Ida, evolutionary model, challenged by new discovery

[JBeukema]

This particular theory has plenty of proof. Without looking it up, I'm guessing that the theory says something along the lines that a species can adapt over time to its environment.

Not quite. That the lifeforms on Earth have changed is fact. That speciation has been observed is the fact of evolution. the theory of evolution is the unifying model of how it occurs and the predictions the theory makes

Part two of the theory would be that when this adaptation does not take place, the species reduces to extinction.

That's not accurate. No such prediction is made. If a species were somehow to avoid mutation and all that comes with it (genetic drift, selective pressures..) it would only go extinct if a significant outside pressure wee applied that caused the species to no longer be successful. If no new competition showed uop and the environment wen unchanged, there is no reason the species would not continue along as it had. Indeed, some species or 'forms' seem to have changed relatively little. For instance, modern sharks and crocodiles seem to have changed very little (in phenotype) from their ancestors from millions of years ago, because they are highly successful and there are no highly selective evolutionary pressures at work. What changes are seen ()again, in phenotype) seem more consistent with genetic drift than any significant selective pressures.

 

[code1211]

. If we came from apes, it would follow that we are evolving into something more sophisticated.

Incorrect; no such thing would follow

Actually, there is a dual evolution going on in our societies and, I suspect, the societies of all species. One is an evolution of the individual and the other is the evolution of the social structures around the individual.

In the case of a bird, it might evolve into a big fan for a tail.

In our society, it might evolve into many fans for Beyonce's tail.

The effect is the same.

As our society evolves layers of insulation that remove us farther from the natural predators and elements, we may develope into beings that are unsuited to the natural world. Maybe we are already there. Our "greatness" may be swept away by the next Ice Age.

Wouldn't it be delightfull if the Ice of Greenland melted and revealed remnants of an industrialized society of 120,000 years ago?

 

[JBeukema]

This is a relatively ignorant question, considering all three have a common ancestor.

No proof of that exists. Once again provide even ONE example of proven mammal species that we can PROVE developed into 2 or more distinct separate species.

There is also no PROOF that the alternate theory is true.

The alternate theory? This is a false dichotomy put forth by fools and dishonest theistic creationists.

 

[JBeukema]

. If we came from apes, it would follow that we are evolving into something more sophisticated.

Incorrect; no such thing would follow

Actually, there is a dual evolution going on in our societies and, I suspect, the societies of all species. One is an evolution of the individual and the other is the evolution of the social structures around the individual.

That's not accurate. One can cite the mutations that occur in the individual compared to the parents, but one cannot cite any 'evolution of the individual' Remember that evolution acts neither on the individual or on the species, but upon the population of interbreeding individuals.

As our society evolves layers of insulation that remove us farther from the natural predators and elements, we may develope into beings that are unsuited to the natural world.

I would assert that this has already occurred. Our bodies are weak; take away our tools and we are helpless against even most common dogs.

Wouldn't it be delightfull if the Ice of Greenland melted and revealed remnants of an industrialized society of 120,000 years ago?

It would certainly force us to revise our understanding of history

 

[code1211]

. If we came from apes, it would follow that we are evolving into something more sophisticated.

Incorrect; no such thing would follow

why not? why would this be as far as it goes?

What we see as advance might be viewed differently by nature. Maybe we see the Twilight Zone big brain guy as the next step and maybe nature sees the root grubbing guy with a vastly improved immune system as the next step.

Obviously, the next step is not the one that is planned, it is the one that is taken.

 

[JBeukema]

it is a common error to fallaciously treat evolution as a conscious entity with a goal or motivation

 

[code1211]

Let me get this straight, evolution stopped in our case?

Evidently in your case. Evolution does not lead to anything 'more sophisticated', it merely favors that which is more fit. Come back when you have an education; you're too stupid and ignorant to discuss such matters.

And yet you can provide not one shred of evidence that man evolved from an ape like creature nor ANY evidence that ANY mammal species ever spawned 2 or more entirely different species. Go figure.

The evidence is all around you. Especially "shred"s of evidence. Absolute proof is not available.

The method, the mechanism, demonstrated examples and a record of assertion and attainment of predicted result is here.

The million or billion or so photographs of each step in the evolving generations is not. God gave us the ability to conceptualize. We must fill in the blanks to his plan as He provided us the tools to do so.

I am not inclined to disappoint the Almighty. Are you?

 

[code1211]

This particular theory has plenty of proof. Without looking it up, I'm guessing that the theory says something along the lines that a species can adapt over time to its environment.

Not quite. That the lifeforms on Earth have changed is fact. That speciation has been observed is the fact of evolution. the theory of evolution is the unifying model of how it occurs and the predictions the theory makes

Part two of the theory would be that when this adaptation does not take place, the species reduces to extinction.

That's not accurate. No such prediction is made. If a species were somehow to avoid mutation and all that comes with it (genetic drift, selective pressures..) it would only go extinct if a significant outside pressure wee applied that caused the species to no longer be successful. If no new competition showed uop and the environment wen unchanged, there is no reason the species would not continue along as it had. Indeed, some species or 'forms' seem to have changed relatively little. For instance, modern sharks and crocodiles seem to have changed very little (in phenotype) from their ancestors from millions of years ago, because they are highly successful and there are no highly selective evolutionary pressures at work. What changes are seen ()again, in phenotype) seem more consistent with genetic drift than any significant selective pressures.

Exactly. Adaptation is only required when there is a change in the environment. The environment is always changing, but not always in ways that affect a species. The simple change from daylight to darkness is a change that occurs in most places daily. The ocean and the land are greatly different as is the air. We have life in all of the biosphere.

It's really quite amazing.

A Buffalo at 300 feet in the air will probably have a pretty short life span, but an Eagle will do allright. The Eagle won't fare as well at 300 feet deep in the ocean, but a Whale is just fine. The Whale is in trouble on the Beach, but I'm good. Of course the Whale has developed no method to tip a waiter and I'm pretty good at this.

Corona Beer served by a Mexican Waiter is the final proof of evolution.

 

[Diuretic]

Evidently in your case. Evolution does not lead to anything 'more sophisticated', it merely favors that which is more fit. Come back when you have an education; you're too stupid and ignorant to discuss such matters.

And yet you can provide not one shred of evidence that man evolved from an ape like creature nor ANY evidence that ANY mammal species ever spawned 2 or more entirely different species. Go figure.

The evidence is all around you. Especially "shred"s of evidence. Absolute proof is not available.

The method, the mechanism, demonstrated examples and a record of assertion and attainment of predicted result is here.

The million or billion or so photographs of each step in the evolving generations is not. God gave us the ability to conceptualize. We must fill in the blanks to his plan as He provided us the tools to do so.

I am not inclined to disappoint the Almighty. Are you?

I think that the idea of theory in science is sort of like an explanation of current understanding about a phenomenon, usually based on some sort of evidence. From that it seems to me that God is a theory of causation of the universe except that there isn't much evidence to support that theory.

 

[JBeukema]

Wrong. A theory is built upon facts and evidence. There cannot be a theory without facts. A theory unifies multiple hypothesis and the supporting evidence in order to explain natural phenomena. A theory can be used to extrapolate things are are not yet observed- it can make predictions about phenomena, particles, etc that have not yet been observed. These predictions can then be tested repeatedly in order to determiner whether the theory is consistent with the results of said experiments.

From that it seems to me that God is a theory of causation of the universe

Incorrect. Deity is a hypothesis with no supporting evidence

except that there isn't much evidence to support that theory.

Then it is not a theory, as it fails to meet all the necessary criteria

 

[Diuretic]

JB you need to read the whole thing and not bits and pieces. Try to relax a bit and look at the context of my post in the total thread.

 

[JBeukema]

You make false statements. Any argument based on these false statements is therefore invalid

 

[Diuretic]

When I want you to grade my posts I'll ask. You may have knowledge JB, you need to develop wisdom (read Robert Sternberg for a few tips).

Try this:

Why Schools Should Teach for Wisdom:
The Balance Theory of Wisdom in Educational Settings
EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGIST, 36(4), 227–245

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Wrong. A theory is built upon facts and evidence. There cannot be a theory without facts. A theory unifies multiple hypothesis and the supporting evidence in order to explain natural phenomena. A theory can be used to extrapolate things are are not yet observed- it can make predictions about phenomena, particles, etc that have not yet been observed. These predictions can then be tested repeatedly in order to determiner whether the theory is consistent with the results of said experiments.

From that it seems to me that God is a theory of causation of the universe

Incorrect. Deity is a hypothesis with no supporting evidence

except that there isn't much evidence to support that theory.

Then it is not a theory, as it fails to meet all the necessary criteria

Where are the facts for the big bang theory, where are the facts for all the theories on how life began? Where are the facts on man evolving from an ape like creature?

 

[JBeukema]

Wrong. A theory is built upon facts and evidence. There cannot be a theory without facts. A theory unifies multiple hypothesis and the supporting evidence in order to explain natural phenomena. A theory can be used to extrapolate things are are not yet observed- it can make predictions about phenomena, particles, etc that have not yet been observed. These predictions can then be tested repeatedly in order to determiner whether the theory is consistent with the results of said experiments.



Incorrect. Deity is a hypothesis with no supporting evidence

except that there isn't much evidence to support that theory.

Then it is not a theory, as it fails to meet all the necessary criteria

Where are the facts for the big bang theory,

That's not what this thread is about, but because I'm so kind-hearted
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uyCkADmNdNo"]YouTube - The Evidence For The Big Bang In 10 Little Minutes[/ame]

Yes, I dumbed it down, but sometimes that helps people understand...

where are the facts for all the theories on how life began? [/quote]

Again, not what this thread is about, but because I'm moral person who pities poor retarded persons like yourself

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg"]YouTube - The Origin of Life - Abiogenesis[/ame]

Where are the facts on man evolving from an ape like creature?

Once again,

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCayG4IIOEQ"]YouTube - 8 -- Human Evolution Made Easy[/ame]

Oversimplified evidence for human evolution.
There are a few spelling mistakes... 'coincedence'? (that's what I get for making videos at 2:00 am.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GEh1u5fF4M"]YouTube - Human Evolution: The Evidence[/ame]

 

[JBeukema]

Where did RGS go? i was looking forward to another witty and well-thought-out refutation- after all, I thought this was his area of expertise?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Where did RGS go? i was looking forward to another witty and well-thought-out refutation- after all, I thought this was his area of expertise?

All your supposed evidence consists of make believe assumptions. Not one piece of it can be proven or directly tested. Instead one must fabricate assumptions and then using those assumptions fabricate supposed tests that have nothing to do with the core Theory. Pretty simple concept really.

One of the dumbest ones is the idea that since we see movement that may be expansion around our planet that equates to expansion through out the Universe. Kinda like claiming cause the wind is blowing south at my house it is blowing south all over the planet.

But you keep believing these unprovable theories, maybe one day in the future they may have some facts to back them up.

 

[JBeukema]

Thanks for illustrating again how stupid you are, RGS




You must be a YEC

 

[Diuretic]

Where did RGS go? i was looking forward to another witty and well-thought-out refutation- after all, I thought this was his area of expertise?

All your supposed evidence consists of make believe assumptions. Not one piece of it can be proven or directly tested. Instead one must fabricate assumptions and then using those assumptions fabricate supposed tests that have nothing to do with the core Theory. Pretty simple concept really.

One of the dumbest ones is the idea that since we see movement that may be expansion around our planet that equates to expansion through out the Universe. Kinda like claiming cause the wind is blowing south at my house it is blowing south all over the planet.

But you keep believing these unprovable theories, maybe one day in the future they may have some facts to back them up.

Don't worry about it, scientists can use theories to do their work and do it well, regardless of popular opinion.