Denial of evolution II

[Saquist]

Can you be a little more clear as to the extent of micro evolution? I assume that it would include the rapid development of by selection in a hostile environment of new germs, which resist the anti-biotic, from the old germs that did not resist it.

What about the rapid (8000 years) development of the new Preá species from the Santa Catalina Guinea Pigs? - See Post 83 and some related that follow.

Clearly Isolation does cause, in this case, change to be more pronouced. That indeed fits under microevolution from what I know.

What about the slower and more typical rate of development that transformed at least some of the dinosaurs into birds (which then further diverged into many different species of birds we see today)? Are you not impressed by the prediction a more than a decade in advance of the discovery that a feathered dinosaur fossil would be found? Is not the good test of this slower production the ability to predict some of the not yet found intermediaries?

I haven't observed every case of Birds and Dinosaurs.
My Jury is still out on the Bird Dinosaur issue open to argument and evidence. One person on these forums brought up the current event of inducing a chicken to have scales. I question this because I thought Chicken's had scales already. (Feet) Correct me if Im wrong please.

There have been many intermediaries, most not yet found (some probably never will be) between Baron's fish that crawled up on land and the current Gorilla that swings in the trees and avoid water if possible. So I assume that evolutionary development is well beyond what you are referring to with "micro evolution" but I am unclear as to where you draw the line between "definitely proven true" and "still highly doubtful"

The difference is that I don't make the assumption that a fish walking on land will eventually become an amphibian that will eventually become a mammal just to hazard a crude example. It seems logical that current walking fish came from an ancient fish. That's a jump that is abit large for the steps change is taking.

Also, and quite important, is what prevent the process you accept from also functioning (over longer times with more intermediaries) from creating greater changes? Does God step in and say: “Enough is enough – get back to the form I made you in.” If not that, what then blocks continued change (even fish to gorilla)?

The sub forum is called biology.
I prefer to remain on one subject at a time.

OK. but clearly from what you said, more harshly than I would, the Catholic church is not describing that God very well. I will also assume that much of what is written in the bible is at best to be understood figuratively, not literally (Sun did not stop in the heavens for battle to continue, etc.) so where do you find these facts you refer to? If that is too tough to put into words (just some sort of feeling you have) can you give an example of a fact that points more to God as the cause that to the explanation that most scientist think is more plausible and explanatory?

Now there is an scientific answer to all this but it rounds TRUELY from Quantum Physics and not from biology. Essentially farther back than biology can describe. That too is off topic in this forum. But to surfice to say my judgement encompasses the evidence of all science not merely isolated explanations. I can't know everything at once but I'm continuely updating my data base.

There are some facts that science does not yet have a widely accepted single explanation of. For example, the origins of life. At times I lean most to the idea that some crystal surface facilitated the chance assemble of films that could come off, roll up, and have ends pinched off to make a proto-type “tube cell” with liquid interior that might have selective permeability to concentrate chemical inside, grow longer and then get broken into two shorter parts, but there are other plausible ideas also that do not assemble organic films on crystal surfaces as the starting point. For example, electrical discharges forming amino acids etc. or molecules with one end hydrophobic so that many of these molecules do align to form a film (Many of your cells do have this structure “inside surface is different from outside surface” still.)

That is certainly a creative solution to life from lifeness problem. I've never heard of it. I like the attempt to bridge the gap and more of that needs to be done by science instead of running with an idea that spans more questions than answers or no answers at all.

Iexcept that is really just sweeping the problem of first cause under the rug - I.e. where did God come from? If some greater god made him that just sweep the question of how it all got started under a second rug. etc. AFAIK, there is no good idea as to where energy/matter came from, but some model of how time was made is known (I do not understand it, but people smarter than me seem to.)

No they don't. Now you're thinking as I do. I have read more on physics than biology. Far more. It is apparent to me that religion and science in this case are attempting to describe the same thing a begining and one is more sucessful while the other becomes trapped in a paradox of infinities.

Humans litterally have a problem with non linear concepts, but once again that is going off topic. I have attempted to broach the issue in the appropriate sub forum to hear the concert of ideas to draw from but I've gained limited intrest. From what I've recieved they do agree that paradoxes become more prounced the more we uncover about the universe.
You should hear my theory of Mass Effect. (pardon the rip-off but it was the only reasonable name for the theory)

 

[Billy T]

...Billy, you have no evidence which proves that there was no outside influence

Of course I do not have evidence that something did not happen. One NEVER can prove a negative. For example, I cannot prove that Santa clause did NOT come down the chimney. Even if the chimney was bricked up years ago - he might have undone those bricks and carefully re did them after he left. (Perhaps that is a bad examle in that Santa Clause is like God - no evidence for them to exist, exists. So it is sort of a double negative example.)

...or other species that didn't "float to the island on sticks and debris", thus interbreeding and/or complete taking over the existing population.

I am not sure of your point here. Yes, it is possible that there were SCGPs on that part of land where the Preá live now more than 8000years ago. - In fact I assume that there were and when the ice melt sea rise made it an island, all but about 20 starved to death and as the survivors mated the smaller off springs were less like to starve than the their bigger brothers and sisters. (Why the preá are now about half the size of the SCGPs.)

If you are suggesting that only 7000 years ago when the "preá island" was already cut off by the sea from the big Island where the SCGPs are now that some SCGP rode a raft over to "preá island" which did not have any mammals on it that is certainly possible but harder to believe as then there are only 7000 years for the SPGPs to become a new species, the preá, instead of the full 8000 years.

I will admit that it is conceivable that 8000 or more years ago there were already two different species on both the big and little islands (they were one island back then) I have been on the big island and it is lush with vegetation and would support at least 100,000 preá, but none are there now. It is too improbably to suggest that the 100,000+ on the lush big island all died out and the 40 or less that the little island can feed lived for 8000 years.

The only reasonable assumption is that the isolated SCGPs trapped on the little island 8000 years ago did adapt a little each generation until they became the different species they are today. They were under extreme stress for 8000 years - probably about half of each generation starving to death. Isolation, extreme stress, no predator to randomly remove a beneficial variant's genes, and a tiny gene pool (40 or less animals) are the reason why a new specie could evolve so quickly.

You do not seems to be thinking as clearly as you normally do when suggesting that the SCGP drifted over later instead of just were a few there that got cut off by the sea level rise. That is sort of like suggesting one can roll snake eyes three times in a row is more probable than rolling them only twice. When one cannot be sure what happened one should bet on the most probable.

If there were preá on the big Island where food is abundant then I would bet that yes not more than 50 years ago some big island preá were accidently transported to the tiny "preá island" I would also bet that several times in the last 7000 years some SCGP did get accidently transported across the 8 km of sea that separate the two islands. They would have a very hard time surviving with the little preá eating the grass - sort of like if a horse and some rabbits were confined to a field that barely made enough grass for the horse even if the rabbit were not there.

BTW I mentioned earlier that the preá's eyes were closer together like in a human or monkey than the side mounted eyes of the SCGP. This too is to be expected as selected for by evolution on an island where the preá have no other animal that eat them. Where the eyes are most useful is a compromise between side mounted which is great for early detection of an animal that might eat you, but lousy for good depth perception. The SCGP's born on Preá Island with eyes closer together than their parents lost nothing but gained better depth perception.

...Can anyone prove that the bones/fossils found of the feathered creature was actually anything else PRIOR to becoming a feathered dino? They found a fossil ...whoop-dee-doo. But where's the dino that did NOT have feathers that's the precursor?

Yes whoop-dee-doo! The prediction of evolution was confirmed!

...And I think the feathered dino is a pretty good example of how evolutionists force their findings into the theory instead of the other way around.

You are making no sense here. They did not discover some fact (fossil dino with feathers) and then force fit it into their theory, but went out on a limb before the fact was known and PREDICTED that one would be found, based on their growing evidence that birds did evolve from dinosaurs!

I will admit that they may have just been lucky. That the feather dino like fossil, the FDLF, might have been around even before there were dinosaurs. Then it is probably an error to say that birds evolved from dinosaurs. It is much more likely that birds evolved from the animals of the FDLF.


whoop-dee-doo - evolutionist are mistaken! - whoop-dee-doo! - They got it wrong! - whoop-dee-doo!

However, the birds did still, even if that is true, evolve from a very different, much larger, species. That is the point we are discussing.

 

[Billy T]

...The sub forum is called biology. I prefer to remain on one subject at a time.

I asked you what blocked the BIOLOGICAL PROCESS that you grant makes small changes from accumulating into larger changes over a longer time? You either did not understand the question or are just blowing smoke to avoid giving an answer.

...Now there is an scientific answer to all this but it rounds TRUELY from Quantum Physics and not from biology. Essentially farther back than biology can describe. That too is off topic in this forum. But to surfice to say my judgement encompasses the evidence of all science not merely isolated explanations. I can't know everything at once but I'm continuely updating my data base.

I did not expect you to "know everything." I asked for ONE specific fact that is better explained, makes more plausible how it came to be true, by the “religious answer” than the scientific answer. Clearly you are just blowing smoke here. - so I conclude there is not even one fact like your previously claimed* - that many facts made you prefer the god based answer to science facts like evolution of gorillas from fish etc. of science by a long slow process of many small changes accumulating (with many braches off to make dog, cats bears dinos etc. along the way). Since this is also a biological process being blocked, the blocking biology is very much on thread.
---------
*In your post 233 here:

... My Judgement is that God does exist. That judgement is based on the available facts ...

I only asked for one fact - not smoke about quantum mechanics or any thing off subject. Get real.

 

[Baron Max]

Of course I do not have evidence that something did not happen.

And yet you've assumed that nothing like that DID happen ...so that things fits into your preconceived ideals of evolution.

In an airplane crash, investigators don't stop investigating and announce to the world "Well, apparently the plane fell out of the sky and hit the ground." They keep investigating until they either uncover what and how it happened ...OR... they announce that they haven't found anything conclusive. Evolutionists seem to leap in and conclude shit that they can't know ...and worse... they announce it to the whole freakin' world as if it was true! (Just like the Prea Island monkey thingies)

If you are suggesting that only 7000 years ago when the "preá island" was already cut off by the sea from the big Island where the SCGPs are now that some SCGP rode a raft over to "preá island" which did not have any mammals on it that is certainly possible but harder to believe...

Why is it so hard to believe? That's exactly what evolutionists believe happened on Galapagos ...that the finches floated on debris and then became isolated. Well, duh, if they could do it once, why not again? And again?

And thus, Billy, your whole ideal evolutionary Prea Island theory is just shot to hell. Mammals of all kinds might have floated to the island in those 8,000 years. In fact, the very mammals that you claim evolved from the others might well have been mammals that floated over on a storm from somewhere else, the mainland perhaps, and killed off all the existing mammals on the island. Now you find them, and assume that they evolved from the ones on the other island?

Harder to believe? Is the theory of evolution based on the science of beliefs? Interesting, very freakin' interesting if true!!

I will admit that it is conceivable that 8000 or more years ago there were already two different species on both the big and little islands....
... It is too improbably to suggest that the 100,000+ on the lush big island all died out and the 40 or less that the little island can feed lived for 8000 years.

See? You've already suggested different possible scenarios, yet you've elected to throw a dart and pick one of them. Why pick one until you know for sure? And more importantly, why announce it to the world as if it was true? And what..., we only announce things as true if it helps confirm the theory of evolution? Has science become a game of guessing and dart-throwing? What happened to proof and solid evidence?

As to those mammals living as the same for 8,000 years, why is that so hard to believe? With no natural predators and plenty to eat, why would they be "forced" to change/adapt. And interestingly, not all species change. Aren't alligators and crocodiles the same as they were millions of years ago? Aren't cockroaches essentially the same as they were millions of years ago?

The only reasonable assumption is that the isolated SCGPs trapped on the little island 8000 years ago did adapt a little each generation until they became the different species they are today.

And don't you just love "reasonable assumptions" when they fit so snugly into the very theory that you're trying to prove? Ahh, prosecuting attorneys would love to be able to make those "reasonable assumptions" and send all the suspects to prisons (and become famous as a trial lawyer winning all his cases!).

You do not seem to be thinking as clearly as you normally do when suggesting that the SCGP drifted over later instead of just were a few there that got cut off by the sea level rise.

That "drifted over" theory is what evolutionists use to explain the finches on Galapagos. It's okay to "drift over" on one instance, but not okay on another? And if I'm not mistaken, the Galapagos Islands are a helluva lot further from the mainland than is the Prea Islands. So "drifting over" would be far easier on Prea ...yet you discard it as improbable or highly improbable. ..yet accept the "floating over" theory for Galapagos? Why?

BTW I mentioned earlier that the preá's eyes were closer together like in a human or monkey than the side mounted eyes of the SCGP. This too is to be expected as selected for by evolution on an island where...

Well, lets try this ...those prea were on the mainland and because of their eyes, they were being killed off by predators. So down to the last few mammals left, a big storm comes along and blows those last survivors out to the Prea Island ....where they lived happily everafter until discovered by Billy T and his crew. Like it?

Oh, and the reason why those little monkey thingies were never discovered on the mainland? Well, that's easy, the predators ate them all, including all the bones! No bones left to fossilize. Like it?

I will admit that they may have just been lucky. That the feather dino like fossil, the FDLF, might have been around even before there were dinosaurs. Then it is probably an error to say that birds evolved from dinosaurs. It is much more likely that birds evolved from the animals of the FDLF.

Well, I'm glad to see that you're finally able to see another scenario to explain it. But, Billy, that kind of thing should be done by the evolutionists themselves ...instead of jumping to conclusions that fit their ideals of evolution. They don't know ...so why claim that they do? And why claim that it supports the theory when there's no evidence that it does? Assumptions don't support nothin'. The evolutionists are the ones who should be the most skeptical, and yet I see them as little more than biased cheerleaders in the quest to prove their favorite theory. That ain't nice! And perhaps worse, they've convinced people like you and James R, and y'all have turned into biased cheerleaders! That ain't nice either. And it's even less than not nice when James R resorts to personal insults and ridicule.

However, the birds did still, even if that is true, evolve from a very different, much larger, species. That is the point we are discussing.

And what's your evidence for that remark? Or is this just one more of gazillions of "assumptions" that fits snuggly into your favorite theory?

Whoop-dee-doo ...the evolutionists got it wrong? No, Billy, I don't want them to be wrong, I want them to be scientists and discover the real truth, supported by hard evidence. If I'm the son of a fish that crawled out of the slime onto the land, I want to know that. But I don't want it to be a bunch of guesses and assumptions and best-case scenarios. I want to know who my father was!!

And more importantly, I want to know where it all started. Where did the first life come from? Where did the Earth come from? Where did the universe come from? Or are y'all gonna' be happy with a bunch of wild, unsupported speculations and guesses and maybe's? I love it when evolutionists say "Well, that's not part of evolution". Well, golly, aren't they even a bit curious where their first animal came from?? The first animals "evolved" from the vacuum of empty space, yet they ain't the least bit interested, or worse, don't care??

It just seems to me that you evolutionists should be the ones most skeptical of all, because the very ideals of your science rest upon the theory being true. If something is wrong, or too many wild guesses are made, then your "science" falls flat on it's face.

Baron Max

 

[Saquist]

I asked you what blocked the BIOLOGICAL PROCESS that you grant makes small changes from accumulating into larger changes over a longer time? You either did not understand the question or are just blowing smoke to avoid giving an answer.

I have already answered this question in my first post here with three points. You may have not have read it. If you have not then be willing to do your research and read the post. If there is contention in those statements I would be more than willing to discuss it in in a noncontentious manner.

My first and biggest reason why I chose the explanation of God is almost mathematicly simple. These thoughts would be a tangent because they would require length and depth to explain as it concerns the very nature of the universe but primarily it represents my choice of which eventuality is more likely. Even that being the case it seems your disposition has become provoked.

There have been many contentious discussions between myself and others on this subject of evolution and I do not intend to instigate another. Therefore I require nothing but the most civil atmosphere for the discussion. This means you can be for CERTAIN I have no qualms about backing out of the discussion and sacrificing what you would deem so important (namely reputation or credibilitiy) to maintain civility, preserving the peace of the forum and to avoid wasting my time and yours in an acrimonious debate.

The choice is yours.

 

[TheVisitor]

I'm sure there is a "stock" answer for this question but just suffer my ignorance a little if you will.

If...man evolved from apes, and apes from monkeys etc, etc..
Why are there still monkeys and apes?
Why didn't they all evolve into man and the lesser evolved earlier forms become extinct?

The answer I remember given years ago for this dilemma was that some monkeys (or lemurs) stayed in the trees and didn't evolve but some others came down from the trees and risked living with predators like lions, tigers and bears.
I wouldn't think the latter would be the smarter of the two or the ones most likely to have survived.
But...maybe that necessity's what made them develop intelligence as an edge.

So what's the current theory on this?

 

[Ophiolite]

I'm sure there is a "stock" answer for this question but just suffer my ignorance a little if you will.

If...man evolved from apes, and apes from monkeys etc, etc..
Why are there still monkeys and apes?
Why didn't they all evolve into man and the lesser evolved earlier forms become extinct?

If you exist, how come - for a time at least - your parents and perhaps your grandparents also existed? If you had been born, why didn't they just die out?

 

[Idle Mind]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qO9IPoAdct8

 

[Billy T]

Rather than quote your separate repletion’s of same idea / statement in post I will just collect them and made a unified reply:

The Baron said:
“you've assumed that nothing like that DID happen …”
“Why is it so hard to believe?”
“Mammals of all kinds might have floated to the island in those 8,000 years.”
“you've elected to throw a dart and pick one of them”
“no natural predators and plenty to eat”
“It's okay to "drift over" on one instance, but not okay on another?”
“I want them to be scientists and discover the real truth”

To the above Baron statements, Billy T replies , in order above:

No I did not assume other alternative did or could not happen.

I just think the more probable events are less hard to believe than the more improbable events.
… I.e. It is more probable that the SCGPs were on what is now “preá island” while it as connected to the big island (more than 8000 years ago) than that they drifted over later (when the rising sea made it a separate island) and thus give the SCGPs 8000 years to evolve in instead a shorter time like 7000 years.

Yes I agree that various mammal probably did float over to tiny preá island, but the preá were eating the very limited supply of grass (90% of tiny island is just rocks) and there is not even enough grass for all that are born each generation.

No, not throwing darts to pick one – just rejecting those other events that are much less probable – I.e. I reject that they drifted over AFTER the sea level rose and evolved in 7000 years instead of 8000 years and got onto preá island when it was still connected rather than a lucky drift over without drowning. (Also as is typically the case in the narrow strait between two island the current does not flow form one island to the other but between them sort of parallel to the shore line. Perhaps the animals had oars and rowed against the current?) If the preá did drift over then there should be at least 100,000 on the big isalnd now but there are none. So to make that plausible, one must also postulate (with no evidence) something to remove them and their bones from the big Island.

Preá Island has no natural predators, but definitely not plenty to eat – many of each generation starve – why population is at about 40 animals always – that is all there is food for. – I.e. extreme environmental stress for 8000 year is part of why a new species could form in such an unusually short time.

It is ok to “drift over” in both cases. I do not known but thing all of Darwin’s Gallops Island finches are still the same species in that they can inter breed still.

As I have explained, cited Bishop Berkeley etc. there is no certain truth – not even that you have a body. One must be content, as I am, to try to consider all possibilities and if one stand out with much higher probability than the others, then one assumes that is what happened or exists.

I have already noted that getting on Preá Island while still connected is more probably than drifting over later with less time to evolve a new species. I have already noted that if preá were on the big island that is lush with vegetation and thus a few drifted over then there would be more than 100,000 of them there now is much more probable than none are there now, which is the case.

SUMMARY: The most probable explanation is that some SCGPs got trapped on Preá Island by the rising sea level and that the limited food supply favored the smallest in each generation. Much less probably is more than 100,000 died out on the lush big island after a few drifted over to Preá Island to survive on the edge of starvation for many generations on that tiny 90% only rocks island. (So many generations that they have all become identical in DNA testing of the paternity type tests. - I do not know if any pair have had a complete DNA sequencing test – but doubt that even two have)

------------
PS to others: It is past my bed time - I will reply where needed tomorrow to you.

 

[James R]

Evolutionists seem to leap in and conclude shit that they can't know ...

To be fair, you don't have a clue what biologists can or do know. You speak from a position of virtually complete ignorance, as far as I can tell.

And interestingly, not all species change. Aren't alligators and crocodiles the same as they were millions of years ago? Aren't cockroaches essentially the same as they were millions of years ago?

This is not a problem for evolution. Evolution explains this.

That "drifted over" theory is what evolutionists use to explain the finches on Galapagos.

Which ones, in particular, have you read?

The evolutionists are the ones who should be the most skeptical, and yet I see them as little more than biased cheerleaders in the quest to prove their favorite theory.

That's because you have made no effort at all to learn what the evidence for evolution is. Your criticisms are empty and uninformed. As with so many other topics.

If I'm the son of a fish that crawled out of the slime onto the land, I want to know that.

I tried to jog you out of this kind of stupidity previously, with a carefully explained post that you have either forgotten or deliberately ignored. That is intellectual dishonesty, and it is the reason why nobody takes you seriously.

And more importantly, I want to know where it all started. Where did the first life come from?

Nobody knows for sure.

Where did the Earth come from?

It was formed from a cloud of dust and gas, along with the other planets of the solar system.

Where did the universe come from?

It was formed in the big bang.

I love it when evolutionists say "Well, that's not part of evolution". Well, golly, aren't they even a bit curious where their first animal came from??

Evolution does not start to operate until you have replicating organisms of some kind that need to compete for limited resources. The theory therefore does not cover how the first replicating organisms arose.

Whether biologists (note the correct term - not "evolutionists") are interested in the origin of life is really neither here nor there when it comes to the truth of the theory of evolution. Evolution does not attempt to answer questions about the origin of the first life.

 

[Baron Max]

To be fair, you don't have a clue what biologists can or do know. You speak from a position of virtually complete ignorance, as far as I can tell.

Personal insults and ridicule help no one, James. Oh, wait, perhaps your constant use of insults and ridicule make you feel superior, thus feeding your elitist attitudes.

This is not a problem for evolution. Evolution explains this.

Evolution explains anything it wants to explain by simply inventing events that might have happened. Interestingly, religion does a similar thing.

That's because you have made no effort at all to learn what the evidence for evolution is. Your criticisms are empty and uninformed. As with so many other topics.

Personal insults and ridicule help no one, James. Oh, wait, perhaps your constant use of insults and ridicule make you feel superior, thus feeding your elitist attitudes.

I tried to jog you out of this kind of stupidity previously, with a carefully explained post that you have either forgotten or deliberately ignored. That is intellectual dishonesty, and it is the reason why nobody takes you seriously.

Yes, I believe you gave the old smoke screen answer that's common in evolutionary theory .... "... millions and millions of years." Which explains nothing. It's a stock answer that people use when they know of no answer.

And again; Personal insults and ridicule help no one, James. Oh, wait, perhaps your constant use of insults and ridicule make you feel superior, thus feeding your elitist attitudes.

It was formed from a cloud of dust and gas, along with the other planets of the solar system.

And you know this ...how?

It was formed in the big bang.

And you know this ...how?

I'm sure you haven't noticed, James, but you should take a moment to reflect ....just how much your own answers conform to the answers of theists in explaining god and biblical happenings. Your stock answer of "...millons and millions of years" is damned similar to the theists' answers of "...the ways of the lord are mysterious."

And once again; Personal insults and ridicule help no one, James. Oh, wait, perhaps your constant use of insults and ridicule make you feel superior, thus feeding your elitist attitudes.

Please note, James ....this is the last time I'll respond to anything you say on this thread. Your personal insults are too childish and elitist for me to be bothered with. And as I've noted many times to and about you, personal insults and personal attacks are not permitted on sciforums. How do you get away with it so often?

Baron Max

 

[Baron Max]

No I did not assume other alternative did or could not happen.

I just think the more probable events are less hard to believe than the more improbable events. ......

I have a question for you, Billy. It's one that's been on my mind often in light of this topic, but I never actually asked it;

Why is it so important for you, or anyone, to accept the theory of evolution at this particular time? In other words, is something forcing you to make up your mind about it now, instead of waiting patiently for more concrete evidence?

Why do you have to decide? This isn't like a jury trial, is it?

If there's not enough evidence yet, why not wait until tomorrow to decide? What's the hurry? And as importantly, why accept the theory so fervently ...if it has no absolute proof?

I can't get that out of my head ....why should I, or anyone, decide on evolution now? Why shouldn't I, or everyone, do like on most things like this ....just reserve judgement until there's more solid, indisputable evidence?

Baron Max

 

[James R]

Max:

To be fair, you don't have a clue what biologists can or do know. You speak from a position of virtually complete ignorance, as far as I can tell.

Personal insults and ridicule help no one, James.

It's not an insult, Max - unless as a matter of fact you actually have read some books on evolution and know something about it.

If you haven't, you might start with Richard Dawkins' accessible explanation in Climbing Mount Improbable, which directly answers your current questions at book length and in a way that even you will be able to understand.

Oh, wait, perhaps your constant use of insults and ridicule make you feel superior, thus feeding your elitist attitudes.

I don't need insults or ridicule to feel superior to you when it comes to knowledge of evolutionary biology, Max. It is quite clear from your posts that you have minimal, if any, real knowledge in that field, whereas I have studied it to a reasonable depth (I am not myself a biologist - this is only an interest for me).

Evolution explains anything it wants to explain by simply inventing events that might have happened. Interestingly, religion does a similar thing.

There's an important difference - evolution, as a scientific theory, makes testable predictions. You determine what you'd expect from evolutionary biology, then you go out into the real world and check to see whether and how closely the prediction matches the facts. In the case of crocodiles, we see exactly what evolution tells us to expect.

[The Earth] was formed from a cloud of dust and gas, along with the other planets of the solar system.

And you know this ...how?

From a science called astrophysics.

[The universe] was formed in the big bang.

And you know this ...how?

From a science called cosmology.

Please note, James ....this is the last time I'll respond to anything you say on this thread.

Fine with me. You weren't saying anything useful anyway.

 

[Meursalt]

Posting delayed by suspension of thread:

See, I knew you loved me!

Quite wrong. My polished writing is of a much higher standard than what I offer here. It helps justify the six figure salary. My post was a straight through write. The only spell check I did was a quick look at a PNAS paper because, for a strange moment, I couldn't recall if it was Meyr or Mayr.
Again, I think you are judging things by what it would have taken you to write it. I threw it together while watching TV and having a conversation with my wife. (Perhaps if you didn't indulge your alcoholism you would be capable of more.)

Oh, where to start. First, he begins by telling us all he’s merely slumming here, follows that up with a rather disgusting allusion to his salary level, then lies by telling us it was a “straight through write” that he cobbled together, not straight at all, but in between various other activities.
If you consider your net worth to be your bank account, then by all means do so, but don’t expect the likes of me to be impressed by it. Been there, rejected it.

I thought you said you didn't have to justify yourself, anyway?

You see, I love throwing in the drunk bit. It gives people a straw to grasp. A weapon that they then use to attack you with little idea that you gave it to them to begin with to watch what they’d do with it.

Mersault, I can spot a pretentious prat or a phony from the next subway stop. I haven't been waiting for you, but when you turned up it became open season. Don't worry, when you go, there will be plenty more. Something that evolution hasn't sorted out yet.

Heh. Man, you really reinforce that image of yourself riding off into the sunset to the theme from “The Magnificent Seven”, don’t you? Do you, like, wear a white ten-gallon hat and stuff when you sit down to post?
You know, there are a lot of small town cops out there who are cops not because they have any moral ideals of regarding the law, but because it gives them the right to wear a badge and a gun. You even tried to let us know how “bad” you were by mentioning you’d been “warned once”. You know, the kind of cop who likes to tell his drinking buddies he was in a gunfight at a bank hold up once, when he was actually in the car on the radio yelling for backup while it was going on.
Did it give you a warm and fuzzy feeling when Roman showed up in support? It did, didn’t it. Go on, admit it.

I don't think anyone has a comprehensive undestanding of evolution. I think many people have a much better one than I do.

Well, that puts an end to any argument you have of knowing as much as anyone then, doesn’t it? Shall I use the word “pretentious”, or has that already been done?

I don't think you are one of them. You also fall into the category of persons unfamiliar with the literary device called hyperbole.

.... *cough*.
More familiar than you realise, apparently.
Now go look up “irony”.

I notice, with interest, that your response is all subjective, fuzzy, waffly sentiments. Nothing very much so far about the hard facts and observations of evolution. Couldn't understand Fisher's introduction of variance when you looked it up?

Translation:
“Ahem. Yes, well. We’re off topic here…”

I didn’t look it up. Which response are you referring to? I haven’t offered any arguments about evolution after our first flare up. Getting confused in your twilight years, or are you just running out of ammunition?

Next you launch into a bizarre sidebar on pms from JamesR. You really should curtail that alcohol consumption. You know I have your best interests at heart.

More of the faux nice guy. Get mean, laddie. Embrace your inner arrogant bastard. Oh. Wait... no, I get it.

Hardly bizarre. I just wanted to let the world in general know that I’d been given a rap over the knuckles from our dear friend James for a response to a posed question on another thread.
He said I’d threatened a forum member. I did nothing of the sort, I posed a question.

Now if I’d said “James R, I’m going to find out where you live, break into your home while you’re sleeping, saw off your testicles with a rusty knife and jam them down your neck if you don’t shut up”, well, that would be a threat.
An empty one, but a threat nonetheless.

I was merely pointing out the subjective moderation. You know, you guys would be a lot more honest if you’d simply say “we’re going to set up a loose set of rules and ban the asses of people we don’t like, using those rules as a guideline on how to jam square pegs into round holes”. People might respect that.
I simply have no idea why the moderators of this forum insist on telling themselves they are upholding moral rules and being as objective as possible when it is quite clear that they are not, and take it to the point of arguing about it and closing ranks when it is pointed out to them, as I’ve seen some others attempt to do.
Hell, even you would make a better moderator. If nothing else, you could wear a badge to go with that white stetson.

You might want to try something like that next time, James.
Just say “Meursalt, you’re a total git and I want you gone. You make me feel like I'm chewing on sand. 1 week ban”.
It would be refreshingly honest. I wouldn't even tell the other moderators, I promise.

I have learnt an enormous amount on this forum. This learning has come from four sources: expositions by knowledgeable members; references provided by such members; study initiated by points raised in discussion; opportunities to impart my 'wisdom' to others - a process that always sharpens one understanding.

Which would all be to the good … if there weren’t several other forums offering far more in terms of discourse and intelligent theory, not to mention a smaller population of flies.
That isn’t why you’re on this forum. Unless, of course, this really is your league.
Ever read “Candida”? You’ should play Morell in your local production, if there is one. Hell man, you wouldn't even have to act.

I am not surprised to hear that you are here not to learn, but to pontificate and strut.

Ah, well, see now, there’s a strawman. Don’t use those up those logical fallacies too fast, Oph. There really aren’t that many.
There’s far more to learn and observe here than what you see.

Look, the rest of your post - indeed all of your post - is heavy on rhetoric and short on any science. It is clear your knowledge of evolution is scanty and your readiness to learn from others is minimal. I see little point in continuing. No reply necessary. I don;t have the time to read any more 'material' that you may post.

You still haven’t quite grasped it, have you?
“All the world’s a stage, and all the men and women merely players”.

That’s a mistake, nonetheless. You have only two options now, ignore me (well, refuse to reply, anyway. You won’t ignore me, you'll read this and then pretend to ignore me) and allow me to have the final word, or break your word and come back.
Your choice.

....
1.5 hours. I wrote this while investigating quantum theory, teaching the poodle how to dance the Macarena, and chatting to the neighbour’s 20-year old daughter using the dog as an icebreaker.

 

[James R]

Now if I’d said “James R, I’m going to find out where you live, break into your home while you’re sleeping, saw off your testicles with a rusty knife and jam them down your neck if you don’t shut up”, well, that would be a threat.

It looks like there's a deep-seated anger at work here, which is reminiscent of a particular ex-member. That guy apparently still has ongoing resentment about being banned from sciforums, even after a year (two? can't remember). He had a huge double-think thing going while he was here. On the one hand, he was constantly proclaiming how he was superior to all the mere mortals who posted on this forum. He thought he was a great philosopher. On the other hand, he chose to post here constantly, even creating multiple sock puppets in order to return after being banned. His only real contribution here was to insult other people. His "philosophy" was one-track - he was obsessed with the idea that humanity as a whole could be divided into two sets of people - himself, as the star of his own private show, and the rest of the world, which consisted almost entirely of deluded, stupid people nominally out of his league. He figured that if he had no friends, it must be because he was superior to everybody else, and didn't need to follow the mindless herd. It never occurred to him that people tend to dislike misanthropes with over-inflated egos, especially ones who are misogynistic, rabidly homophobic and who behave like they may explode into physical violence at the drop of a hat when the world doesn't give them the recognition and adulation they believe is their due.

Anyway, enough reminiscences. Meursalt, your veiled threat makes me uncomfortable. Was that your intention? If not, perhaps you'd be so kind as to apologise to me.

 

[Billy T]

I have already answered this question in my first post here with three points. You may have not have read it. If you have not then be willing to do your research and read the post. ...

I looked on the first page, but did not find your three points. I am not inclined to search thru all of the pages. Please give at least the post number if not a direct link as I often do. Or alternatively, just copy them and post again. Thank you.

 

[Liebling]

I think James R, that in this case you are applying your perception of another member onto Meursalt unfairly. I am fairly sure that this conversation dwindled into a joust of intellect when one side started puffing out their chest and that robin was not Meursalt. But we've also ventured off-topic and perhaps these few posts should be moved.

I think you misunderstand Meursalt's intentions. It is not his intention to be superior... he doesn't care for that game. His is to teach and bring people back down, or lift them up to a level in which they can learn. Step back from your preconceived notions and at least try to remove the label you've slapped on the box. He doesn't appear at all violent, egotistical, or insulting to me... in fact the only ego I see splashed across the last two pages was the red breasted robin desperately trying to attract attention. He's not a misanthrope, misogynistic or homophobic either, it's just the perception you've decided, for one reason or another, to apply to him without cause.

The paintbrush you are trying to paint with is flawed and the colours are all wrong. He's not trying to overturn people and upset them, only trying to upset their preconceived notions and attitudes. Some people around here need that. If you think Meursalt is consumed about how other people see him, or that he needs recognition or adulation in vast amounts (everyone needs a little now and again) then I think you may want to rethink your approach. I'd hate to lose a solidly logical voice because we've decided to think of him as another member who he is not.

 

[Billy T]

If...man evolved from apes, and apes from monkeys etc, etc.. Why are there still monkeys and apes?
Why didn't they all evolve into man and the lesser evolved earlier forms become extinct? ...

I am working my forward from my last post so someone may have answered already but as answer is simple I give it:

Man did not evolve from the apes and the apes did not evolve from the monkeys. Your assumptions are wrong.

Life forms were already complex while still in the sea only (various fish and shells, etc.) Some were trapped in small bays etc that dried up or became very shallow. This killed most but some fish which were better at swallowing air survived (You may have seen fish do this gulping air when the weather is warm and there is little oxygen dissolved in the water, usually due to excess of organic material in the water being oxidized.) This happened many times of the eons and some of these air breathing fish were able to stay out of water for longer times. They were developing primitive lungs. Most of the land life forms come from them, I think - I am not an expert in the currently accepted most probable story but that was roughly it 35 years ago.

There are many viable niches on the land and most have been populated by creatures adapted by slow evolution to fill them. It is much like a tree - from the trunk come many limbs and from these limbs come many branches. I.e. for these first air breathers (including little things like sea worms that evolved to live on and in the dry land) many distinct branch (such as mammals) made "twigs" such as two main divisions of monkeys and apes (man is an ape, sometimes called the hairless ape) Our DNA is very much the same as the other apes (~98% identical to some as I recall)

The monkeys branched off for some common mammal ancestor, which as you suggested has gone extinct, as did the apes (branch off separate from the monkeys). We humans and gorillas (other apes too) also had a common ancestor which has also gone extinct. We apes are a relative small set of "twigs" that evolved for this now extinct ancestor of all the apes. I do not know how many apes there are but think it only about a couple dozen at most. There must be 5,000 or more bird species - that is why I say we apes are just a small twig on the tree of life, but the human species is now like an out of control cancer and killing many other species.

PS
Your posts tend to make me think all of the above will be rejected based on your religious faith, but it is not a wasted effort on my part even if that is the case. – Some readers here do have open minds. I hope you are one, but doubt it.

 

[James R]

I think James R, that in this case you are applying your perception of another member onto Meursalt unfairly.

Maybe so. Anyway, I'm sure Meursalt can speak for himself. You sound like you know him, though...

 

[Billy T]

I have a question for you, Billy. It's one that's been on my mind often in light of this topic, but I never actually asked it;

Why is it so important for you, or anyone, to accept the theory of evolution at this particular time? In other words, is something forcing you to make up your mind about it now, instead of waiting patiently for more concrete evidence? ... Baron Max

There are mainly two reasons / answers to your question:

(1) I am basically an old retired teacher / college professor (although I spent most of my career in research without much teaching) I enjoy teaching and here at sciforums there is lots of opportunity to do that and quite a few have even thanked me. More important, from my POV is to correct errors that are posted - I have even done this three times for James R. but I make many more errors than he does. (Usually, I am too lazy to search and just rely on my memory is partially why.) I have appointed myself as the “Sheriff of Nonsense" which is worse than simple errors as it is even illogical and often contradict basic well established laws.

(2) It is my philosophy and desire to try to understand things I see and experience. I know that can NEVER be done with certainty - as noted several times now - I cannot be certain that I have a body, that there is and Earth etc. - Just as Bishop Berkeley pointed out ~300 years ago; however, I chose to believe that physics and biology are about something real and to a large extent understandable, if you put forth the effort.

In quite a few cases, there is more than one plausible explanation or POV about some observation's causes. If none stands out as clearly more probably then I sort of do as you suggest - but usually I not say "I do not know." Instead I tend to say: "It might be "A" or might be "B" etc, if there is an approximately equally probable "C." Fortunately, these multiple plausible explanation cases are rare and certainly do not include a plausible alternative to Darwin's (as slightly modified) evolution theory.
---(end of answer start of comments) ----

I am not really trying to convert you into a believer, but unlike James R. I think your "rattling of intellectual cages" is very useful here. You provide me with the opportunity to be responsive, instead of just giving unsolicited lectures. Even if you never learn or accept what I am trying to teach, you are helping others to do that. So keep up the good work of "cage rattling." (Few here have such little reguard of the opinion of others as you. I admire your willingness to look stupid and ignorant as I know you are not. I too ceased to care what others thought of me when I retired.)

You are correct that nothing, certainly not evolution, is known with certainty. But I do not enjoy remaining totally ignorant / un-accepting of the more plausible "facts" such as that there is an Earth that goes around the sun, there was a "Big Bang" start of the universe* all the way down to and including things from the ancient past like Plate Tectonics and evolution theory.
------------
*For at least half my life, I consider Holy’s Steady State universe as essentially as probable as the Big Bang alternative, but as the years passed, especially when the temperature of cosmic back ground radiation was measure and agreed with the prediction based on adiabatic cooling of the expansion of the universe (from totally independent observations) I dropped the Steady State alternative as much less probable** and became a Big bang believer. When I was about 10, I was willing to give equal probabilities to evolution and "god made" the creatures as they are theories, but as I learned more facts I dropped the "god did it" point of view. I understood that there are no facts supporting that point of view - that my prior acceptance of it was just brain washed indoctrination of dogma.
---------------
**That is really what science is all about. It is not as many believe that effort to prove things true, but to find very damaging flaws in all alterative theories or ideas, but one, we hope. In practice one need not be concerned that all theories will be flawed. (The theoreticians will always have a bunch of alternatives needing to have holes shot in them.)