special endowment, but incidental on other differences—Causes of the sterility of first crosses and of hybrids—Parallelism between the effects of changed conditions of life and crossing—Fertility of varieties when crossed and of their mongrel offspring not universal—Hybrids and mongrels compared independently of their fertility—Summary 245–278
CHAPTER IX. -On the Imperfection of the Geological Record.
On the absence of intermediate varieties at the present day—On the nature of extinct intermediate varieties; on their number—On the vast lapse of time, as inferred from the rate of deposition and of denudation—On the poorness of our palæontological collections—On the intermittence of geological formations—On the absence of intermediate varieties in any one formation—On the sudden appearance of groups of species—On their sudden appearance in the lowest known fossiliferous strata Page 279–311
CHAPTER X. - On the Geological Succession of Organic Beings.
On the slow and successive appearance of new species—On their different rates of change—Species once lost do not reappear—Groups of species follow the same general rules in their appearance and disappearance as do single species—On Extinction—On simultaneous changes in the forms of life throughout the world—On the affinities of extinct species to each other and to living species—On the state of development of ancient forms—On the succession of the same types within the same areas—Summary of preceding and present chapters 312–345
CHAPTER XI. - Geographical Distribution.
Present distribution cannot be accounted for by differences in physical conditions—Importance of barriers—Affinity of the productions of the same continent—Centres of creation—Means of dispersal, by changes of climate and of the level of the land, and by occasional means—Dispersal during the Glacial period co-extensive with the world 346–382
CHAPTER XII. - Geographical Distribution—continued.
Distribution of fresh-water productions—On the inhabitants of oceanic islands—Absence of Batrachians and of terrestrial Mammals—On the relation of the inhabitants of islands to those of the nearest mainland—On colonisation from the nearest source with subsequent modification—Summary of the last and present chapters Page 383–410
CHAPTER XIII. - Mutual Affinities of Organic Beings: Morphology: Embryology: Rudimentary Organs.
Classification, groups subordinate to groups—Natural system—Rules and difficulties in classification, explained on the theory of descent with modification—Classification of varieties—Descent always used in classification—Analogical or adaptive characters—Affinities, general, complex and radiating—Extinction separates and defines groups—Morphology, between members of the same class, between parts of the same individual—Embryology, laws of, explained by variations not supervening at an early age, and being inherited at a corresponding age—Rudimentary Organs; their origin explained—Summary 411–458
CHAPTER XIV. - Recapitulation and Conclusion.
Recapitulation of the difficulties on the theory of Natural Selection—Recapitulation of the general and special circumstances in its favour—Causes of the general belief in the immutability of species—How far the theory of natural selection may be extended—Effects of its adoption on the study of Natural history—Concluding remarks 459–490

And that was all a hundred years before the electron microscope.
Have you really not read anything since? If you won't read anything more recently, at least you could do Darwin the courtesy of getting past the title.

In order for bacteria to speciate, new bacterium have to only be able to exchange DNA with each other, and no other bacterium on earth.

So, you just cannot get it through your head that bacteria don't fuck?
What will you make of Saccharomyces pastorianus vs Agaricus bisporus, which also don't fuck, and are nevertheless very different species? And then there's potatoes, which do both!