Vatican says Darwain was right...

[Tilted]

should not is a moral judgement, evolution makes no moral judgements.

however, if we were only looking to advance our species then it would be unwise to help those that are less healthy reproduce.



They call it DNA little fella, DNA exchanged through reproduction

I think This person is talking about the specific mechanism by which a divergent gene gets introduced into the copy. I don't think we completely understand why the DNA 'copying machine' makes seemingly random copying errors from time to time. We know that it does, and we understand some of the conditions that effect it doing so, but I'm not sure we know exactly why.

 

[This_person]

It's not a break down in logic - for the purpose of this particular logic chain it doesn't matter why those posits are true, just that they are. There is no assertion in the conclusions as to why those phenomena are true, that is a completely different subject and has nothing to do with the what I am stating.

It is certainly possible to make other logic chains that assert with specificity what those reasons are, although the inherent truth of the requisite posits would be less certain. There is evidence that causes us to believe we know what some of those reasons are - but there is certainly more room to argue their validity. I'm only saying what I feel I can state with certainty - nothing more. And then, I'm positing the facts that are necessary to demonstrate, with certainty, that those statements are true. And, like I said - the reasons why some traits make a living thing more likely to survive, and the reasons why some divergent traits come into the picture, aren't relevant to the accuracy of the precise statements I am making. I don't think that you and I are disagreeing on the very narrow things I am asserting.

We agree that species change over time.

Evolution asserts that species change due to, well, evolution. That the fittest species' traits survive, and those specific animals with those traits will reproduce at either a higher number, or that those traits will be bred across the species. This is the basics of evolution, right?

So, what causes those traits is a relevant question. If the trait is bred in because it somehow makes the species better adapted for survival and/or reproduction, and that this superior adaptative ability is the reason for the trait to persist - then that pretty much says that portion of evolution (changes within a given species) is true.

But, what if there is another reason for the trait persisting, or for the species persisting? If there is an entirely different reason for humans being taller now than 2,000 years ago than a fitter survival rate or reproductive rate, then all "evolution" (as a theory) is disappears. It was merely a theory that fit some of the information, but had to be thrown out on this bit of conflict.

WHY traits go from A to B, and why traits of B are passed down, is an inherent part of the theory. The mechanism is very important.

 

[This_person]

again you have an issue separating the origins of life and evolution (why am i not surprised?).


the validity of evolution doesn't depend on how many life forms started the process, 1 or 1 million.....

The theory is about how the multitudes of species originated from the single life cell that started it ("The Origin of the Species" sound familiar? )

I am not suggesting that evolution addresses from where that life form came - merely what the starting point is for the theory.

 

[thatguy]

We agree that species change over time.

Evolution asserts that species change due to, well, evolution. That the fittest species' traits survive, and those specific animals with those traits will reproduce at either a higher number, or that those traits will be bred across the species. This is the basics of evolution, right?

So, what causes those traits is a relevant question. If the trait is bred in because it somehow makes the species better adapted for survival and/or reproduction, and that this superior adaptative ability is the reason for the trait to persist - then that pretty much says that portion of evolution (changes within a given species) is true.

But, what if there is another reason for the trait persisting, or for the species persisting? If there is an entirely different reason for humans being taller now than 2,000 years ago than a fitter survival rate or reproductive rate, then all "evolution" (as a theory) is disappears. It was merely a theory that fit some of the information, but had to be thrown out on this bit of conflict.

WHY traits go from A to B, and why traits of B are passed down, is an inherent part of the theory. The mechanism is very important.

that is completely retarded. there are way too many variables involved to throw out the theory just because you find a different cause for a triat continuing.

if people got taller because medicine and nutrition are better it doesn't mean that we havent evolved, it just means that something else is at work TOO

 

[thatguy]

The theory is about how the multitudes of species originated from the single life cell that started it ("The Origin of the Species" sound familiar? )

I am not suggesting that evolution addresses from where that life form came - merely what the starting point is for the theory.

the theory that it all started with one cell hasn't been disproven, but it doens't matter. evolution is no less valid if the starting point is 10 or 1 million cells.

 

[This_person]

that is completely retarded. there are way too many variables involved to throw out the theory just because you find a different cause for a triat continuing.

if people got taller because medicine and nutrition are better it doesn't mean that we havent evolved, it just means that something else is at work TOO

You're taking the one example and treating it as if it were the only.

My point is that every variable has to be addressed for causation. When the mechanism of the change is proven to be "survival" or "reproductive superiority", then that will prove that is the reason we evolve. If any other reason can be demonstrated for a change in traits of a species, evolution (survival of the fittest) is no longer a cause-effect theory - it's just another way of saying "sh!t happens for no good reason."

If a cause could be that something is built into the DNA to create the change - well, then that's entirely different, too - right? Perhaps it could be shown to be "designed" in, or just a lucky fluke of every single species of everything ever.

 

[This_person]

the theory that it all started with one cell hasn't been disproven, but it doens't matter. evolution is no less valid if the starting point is 10 or 1 million cells.

And, no more valid. 10 million cells have the DNA variations enough for 1000 times the current amount of species we have?

How many cells would that take? And, what's the likelihood of that? Perhaps some species started out fully formed? What do we call that theory?

 

[Tilted]

We agree that species change over time.

Evolution asserts that species change due to, well, evolution. That the fittest species' traits survive, and those specific animals with those traits will reproduce at either a higher number, or that those traits will be bred across the species. This is the basics of evolution, right?

So, what causes those traits is a relevant question. If the trait is bred in because it somehow makes the species better adapted for survival and/or reproduction, and that this superior adaptative ability is the reason for the trait to persist - then that pretty much says that portion of evolution (changes within a given species) is true.

But, what if there is another reason for the trait persisting, or for the species persisting? If there is an entirely different reason for humans being taller now than 2,000 years ago than a fitter survival rate or reproductive rate, then all "evolution" (as a theory) is disappears. It was merely a theory that fit some of the information, but had to be thrown out on this bit of conflict.

WHY traits go from A to B, and why traits of B are passed down, is an inherent part of the theory. The mechanism is very important.

But, what it is doesn't have anything to do with what I was asserting. What is specifically meant when someone uses the word Evolution, varies a great deal depending on the user and the context. It is a word that describes a process - a very basic, general process - but in some contexts and from some sources, it has a great deal of specificity attached to it. Sometimes when I use it, a great deal of specificity is attached to it - but not in the statements I made above.

Frankly, it's been so long since I read The Origin of Species, that I can't recall exactly what specificity Darwin attached to the notion of Evolution - I'm suspect it depended on the context in which he used it, as well. One of these days I'll go back and reread it, but I'm in no hurry because my recollection is that it contained long stretches of tedious exploration, which were only made palatable by the occasional moment of great revelation.

 

[This_person]

But, what it is doesn't have anything to do with what I was asserting.

You asserted that the logic chain was clear - that species change for unknown reasons, but that the changes are passed through reproduction rates of the changed species.

This is not actually clear at all. This is unproven speculation. Depending on the mechanism of the change, the reproduction rates and survival rates of the changes within the species may be entirely irrelevant.

 

[Tilted]

You asserted that the logic chain was clear - that species change for unknown reasons, but that the changes are passed through reproduction rates of the changed species.

This is not actually clear at all. This is unproven speculation. Depending on the mechanism of the change, the reproduction rates and survival rates of the changes within the species may be entirely irrelevant.

I didn't assert that species change for unknown reasons. I merely asserted that it is certain that changes in living things happen. In this case, that conclusion is arrived at logically, on the basis of known phenomena, as opposed to observationally with the aid of direct proof.

As the conclusion of a clear chain of logic, I asserted this:

For whatever reason it is that causes (5) to be true, some traits will be found more or less frequently in living things, as a function of time.
Additionally, for whatever reason it is that causes (8) to be true, some new traits, which were not present in living things before, can become present in living things.

And, for the individual links from which the logic chain was built I posited these individual truths:

1. Living things possess traits which differ somewhat between various living things.
2. Some living things have the ability to reproduce.
3. In the process by which some living things reproduce, the specific traits that they possess are replicated in their offspring with a greater frequency than those traits which they don't possess.
4. Some living things do not attain the ability to reproduce for some period of time after their creation.


5. For whatever reason, the presence or absence of some of the aforementioned traits makes it more or less likely that a particular living thing will survive for:

(a) a specified period of time, and/or​

(b) a period of time sufficient for them to attain the ability to reproduce, and/or​

(c) a significant period of time after they attain the ability to reproduce.​

6. Whether or not a living thing survives long enough to attain the ability to reproduce, and how long they survive after attaining the ability to reproduce, has a significant effect on the likelihood that they do reproduce and how likely it is that they reproduce a specified number of times.
7. Whether or not a living thing reproduces, and how often they do so, has an effect on the likelihood that their traits are replicated in their offspring.
8. For whatever reason, some offspring acquire a trait (or traits) which was not present in any of the living things whose reproduction created them; and, sometimes this trait (or traits) is not present in any other living thing.

You will have to be specific as to which of the posits you don't accept. As I've stated before, I have never found anyone who didn't accept those basic posits - and I've had numerous discussions of the matter with various people. Logically, the bold-ed portions are just descriptors that have no effect on the veracity of the statements that follow them. You can remove them and the logic in question stands unaffected. The statements that follow them are either true or they aren't, regardless of the reasons why they are true. My assertions are made without regard to why they are true. The only reason the bold-ed sections appear in the conclusion statements, is that logical accuracy requires them to be there because of their presence in the original posits.

A trait's effect on the survivability of its host is necessarily connected, by the logic chain, to the frequency with which it can remain. There may be other factors which affect that frequency, but its effect on survivability is necessarily connected.

On another note - the phrase 'for whatever reason' does not imply unknown reasons - merely unspecified reasons. As is required by any intellectually honest logical exploration, I am sacrificing precision in order to insure accuracy. I'm not sure how anyone can argue with the notion that a trait that makes something less likely to live, also makes that something less likely to reproduce, and thus their offspring less likely to carry the same trait (because there is no offspring). If you are not arguing with that, then you aren't arguing with my assertion.

I should add that fundamentally, I suspect you don't disagree with any of the posits I made. If you do I suspect you must take it to mean something other than what I'm intending to mean. That's why I ask you to tell me if you do disagree with one of them, so that we can figure out why.

 

[bcp]

I didn't read the whole thing, so I'm not sure exactly what they are acknowledging or conceding. But, they eventually conceded that the Earth wasn't the center of the Universe, also. You reach a point, where the weight of reason forces even the most stubborn, most vested, most ardent denier to succumb, or else lose whatever semblance of credibility they have left.

I have yet to meet anyone who denied the inherent reality of any of the individual posits that are required by the logic chain which necessarily proves the existence of what we often refer to as the evolutionary process. Sometimes they still deny that those posits add up to what they add up to, but I've never had someone deny the foundational posits. That's kind of like acknowledging that 2+2=4, and that 4+4=8, yet denying that 2+2+2+2=8.

The only question that can reasonably carry a legitimate debate is - what magic, what physical phenomena, what dynamics, what processes could have created the first instance or what we would later recognize as life?

so,, what you're saying is,,

4 2s equal 8?

just like 2 4s equal 8?

sorcery, just plain Satan driven sorcery I tell you..

 

[foodcritic]

If you don't think that the logic chain is clear, then which link in the logic chain do you disagree with? Or, I guess, you may believe that the conclusion of the chain is somehow logically faulty.

1. Living things possess traits which differ somewhat between various living things.
2. Some living things have the ability to reproduce.
3. In the process by which some living things reproduce, the specific traits that they possess are replicated in their offspring with a greater frequency than those traits which they don't possess.
4. Some living things do not attain the ability to reproduce for some period of time after their creation.
5. For whatever reason, the presence or absence of some of the aforementioned traits makes it more or less likely that a particular living thing will survive for:

(a) a specified period of time, and/or​

(b) a period of time sufficient for them to attain the ability to reproduce, and/or​

(c) a significant period of time after they attain the ability to reproduce.​

6. Whether or not a living thing survives long enough to attain the ability to reproduce, and how long they survive after attaining the ability to reproduce, has a significant effect on the likelihood that they do reproduce and how likely it is that they reproduce a specified number of times.
7. Whether or not a living thing reproduces, and how often they do so, has an effect on the likelihood that their traits are replicated in their offspring.
8. For whatever reason, some offspring acquire a trait (or traits) which was not present in any of the living things whose reproduction created them; and, sometimes this trait (or traits) is not present in any other living thing.

Conclusions:
For whatever reason it is that causes (5) to be true, some traits will be found more or less frequently in living things, as a function of time.
Additionally, for whatever reason it is that causes (8) to be true, some new traits, which were not present in living things before, can become present in living things.



Those phenomena are generally referred to as Evolution, though their description as such is often accompanied by more specificity. Over vasts periods of time they possess the inherent ability to make profound changes in the structure and variety of living things, or the ability to make very little change in the structure and variety of living things. It depends largely on the issues that affect (5) and (8), and a certain basis on which to evaluate those issues is required to assess the potential profoundness of the changes.

Most scientists believe that we have a significant amount of evidence, and thus they conclude, that this process has had a profound effect on what life exists on Earth today, and how it developed as such. I happen to agree with that conclusion. But, regardless of whether or not someone accepts the modern scientific consensus in regard to the degree to which the Evolutionary process has shaped the nature of life on Earth - the reality that such a process exists to some degree or another is logically inescapable, unless you disbelieve one of those original posits. I've never had first hand knowledge of anyone who did.

The point of is simple. If I know that a person has exactly 4 apples. And, I know that they have exactly 3 oranges. And I know that they have exactly 2 bananas. And I know that apples and oranges and bananas are all fruits. And I know that they do not have any other fruits. Then, I don't have to have direct evidence that they have a total of 9 fruit, in order to prove or know that they do. I don't have to be able to count them all. I can use logic to determine, with certainty, that they have a total of 9 fruits. So long as the links, or the posits, in the original logic chain are certain, and the logic which links them is not faulty, then the resulting conclusion of the logic chain is a certainty.

This point is NOT simple. You would have to prove that somehow at some point and by some method there was an original fruit or common ancestor. And then demonstrate at some point in time that the apple,orange and banana all came to be. Do we see these transitions in nature.....NO. We used to be told (Darwin) that eventually they will be found....have they found them? NO. Then the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium was created to help fill in the uh gap in the theory... The amount of change , mutation, to get from lets say sponge to human would probably be incalculable let alone from monkey to man. The amount of transition would require thousand...millions of genetic changes and propagation that we would expect to find thousand of common ancestor types....as a matter of logic I would assume that they would still be living and evolving. We don't see this in nature. There are no transitions..there are only slight adaptations or changes in certain species. The Nautilus for example is alleged to have been hear for millions of years and yet it is exactly the same today as it was, allegedly, then. At least in terms of the fossil record compared to today's nautilus. So in some strange twist of fate the Nautilus attained pure evolutionary perfection millions of years ago and has not felt the need to improve it's lot in nature.......fascinating.

 

[Tilted]

This point is NOT simple. You would have to prove that somehow at some point and by some method there was an original fruit or common ancestor. And then demonstrate at some point in time that the apple,orange and banana all came to be. Do we see these transitions in nature.....NO. We used to be told (Darwin) that eventually they will be found....have they found them? NO. Then the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium was created to help fill in the uh gap in the theory... The amount of change , mutation, to get from lets say sponge to human would probably be incalculable let alone from monkey to man. The amount of transition would require thousand...millions of genetic changes and propagation that we would expect to find thousand of common ancestor types....as a matter of logic I would assume that they would still be living and evolving. We don't see this in nature. There are no transitions..there are only slight adaptations or changes in certain species. The Nautilus for example is alleged to have been hear for millions of years and yet it is exactly the same today as it was, allegedly, then. At least in terms of the fossil record compared to today's nautilus. So in some strange twist of fate the Nautilus attained pure evolutionary perfection millions of years ago and has not felt the need to improve it's lot in nature.......fascinating.

How would I need to prove those things in order to prove that that they had 9 total fruit? The point of the fruit demonstration is to demonstrate the power of the logic chain to prove things with certainty, without the need for direct proof thereof. Everyone uses such a process over and over everyday - albeit it is usually done without conscious thought of the process because we accept the inherent value of such processes, and albeit the process is usually shorter. I hope that you don't dispute the power of logic to inform the human mind beyond what it can directly observe. The majority of information that humans act upon is logically derived from the limited amount of observational data that we collect. The process is woven so fundamentally into the human mind, that we usually don't recongnize it as a process.

The rest of your post has nothing to do with that I stated with certainty. None of it is in contradiction with what I actually concluded. It seems that you are assuming that I said or meant something beyond what I stated, perhaps something stated elsewhere, and then arguing with that. You are arguing the certianty of the degree to which evolutionary processes have played a role in the nature of life on earth, which I specifically referenced as not being evaluated by the original logic chain. I used specific words and constructed them in a specific way in order to deliberately make a point with unspecific ramifications, so that I could assure logical accuracy. It would seem that you are interpreting it as an attempt to make a point with very specific ramifications anyway.

 

[This_person]

I didn't assert that species change for unknown reasons. I merely asserted that it is certain that changes in living things happen. In this case, that conclusion is arrived at logically, on the basis of known phenomena, as opposed to observationally with the aid of direct proof.

As the conclusion of a clear chain of logic, I asserted this:



And, for the individual links from which the logic chain was built I posited these individual truths:



You will have to be specific as to which of the posits you don't accept. As I've stated before, I have never found anyone who didn't accept those basic posits - and I've had numerous discussions of the matter with various people. Logically, the bold-ed portions are just descriptors that have no effect on the veracity of the statements that follow them. You can remove them and the logic in question stands unaffected. The statements that follow them are either true or they aren't, regardless of the reasons why they are true. My assertions are made without regard to why they are true. The only reason the bold-ed sections appear in the conclusion statements, is that logical accuracy requires them to be there because of their presence in the original posits.

This one:

3. In the process by which some living things reproduce, the specific traits that they possess are replicated in their offspring with a greater frequency than those traits which they don't possess.​

This statement implies that somehow the traits of change are virtually all genetic. This is not necessarily true. Some trait changes may be entirely environmental (human lifespan due to medicinal advancements, height due to agricultural advancements, etc). I offer these two human attribute changes because they are obviously NOT due to natural selection - survival of the fittest. The obvious connection is that there are likely many, many changes within species that have nothing to do with the traits being passed by reproduction - the very basic building block of evolution theory.

So, if the traits can manifest themselves with or without the effect of species survival rates, then other things, at least, are at play than natural selection.

And, if something else is at play than natural selection, then the entire theory of evolution is, at best, a sideshow as to the process by which things change.

In other words, the mechanism by which traits vary is a huge part of what makes up a "proof" for evolution theory to work. If we all die due to a huge meteor crashing into the planet, that's not an evolution-inspired change that says "the trait of being unable to breath toxic gases, ash, and survive in constant sub-zero temperatures" caused our downfall . Random mutation causing some pre-horses to get longer necks, and these longer necked horses all having similar random mutations and mating exclusively (or near so) and migrating to where the trees have leaves at higher levels may seem like a likely source of giraffes - but that's not proven in any way by the existance of giraffes and their similarities to horses. Do you see what I mean?

A trait's effect on the survivability of its host is necessarily connected, by the logic chain, to the frequency with which it can remain. There may be other factors which affect that frequency, but its effect on survivability is necessarily connected.

Exactly - for evolution to be true. Environmental changes - external to survivability - seem to at least also exist, throwing a huge monkey wrench into that thought process. In other words, survivability must be true as a need for evolution, but that means that the trait change needs to also be genetic, and the trait needs to enhance survivability. If either of these things are not true, then evolution does not provide and explanation of the change. If evolution cannot explain the changes, evolution as a guide to how we've changed is, at best, a companion explaination as to the origin of the species.

If it's, at best, a companion explaination, that means there is more to the explaination, and evolution, as a theory, has holes.

On another note - the phrase 'for whatever reason' does not imply unknown reasons - merely unspecified reasons. As is required by any intellectually honest logical exploration, I am sacrificing precision in order to insure accuracy. I'm not sure how anyone can argue with the notion that a trait that makes something less likely to live, also makes that something less likely to reproduce, and thus their offspring less likely to carry the same trait (because there is no offspring). If you are not arguing with that, then you aren't arguing with my assertion.

I should add that fundamentally, I suspect you don't disagree with any of the posits I made. If you do I suspect you must take it to mean something other than what I'm intending to mean. That's why I ask you to tell me if you do disagree with one of them, so that we can figure out why.

I don't take fundamental umbrage with the assertions that you've made - we change over generations, and our later generations reflect those changes.

My issue is with the mechanism of the change, and whether that simple fact (that we change) is enough to have my goldfish, dog, and horse to have the same distant ancestor (the sponge) as me. I don't think there's enough there to justify such an enormous leap of faith. MAYBE there could be a humanoid ancestor to apes and me (though I still think that even that is a Grand Canyon sized leap), but there's still the problem of following the branches of the tree of life back farther than that, to split off the other animals from some further distant ancestor.

 

[Tilted]

This one:

3. In the process by which some living things reproduce, the specific traits that they possess are replicated in their offspring with a greater frequency than those traits which they don't possess.​

This statement implies that somehow the traits of change are virtually all genetic. This is not necessarily true. Some trait changes may be entirely environmental (human lifespan due to medicinal advancements, height due to agricultural advancements, etc). I offer these two human attribute changes because they are obviously NOT due to natural selection - survival of the fittest. The obvious connection is that there are likely many, many changes within species that have nothing to do with the traits being passed by reproduction - the very basic building block of evolution theory.

That statement is referring to gentic traits - those traits which are genetically passed from parent to offspring. It doesn't apply any limits on anything else that may cause variances though. None of the logic chain dismisses the truth of other facts or variables that can affect anything.

But the average lifespan of a species is not a specific trait of a specific one. It is a condition that is a result of many factors, including the traits which are present in the individuals within the species. Nothing in that logic chain prohibits the ability of other phenomena to affect the traits that are present in living beings.

And, the average lifespan of humans is not a trait of a specific individual, it is a metric which is affected by many conditions, including, but not limited to, those different traits which are found in the individuals. Also, height is largely a product of genetic traits. The ability of agricultural conditions to affect the height of an individual after they are born, and after their genetic traits are decided, is relatively limited, though not non-existent. Perhaps you disagree with that notion, and I won't try to convince you, but it is irrelevant to the simple logical points I made.

You are reading something into the logic, that is not there, and then arguing with those points. In this exercise, I am not trying to prove, or justify, or define, or be bound by the various specific ramifications of the various interpretations and meanings of Evolutionary ideals or theories. I am just making the point that you don't have to have actual direct evidence of something in order to be able to know its truth with certainty. Our brains make logical conclusions all of the time that are not based on the actual observance of something, or the actual possession of direct evidence. The truth is that almost all of the information we humans act upon is arrived at through deductive logic, even though we don't consciously recognize that the process went on.

Again, there is nothing in that posit (3) that excludes the possibility of anything else in the Universe happening, or any other phenomena having an affect on what traits are or aren't present. It is a logical posit, and as such it means only that which it precisely says. The fact that it is referring to genetic traits isn't even important to its meaning, in the context of the logical argument.

 

[This_person]

That statement is referring to gentic traits - those traits which are genetically passed from parent to offspring. It doesn't apply any limits on anything else that may cause variances though. None of the logic chain dismisses the truth of other facts or variables that can affect anything.

But the average lifespan of a species is not a specific trait of a specific one. It is a condition that is a result of many factors, including the traits which are present in the individuals within the species. Nothing in that logic chain prohibits the ability of other phenomena to affect the traits that are present in living beings.

And, the average lifespan of humans is not a trait of a specific individual, it is a metric which is affected by many conditions, including, but not limited to, those different traits which are found in the individuals. Also, height is largely a product of genetic traits. The ability of agricultural conditions to affect the height of an individual after they are born, and after their genetic traits are decided, is relatively limited, though not non-existent. Perhaps you disagree with that notion, and I won't try to convince you, but it is irrelevant to the simple logical points I made.

You are reading something into the logic, that is not there, and then arguing with those points. In this exercise, I am not trying to prove, or justify, or define, or be bound by the various specific ramifications of the various interpretations and meanings of Evolutionary ideals or theories. I am just making the point that you don't have to have actual direct evidence of something in order to be able to know its truth with certainty. Our brains make logical conclusions all of the time that are not based on the actual observance of something, or the actual possession of direct evidence. The truth is that almost all of the information we humans act upon is arrived at through deductive logic, even though we don't consciously recognize that the process went on.

Again, there is nothing in that posit (3) that excludes the possibility of anything else in the Universe happening, or any other phenomena having an affect on what traits are or aren't present. It is a logical posit, and as such it means only that which it precisely says. The fact that it is referring to genetic traits isn't even important to its meaning, in the context of the logical argument.

If all you're saying is that we've changed, there are many, many reasons why, and those changes are seen in the resultant generations - then we fully agree.

If you're using that position to suggest that it logically follows that this is evidence that my goldfish and I each can trace a sponge as an ancestor, then we disagree. That we change does not even come close to establishing that conclusion.

 

[Tilted]

So, if the traits can manifest themselves with or without the effect of species survival rates, then other things, at least, are at play than natural selection.

And, if something else is at play than natural selection, then the entire theory of evolution is, at best, a sideshow as to the process by which things change.

In other words, the mechanism by which traits vary is a huge part of what makes up a "proof" for evolution theory to work. If we all die due to a huge meteor crashing into the planet, that's not an evolution-inspired change that says "the trait of being unable to breath toxic gases, ash, and survive in constant sub-zero temperatures" caused our downfall . Random mutation causing some pre-horses to get longer necks, and these longer necked horses all having similar random mutations and mating exclusively (or near so) and migrating to where the trees have leaves at higher levels may seem like a likely source of giraffes - but that's not proven in any way by the existance of giraffes and their similarities to horses. Do you see what I mean?Exactly - for evolution to be true. Environmental changes - external to survivability - seem to at least also exist, throwing a huge monkey wrench into that thought process. In other words, survivability must be true as a need for evolution, but that means that the trait change needs to also be genetic, and the trait needs to enhance survivability. If either of these things are not true, then evolution does not provide and explanation of the change. If evolution cannot explain the changes, evolution as a guide to how we've changed is, at best, a companion explaination as to the origin of the species.

If it's, at best, a companion explaination, that means there is more to the explaination, and evolution, as a theory, has holes.I don't take fundamental umbrage with the assertions that you've made - we change over generations, and our later generations reflect those changes.

My issue is with the mechanism of the change, and whether that simple fact (that we change) is enough to have my goldfish, dog, and horse to have the same distant ancestor (the sponge) as me. I don't think there's enough there to justify such an enormous leap of faith. MAYBE there could be a humanoid ancestor to apes and me (though I still think that even that is a Grand Canyon sized leap), but there's still the problem of following the branches of the tree of life back farther than that, to split off the other animals from some further distant ancestor.

I broke up the quote because I did not want to get lost reading the rest of it before I responded to the first part.

I completely understand what you mean with regard to these issues. There are certain specific aspects of what is referred to as Evolution theory, the veracity of which I am more certain than you. My assessments of what time and randomness can achieve are different than yours, but I completely understand the basis on which your arguments rest. But, none of those specifics affect the simple logical connections I was making, nor the process by which such connections are valid.

I guess my main point is this - for some of us (and I'm referring to people with whom I had very intense, extensive and logically technical discussions on this matter when I was much younger), the belief in the evolutionary process is not based on historical observation. It is not based on what someone else concluded and described (such as Darwin). It is not based on a desire to look back and figure out what has happened. It is based on the ability to predict certain phenomena in the future based on observed conditions at the present. It is predictive deduction.

In other words - if someone sat me in a room and told me that certain things were true (such as what we know of how living things reproduce, how genes are passed on, how death can occur), and I had no other specific knowledge of anything else - then I would deduce, that based on this small set of specific knowledge, that something akin to what we describe as evolution would happen. I would feel that I knew with logical certainty how those simple phenomena would interact, in general, to produce changes in living things. And, I would believe that the extent and scope of those changes was limited only by time and the degree to which the conditions they lived in varied at a given time, and with regard to time. Of course, if the simple posits on which those deductions were based were wrong, or otherwise misinterpreted - then those deductive conclusions would have no import.

 

[Tilted]

If all you're saying is that we've changed, there are many, many reasons why, and those changes are seen in the resultant generations - then we fully agree. I wasn't even saying that we have changed. Merely, that certain things, which I am certain are true, mean that living things will change as a result of those things. As I said, that particular line of logic tells us nothing about the scope of the changes, nor does it exclude the possibility that changes will also happen as the result of other forces, or even what forces cause the things that I'm basing it all on to be true.

If you're using that position to suggest that it logically follows that this is evidence that my goldfish and I each can trace a sponge as an ancestor, then we disagree. That we change does not even come close to establishing that conclusion.

As for the last part - I do strongly believe, not just from evidence, but from deduction, that all living things share common ancestors. But, no, none of the logical deduction that I was applying before was meant to suggest that, or to assert it with certainty. That's a discussion that I don't have much need or interest in engaging - I've been around and around it with so many different people that it's not interesting anymore. I suspect you might be able to say the same thing. For me, it hasn't been interesting for at least a decade, and until I hear a new argument, or a new perspective, it will probably remain uninteresting to me.

I hope.

 

[foodcritic]

As for the last part - I do strongly believe, not just from evidence, but from deduction, that all living things share common ancestors. But, no, none of the logical deduction that I was applying before was meant to suggest that, or to assert it with certainty. That's a discussion that I don't have much need or interest in engaging - I've been around and around it with so many different people that it's not interesting anymore. I suspect you might be able to say the same thing. For me, it hasn't been interesting for at least a decade, and until I hear a new argument, or a new perspective, it will probably remain uninteresting to me.

I hope.

This is the problem....There is no evidence...this is a presupposition or at best a philosophy mingled with scientific theory. What exactly is this deduction of common ancestry that is so obvious? I would love to hear some sort of SIMPLE answer..

 

[thatguy]

This one:

3. In the process by which some living things reproduce, the specific traits that they possess are replicated in their offspring with a greater frequency than those traits which they don't possess.​

This statement implies that somehow the traits of change are virtually all genetic. This is not necessarily true. Some trait changes may be entirely environmental (human lifespan due to medicinal advancements, height due to agricultural advancements, etc). I offer these two human attribute changes because they are obviously NOT due to natural selection - survival of the fittest. The obvious connection is that there are likely many, many changes within species that have nothing to do with the traits being passed by reproduction - the very basic building block of evolution theory.
So, if the traits can manifest themselves with or without the effect of species survival rates, then other things, at least, are at play than natural selection.

And, if something else is at play than natural selection, then the entire theory of evolution is, at best, a sideshow as to the process by which things change.

In other words, the mechanism by which traits vary is a huge part of what makes up a "proof" for evolution theory to work. If we all die due to a huge meteor crashing into the planet, that's not an evolution-inspired change that says "the trait of being unable to breath toxic gases, ash, and survive in constant sub-zero temperatures" caused our downfall . Random mutation causing some pre-horses to get longer necks, and these longer necked horses all having similar random mutations and mating exclusively (or near so) and migrating to where the trees have leaves at higher levels may seem like a likely source of giraffes - but that's not proven in any way by the existance of giraffes and their similarities to horses. Do you see what I mean?Exactly - for evolution to be true. Environmental changes - external to survivability - seem to at least also exist, throwing a huge monkey wrench into that thought process. In other words, survivability must be true as a need for evolution, but that means that the trait change needs to also be genetic, and the trait needs to enhance survivability. If either of these things are not true, then evolution does not provide and explanation of the change. If evolution cannot explain the changes, evolution as a guide to how we've changed is, at best, a companion explaination as to the origin of the species.

If it's, at best, a companion explaination, that means there is more to the explaination, and evolution, as a theory, has holes.I don't take fundamental umbrage with the assertions that you've made - we change over generations, and our later generations reflect those changes.

My issue is with the mechanism of the change, and whether that simple fact (that we change) is enough to have my goldfish, dog, and horse to have the same distant ancestor (the sponge) as me. I don't think there's enough there to justify such an enormous leap of faith. MAYBE there could be a humanoid ancestor to apes and me (though I still think that even that is a Grand Canyon sized leap), but there's still the problem of following the branches of the tree of life back farther than that, to split off the other animals from some further distant ancestor.

you completely miss that the two attributes you are holding up as evidence are a result of human influence, and therefore cannot be factored into "natural selection". just like the traits developed through selective breeding (of animals by humans) or living in a zoo, would not be considered "natural" and shouldn't be included in any discussion of natural selection.