Question Simple question. Is evolution real?

[Catastrophe]

If we can exclude extra terrestrial intervention, and independent occurrence of similar species as in monkeys, apes and humans, then is not evolution a simple YES / NO question?

 

[COLGeek]

Yes and yes.

The evidence seems scientifically clear.

Natural selection - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Helio]

I'm absolutely sure evolution is very probably right! [If you played Destiny 1, you'd understand this a little more humorously perhaps.]

Evolution theory keeps improving. Darwin's brilliant work was still limited and not accepted since genetics were not understood.

Genetics helped but there were still issues. More recently it has been shown that some proteins behave like job superintendents that control the actions of a whole host of genes. I read where Cohn used a protein that triggered a chicken to grow a complete and functional 3rd leg in a chicken. So there are both functional protein-building elements and regulatory elements.

This explains why a humanoid like Ardi could lead to a Lucy in less time than one would normally expect. It would also explain what Gould found in the Burgess Shale.

 

[Catastrophe]

Helio, I don't doubt a word of your post, but I am seeking a simple response to a simple question, as given by COLGeek.

There is no doubt that natural selection has occurred. Am I missing something in assuming that this involves the reality of evolution?

 

[Geomartian]

No

The Devil is in the details of “evolution”.

To someone with Darwin’s background a computer program is just one step away from a magic spell. Yet computer programs and genetic codes can create real objects.

The random mutations explanation reveals the limitations of Darwin’s scientific background. Darwin did not understand the underlying mechanism for the changes he was observing. Random mutations were the “Deus ex machina” of Darwin’s theory.

Random mutations explain nothing, they are just a plot device to keep the story going.

 

[rod]

Cat in post #4 said "There is no doubt that natural selection has occurred. Am I missing something in assuming that this involves the reality of evolution?"

My answer Cat is yes, you are missing something. Here is an excerpt from a source I use, 2002 quote. "A professor at Nottingham Trent University asks, ". . . even if the neo-Darwinians are correct, at what level is natural selection supposed to work?"3 Certainly it's not on the very small level, "How natural selection operates at the molecular level is a major problem in evolutionary biology."4 The late S.J. Gould described the limits of this supposed creative process, "Natural selection is therefore a principle of local adaptation, not of general advance or progress."5... adding that selection has nothing to do with the origin of species (macroevolution). Four other evolutionary biologists agree, "Natural selection can act only on those biologic properties that already exist [creation]; it cannot create properties in order to meet adaptational needs [macroevolution]."6"

If I look at the Galilean moons for example, today we have very good math model using natural law that predicts when eclipse events will be seen in telescopes on Earth today, e.g. Io or Ganymede. However, math modeling showing when a gene(s) will create a new 3D life form that appears (e.g. Cambrian explosion fossils) based upon natural selection - is not there.

 

[Catastrophe]

There is a point in what I am going to post. I have been lucky enough to have the ability to learn languages easily. About 50 to 40 years ago I spent a lot of time selling in Europe. Whilst the French were happy (or determined) to speak French, the Germans spoke English better than I spoke German. Nevertheless, I spoke German there and tried to become moderately fluent. In my twenties, I tried Russian, but was too busy with other things to progress. Recently, I have felt the need to use that part of my brain conducive to learning languages. I tried Russian but, to be honest, I found the different alphabel very hard going, so I have settled for Italian. Having Latin from school has helped and I am making good progress.

Thank you for staying with me this long. The point I am making is that I have learned something about semantics. I can see how different languages attempt to interact with reality. I found it quite easy to progress from semantics to General Semantics (vide Science and Sanity by Korzybski).

Please see:
General semantics, a philosophy of language-meaning that was developed by Alfred Korzybski (1879–1950), a Polish-American scholar, and furthered by S.I. Hayakawa, Wendell Johnson, and others; it is the study of language as a representation of reality. Korzybski’s theory was intended to improve the habits of response to environment.

The much quoted 'summation' of this way of thinking is:
The map is not the territory.

The verbiage with which we interact IS NOT the underlying reality.

We communicate at a level far removed from reality, whatever that may mean.

This is why I try to avoid masses of (limited) verbosity.

So how about some simple thoughts please?
Is not development from amoeba to humans evidence of evolution?
Forget about the noun with a capital E. Does this not suggest / prove evolution of organisms?

Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

Rod. I believe you know that I have the greatest respect for you, so I am confident that you will not be offended by a simple question.

What description would you give for the advancement of "life" from simple cells to humanity?

Somewhere around a dozen or so words would be good, and references, hopefully, won't be necessary. Just a gut response please.

Cat

Anyone else please feel free to offer their responses.

 

[Geomartian]

From simple organisms to complex, it is evolution.

Just as I have inherited an evolutionary drive to verbally pummel another primate’s flawed theories in order to raise my own social status within the primate hierarchy.

Reality has no voice and makes no arguments, it simply is. Reality is a social construct (a story). If you want to understand, criticize, or change that story then you have to argue the details (verbosity).

Functionally evolution is a reality but on an inhuman time scale.

 

[rod]

Cat and Geomartian, reference post #8 and #9. Cat in post #7, said "So how about some simple thoughts please? Is not development from amoeba to humans evidence of evolution?"

As I already posted (#6), natural selection does not change an amoeba into humans that build rockets and space probes. The fossil record since Charles Lyell and Charles Darwin is interpreted to represent descent with modification (Nicholas Steno for example did not see this in fossils, with Lyell and Darwin, the fossil record paradigm changed completely) so following the new paradigm for interpreting the fossils (Lyell and Darwin), amoebas can evolve into people. However, natural selection is inadequate to explain *all the modification needed and genetic code changes*, whether the time period is 1,000 years or 100 billion years to change life like this in the fossil record. That means the paradigm based upon descent with modification for interpreting the fossil record has holes in it. It is important to define the difference between microevolution vs. macroevolution too.

 

[Catastrophe]

"So how about some simple thoughts please? Is not development from amoeba to humans evidence of evolution?"

If your answer is NO, then how do we describe development from amoeba to humans?
With a dictionary of the size we have available, surely there must be a single word for it?

Improvement? Degradation? Hyperpolysyllabicsesquipedalianistic (the practice of using long words to excess)? Ignorance? Stupidity? Nonsense?

Suggestions gratefully received.

Cat

 

[rod]

Cat, ref your post #11, my answer is no. The evidence of amoeba to human evolution involves all life in the fossil record as well as plant life and trees for example and life on Earth today. There was a historical paradigm shift that took place from the writings of Nicolas Steno and the explanations for fossils and the rise of Lyell and Darwin. What I see in all of this thread, some are unwilling to acknowledge the theory of macroevolution using the fossil record - has holes in it. I see holes in the paradigm.

 

[Catastrophe]

Rod

I must repeat my question.

If your answer is NO, then how do we describe development from amoeba to humans?
With a dictionary of the size we have available, surely there must be a single word for it?

Improvement? Degradation? Hyperpolysyllabicsesquipedalianistic (the practice of using long words to excess)? Ignorance? Stupidity? Nonsense?

Suggestions gratefully received.

 

[rod]

Cat, I admire your zeal here. You said in post #13, "I must repeat my question. If your answer is NO, then how do we describe development from amoeba to humans? With a dictionary of the size we have available, surely there must be a single word for it?"

There is one word here, *macroevolution*. However this is a theory, not a fact of science and the theory has holes in it (even Charles Darwin said the record of plants in the fossil record was a serious problem). Do you agree that macroevolution has holes in the paradigm showing amoeba to humans?

 

[Catastrophe]

Rod, you know that I have the greatest resect for you. I am not attacking you in any way, but I do have difficulty in understanding your viewpoint. I am trying to understand what is meant by "macroevolution". Could you perhaps give me a brief interpretation of how this applies to our current discussion?
Meanwhile, I am trying to understand its provenance. Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

"major evolutionary change, especially with regard to the evolution of whole taxonomic groups over long periods of time. "

Is this what I should understand?

 

[Catastrophe]

I have just checked that we are still "on topic". I believe this to be the case.
I also believe that "macroevolution" appears to be subject to the same parameters as "evolution", so I feel justified in reverting to my original question.

 

[Catastrophe]

If we can exclude extra terrestrial intervention, and independent occurrence of similar species as in monkeys, apes and humans, then is not evolution a simple YES / NO question?

Let me please remind all concerned, the above is the subject of this thread. My personal judgment is that any differentiation between "evolution" and "macroevolution" may be a semantic quibble. It is for you to decide.

 

[Ken Fabian]

Catastrophe - Yes, there is ample evidence for evolution.

Rod - amoeba and humans are products of evolution from a common ancestor, not humans evolving from amoeba. Both are products of long evolution and interactions with other life as well as the physical environment.

The mechanisms of evolution are mutation, natural selection, genetic drift, recombination and gene flow, not natural selection alone. Mutation increases genetic diversity. Natural selection reduces it. Recombination shuffles some existing genes into different combinations, genetic drift spreads genes from mutation into the descendant population and gene flow introduces them from a different sub-population.

I don't expect any arguments here will manage to overturn one of the fundamental understandings of modern biology; it got that recognition the hard way, legitimately. If in doubt look to experts.

 

[rod]

In post #19, Ken said "Rod - amoeba and humans are products of evolution from a common ancestor, not humans evolving from amoeba. Both are products of long evolution and interactions with other life as well as the physical environment."

Okay, post #19 has some meat to chew on. My question is simple. If amoeba and humans descended from the same *common ancestor*, where is the fossil of this common ancestor? Consider that amoebas are still amoebas today.

 

[Catastrophe]

In post #19, Ken said "Rod - amoeba and humans are products of evolution from a common ancestor, not humans evolving from amoeba. Both are products of long evolution and interactions with other life as well as the physical environment."

Okay, post #19 has some meat to chew on. My question is simple. If amoeba and humans descended from the same *common ancestor*, where is the fossil of this common ancestor? Consider that amoebas are still amoebas today.

Oh come on . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 

[Catastrophe]

Where is the Ark?

 

[Ken Fabian]

In post #19, Ken said "Rod - amoeba and humans are products of evolution from a common ancestor, not humans evolving from amoeba. Both are products of long evolution and interactions with other life as well as the physical environment."

Okay, post #19 has some meat to chew on. My question is simple. If amoeba and humans descended from the same *common ancestor*, where is the fossil of this common ancestor? Consider that amoebas are still amoebas today.

No-one expects to find fossils of that common ancestor - such fossils may not exist or be discoverable even if they do. As the quote goes "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"; most species that have existed have not left identifiable fossil evidence and failure to find those fossils does not mean they never existed.

BTW, what makes you think the amoeba of long ago were the same as those we have today? Yes there are fossils, with strong similarities to living species but there is diversity now and diversity then as well.

 

[rod]

Ken in post #23 ask "BTW, what makes you think the amoeba of long ago were the same as those we have today? Yes there are fossils, with strong similarities to living species but there is diversity now and diversity then as well."

I could just as easily ask what makes you think the amoeba of long ago evolved very differently than the amoeba observed living today? Example DNA to DNA comparison

There are a number of Precambrian fossils documented now that show no evolutionary change, what I call macroevolution . From a March 2017 report and source, "Recently,...discovered “microfossils up to almost 4.3 billion years old” in Canada.1 Their article states: “It shows that some microbes have not changed significantly” since Earth’s early times, Papineau said. Earth formed about 4.5 billion years ago and the oceans appeared about 4.4 billion years ago. If the fossils are indeed 4.28 billion years old, that would suggest “an almost instantaneous emergence of life” after ocean formation, Dodd said.1"

An observation from my source "It is significant that these fossil microbes apparently didn’t change after four billion years—but evolution implies many, many changes over millions of years. If evolution involves substantial change, then why are these ancient microfossils so similar to modern microbes?"

Canadian bacteria-like fossils called oldest evidence of life

Microfossils up to almost 4.3 billion years old found in Canada of microbes are similar to the bacteria that thrive today around sea floor hydrothermal vents and may represent the oldest-known evidence of life on Earth, scientists said on Wednesday.

www.reuters.com

 

[rod]

FYI Ken and Cat. Ken in post #23 said "As the quote goes "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"; most species that have existed have not left identifiable fossil evidence and failure to find those fossils does not mean they never existed."

I used to think this was a very clever phrase but after studying more on the debate between geocentric astronomy and the heliocentric solar system, it looks poor to me. Example Copernicus, Tycho Brahe, Galileo telescope observations at Jupiter, Kepler, Newton. Absence of evidence demonstrating the Earth is moving around the Sun would not be accepted as evidence that the Earth was indeed moving around the Sun in the geocentric vs. heliocentric debates.