Inviting ALL evolutionists to show proof that mammals evolve

Great Debates
61

proof from the present day about evolution:

species do not evolve unless they have to. by saying that i mean that if they do not they become extinct. evolution is in it basic form like this: a certain factor needed for continuing the life of a particular species is removed; some in that species do not need that factor to live and therefore survive; their babies have that ability like their parents and survive as well; the species survive, but in an evolved status.

ok a bit complicated, but thats just because i cant find the correct words, please bear with me here(eh?).

lets say that only red-headed people could survive. soon there would only be red-headed people on earth. thats evolution.

now i promised a proof, here it is:
virus and bacteria are and have been a factor in the evolution until the present day, and well continue to be a factor in evolution. those individuals immune to a certain virus or bacteria(have developed immunity or already a build in immunity) survive, and as do their children. if some people hadnt been less affected(not dead)by a certain disease, there wouldnt be a mankind now.

bj0rn - they killed ken(ny), them bastards!!!

62

Good post Bjorn! I know that viruses, etc mutated to insure survival. But I don’t think that is the only reason change is produced. Life forms carry the potential to change a little, its inherent in their system. (Red-headed people) Also, in case were we have a life form changing into a new species (salamander and Herring Gull) it had nothing to do with survival. It was random change for no reason.

Shame about (Ken)ny. I always liked him! :wink:
Yours,

Ken

For what a man had rather were true he more readily believes.

63

Phaedrus,

Partly for the benefit of people who may have missed the Flat Earth thread:

Do you think evolution exists outside of mammals?

Do you think mammals speciate?

What is your definition of speciation?

What is your definition of evolution?

How old do you think the Earth is?

64

glee,

You wrote:

He’s already indicated more than once that he does and has provided examples.

That is the $50,000 question. He has indicated that he seeks sufficient evidence of such.

So far, it sounds like a rational definition and seems pretty obvious from his posts (OK, well, the rational, non mushroom influenced posts anyway).

Irrelevant. The question is about speciation.

Irrelevant.
I don’t know what has gone on with Phaedrus in the past or what previous incarnations he may or may not have taken, but I’d kind of like it if you challenge him on the merit of his argument with evidence or just keep quiet. I tend to stay away from Great Debates because the cuteness-to-content ratio is usually too high to keep my interest. In that respect, this thread is on the verge of losing my attention. Frankly, it sounds like a bunch of high school boys in the locker room… “my brain’s bigger than yours”.

For the record, I believe that mammals do (or at least have) speciated, but am unaware of any specific evidence of such. I DO have a lot of ‘issues’ with the standard “theory of evolution” in toto, but they are not relevant to this discussion, so I’ll keep my mouth shut (for now).

Interesting thread Phaedrus, in spite of all the intervening sophistry… I’m learning a thing or three.

65

Oops! Retraction:

glee wrote:

Then I wrote:

This is clearly an error on my part since the opening post said:

Clearly opening the door to questions of Phaedrus’s definition of evolution. I suspect that it is not too different from the conventional definition.

I stand by the rest of my post… though not too closely, in case I may have said something else boneheaded in there…

66

glee:

I believe that evolution exists if you are defining it as the ability of life forms to change into another life form. I do not believe that life forms have the ability to evolve from single-celled creatures all the way up to man and the diversity and complexity of life we see around us in the present.

This is why I chose to define evolution as I did. I define it as the ability I have just stated. I am not trying to complicate matters nor am I trying to confuse the issue nor and I trying to hoodwink people into believing something that isn’t true. Life forms DO NOT evolve into other life forms outside their genus.

I do not believe mammals speciate at all. Ever.

My definition of speciation is akin to Dobznansky’s. I believe that when one life form mutates into a separate species it has speciated. A separate species is one that cannot be forced to produce viable offspring with its ancestral species.

This is slightly different than the view that is held by some scientists. Some of them believe that if two animals will not mate they have speciated. There are a couple of different interpretations about what it means to be a separate species. I believe mine is the clearest and most concise and has the least amount of problems. I believe in the elegance of a theory. This is what Einstein believed as well. It goes along with the principle of Occam’s razor and I feel it is a good test to perform when you are postulating a theory.
I have stated my definition of evolution.

I think that the Earth may be 4.5 billion years old or perhaps as young as 20,000 years old. I know of some scientific facts that lead a person in both directions without negating each other directly. For me the verdict is still out. I cannot say with certitude which is true.

I appreciate your questions and you. I would like to clear one thing up. This is for you personally, when I gave your part in T.E.I.F.I.R.I.T.P. I meant it as a joke, or gentle jibe if you will. I knew you were male, but I knew that others were confused about it for a little while. No harm done I hope. I was just kidding you.

I would like to explain to those that read this thread another reason why this issue is important to me.

As scientists we get a lot of credit for some pretty amazing things. Many of us do not spurn such credit, in fact some of us glory in it. It makes us feel superior as if WE’VE got all the answers.

There is a danger in that. Some of us perform the role of priests in the lives of those who listen to us. We sometimes give the impression that we know all. We don’t. What I am afraid of is that when the whole charade is over people will turn their backs on science and feel they have been duped by us, and that includes me. I have never in my life used my knowledge of science to make people think I have all the answers because I don’t. I am involved in scientific enquiry because I don’t know things, not because I know them.

If (perhaps I should say when) “evolution” turns out to be a ruse people might begin to believe all sorts of things that do not recommend themselves to the rational mind. I am beginning to see this in a number of areas and the whole thing makes me edgy and nervous.

One way to prevent that is to find the proof that evolution needs BEFORE people start to look to closely at it. People have already begun to do so including scientists like me.

This is one of the reasons I am here.
Thank you for your appearance, I hope you will become an active member in this thread.
Best Regards,

Phaedrus

For what a man had rather were true he more readily believes.

67

JoeyBlades: Thank you for answering for, I CAN do it myself, if you please! :wink:

Seriously, I appreciate your response(s).

Welcome to this thread, hope you’ll stay and help us.

Sorry for the cuteness but sometimes it helps people that like humour to stay with us and they have meaningful things to say too. Besides, this subject could get dry as toast and THAT would severely limit readership and posts from other members, perhaps I am wrong.

The my “brain is bigger than yours” tendency is hard to overcome when people are as tied into the ego as they sometimes are. This board is no exception and neither is this thread or myself for that matter.

As we continue our discussion please feel free to interject whatever ideas you have about evolution. I certainly wouldn’t feel badly about you posting them and besides perhaps your ideas would give me more to think about.

Again, welcome!
Yours,

Phaedrus

For what a man had rather were true he more readily believes.

68

thats the main reason. why mutate if your current form works fine the way it is? the mutation has got to be something that makes you fitter to survive than the others before the mutation.

ill answer that with another question; why are you human?
silly question, granted. but hang on this for a moment will you.

so mammals were created like they are. they didnt evolve from nothing. they were just created eh? oh…yeah and so were viruses :wink:

breaking lifeforms up into their basic forms, cells. cells are the same for every species on earth(well…up to a certain point.) so one could assume that the cells evolve, just like bacterias, for they are…cells :). anyway lets summarize and add to it from there:

  • cells are what we are build from.
  • cells are similar in different species
  • bacterias are basically cells and have been proven to evolve.
  • cells have been proven to “evolve” (that is find a new purpose in life in order to survive)
  • evolution is a word to describe a change in a species due to outside effects that would otherwise make it extinct. (4 a : the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations)

they do say it is a theory, but it is one with more proofs than the ones creationist could provide.

anyway…back to buissness:

  • humans have many “dead” organs. (names i dont know in english, but im sure you can think of some.) theese are organs that do not kill us because we have them, otherwise those with the mutation; “no organ like that” would survive and as would their decendants, but others would not. lets name for example; “the tail”. like the one monkeys have. we have remenants of a tail, and some infants are even born with a small tail sometimes. somehow though the lack of tail made some “humans” fitter for survival than other “humans”.
  • a tail is needed for fine balance, something monkeys on the ground didnt need compared to their brethren in the trees.
  • a tail serves no purpose for creatures the size of humans, granted that some larger creatures do have tails but they do not have hands.
  • size matters in survival, thats why almost all members of a species are approx the same size. mutations are known of course but are short lived if that mutation doesnt make them stronger than everybody else(remember the story about the ugly duckling ;)).
  • mutated/impaired infants are left for dead or worse in nature.
  • the weakest infant is often eaten by its brothers and sisters, further ensuring the survival of the fittest.

so, mammals do speciate, if thats what you call it. why for example is there one mammal that lays eggs? why are there so many different kinds of creatures in a family(cat family, canine family etc…)? its called adaption, thats why us humans are black, white, yellow etc…

bj0rn - a creature

69

Phaedrus, you wrote:

Actually, I thought you already had answered for yourself - I was just trying to point that out. Didn’t mean to step on your toes. [wink]

I have nothing against cuteness and humor, as long as it’s used in a constructive manner. I’ve been known to crack a smile or two, even in the most somber of situations. However, when the humor degenerates to merely personal attacks that seem better suited for the “Pit”, that’s when I start to lose interest. That is why I tend to avoid the “Great Debates” (usually)…

I’ll consider it, but I don’t like to be the cause of tangents. The problem is that most people (who have an opinion) tend to very polarized on the subject of evolution. If you are sure there is no God, you will necessarily operate under certain assumptions that preclude true scientific method. Likewise, if you are sure that God does exist and that he works in direct, non mysterious ways, then you will operate under different assumptions that also preclude the scientific method.

For the record, I’m a Christian but not a creationist or a young Earther. I’m also an engineer and scientist. On one hand, God doesn’t interfere with my ability to look at things scientifically and objectively. Likewise, science doen’t impinge upon my faith. With respect to this topic, I believe that evolution does occur, but I have some doubts about the “conventional wisdom” regarding the fundamental starting points and some of the mechanisms in the process. This thread has raised some new questions for me, though I wouldn’t go as far as to say it has raised doubts. I currently operate under the assumption that mammals do evolve and speciate, but find it intriguing that we may not have sufficient evidence to support this assumption…

I hope that’s sufficiently clear enough to show you where I’m coming from but sufficiently vague enough to thwart the radicals from evolving this thread into a new species… [wink]

70

bj0rn wrote:

Paramecia and Amoebas are probably better examples for the discussion at hand. They have much more in common with animal cells than bacteria do, e.g. a cell nucleus, mitochondria, endoplasmic reticulum, chromosomes that float free in the nucleus and aren’t anchored to anything, etc…

Eukaryotes of the world, unite!

71

JoeyBlades,

you said about my questions to Phaedrus

‘I don’t know what has gone on with Phaedrus in the past or what previous incarnations he may or may not have taken, but I’d kind of like it if you challenge him on the merit of his argument with evidence or just keep quiet. …this thread is on the verge of losing my attention. Frankly, it sounds like a bunch of high school boys in the locker room… “my brain’s bigger than yours”.’

I assume you haven’t read the ‘Flat Earth’ thread, otherwise you’d understand why I asked these questions. I also think it’s better to see if we have a disagreement over definitions, rather than ‘keep quiet’.
Incidentally, why did my polite post make you think of locker room challenges?

You said ‘For the record, I believe that mammals do (or at least have) speciated, but am unaware of any specific evidence of such.’

Phaedrus said ‘I do not believe mammals speciate at all. Ever.’

See - I found out something!

Phaedrus,

you said ‘I believe that evolution exists if you are defining it as the ability of life forms to change into another life form. I do not believe that life forms have the ability to evolve from single-celled creatures all the way up to man and the diversity and complexity of life we see around us in the present.
…I am not trying to complicate matters… Life forms DO NOT evolve into other life forms outside their genus.’

Thanks, that’s helpful.

You said ‘I do not believe mammals speciate at all.
…I believe that when one life form mutates into a separate species it has speciated. A separate species is one that cannot be forced to produce viable offspring with its ancestral species.’

OK, also useful. Sorry if I’m missing something, but this got me thinking:

  • you’re saying life forms only evolve within their genus?

  • if so, what’s the difference between that and speciation?

You said ‘some scientists…believe that if two animals will not mate they have speciated.’

Do you mean that the animals are unwilling to mate, rather than biologically incapable?

You said ‘I think that the Earth may be 4.5 billion years old or perhaps as young as 20,000 years old. I know of some scientific facts that lead a person in both directions…’

I think this is highly relevant, because the theory of evolution depends on small changes over massive time periods. If the Earth is only 20,000 years old, then Darwin’s theory falls. So what evidence is there that the Earth is that young?

I found your recent posts to be relevant and interesting. I can also assure you that your joke was completely acceptable!

Why doesn’t the sun come out at night when the light would be more useful? (Pratchett)

72

Why didn’t you post the whole title to this thread, “Inviting All evolutionists to show proof that mammals evolve, while remembering that I will dismiss all evidence presented because I have already made up my mind and am using this as a forum to show my obvious superior intelligence. God knows I’m too good for this group, what with all of my accomplishments(see previous postings of mine), but I feel that it is my duty as one of the gifted to throw these pearls of wisdom before these atheistic swine.”

73

glee,

You wrote:

With more than 1000 posts??? I haven’t even opened it. This is just the sort of thread that I avoid with a vengence. I’ll make a prediction - you can tell me if I’m wrong - I’ll bet that fewer than 30% of all the posts in that thread contribute anything to the content. The rest will be venomous reparte and feeble sarcasm…

No harm in that. I thought you were trying to bait a trap and I was just pointing out that I felt that Phaedrus had successfully made his points clear (in this thread). However, if he has presented contradictory or confusing arguments in another thread, I can see why you might seek clarification.

Sorry, that wasn’t directed at you specifically…

…specifically I was directing that comment to folks like pldennison, Gaudere, Beeruser, Surgoshan, slythe, and even our fearless moderator who’ve added nothing by way of intellectual content to this discussion…

…but, I digress and run the risk of being like the others… so I’ll make this potentially conducive contribution:

[quote]

You said ‘I think that the Earth may be 4.5 billion years old or perhaps as young as 20,000 years old. I know of some scientific facts that lead a person in both directions…’

I think this is highly relevant, because the theory of evolution depends on small changes over massive time periods. If the Earth is only 20,000 years old, then Darwin’s theory falls.

[quote]

I agree with your observation, but are you sure that Darwin’s theory holds even at larger time spans like 4.5 billion years?
BTW, current theories is that the Earth was built 4.5 billion years ago, but that life didn’t begin to occur until nearly a billion years later. So maybe the window of opportunity is only 3.5 billion years - that’s still pretty huge. Is it huge enough? I have my doubts, at least that tiny random evolutionary steps can get from simple single celled creatures to complex human ones in only a few billion years… if at all.

The problem is that most people lack a real comprehension of really big numbers and in the complexity of systems. This is a point that Douglas Hofstadter made in his book “Mathemagical Themas”, an interesting - though enigmatic book. Hofstadter also talks in this book about his fascination with Rubik’s Cube. He calculated that this fairly simple mechanical puzzle has on the order of 10[SUP]19[/SUP] (that’s 10 to the power of 19, in case my HTML doesn’t work right) different states. That’s a pretty damn big number for such a simple mechanism with so few pieces. How big is this number? Well if you were to pick up a cube once each day and randomly move to another state, it could take you much longer than the universe has been around to complete the puzzle. Of course you might get lucky, depending on the starting state and which random moves you happened to make, but let’s say that you had a billion machines with a billion cubes, all with random starting positions and these machines started evolving their cubes at the rate of one state each day from the beginning of the universe (as we know it) back some odd 15 billion years ago… statistically, you would expect fewer than two of them to have solved the puzzle by now.

My point, in case it’s not obvious, is that higher level animals like humans, and apes, and elephants, and snakes, and cockroaches, etc. are much, much, much more complicated than a Rubik’s Cube. Furthermore, most animals on Earth have much longer reproductive cycles, much less evolutionary cycles than one day. Furthermore, most animals will die if they take the wrong step on the evolutionary trail or fail to take the right step quickly enough. Furthermore, mosts scientists believe that there have been a number of near restarts due to comets and other global natural disasters that wiped out huge populations of thriving creatures.

So while 3.5 billion (or even 4.5 billion) might seem like a long time for random events to cummulate, it seems to me that statistically something doesn’t add up.

74

JoeyBlades wrote:

Well, sorry, you lose that bet. The rest were venomous reparte, feeble sarcasm, AND Phaedrus droning on interminably about how his own philosphical definitions of the terms used mean that he wins every argument.

75

I wrote:

This sentence has been bugging me ever since I posted it. If I had it to do over, I’d rewrite it as:

“Furthermore, most animals on Earth have much longer reproductive cycles (and even longer evolutionary cycles) than one day.”

Hope that’s clearer. Even I wasn’t entirely sure what point I was trying to make with that previous abomination of a sentence!!!

76

Damn, damn, damn. I hate it when I do that…

I wrote:

I should have said “Metamagical Themas”…

77

Hey, Joey, thanks! I was leaving this thread dormant until the hubbub with our new members had subsided. I haven’t forgot about any of it and particularly the last statements, yours and et al. I do have answers for all of them and I thank you for your involvement. I stated earlier before you came along that I have an impending court case coming up. I practice law and am in the process of grooming some clients for court. The hols were a slight recess. After that I have an opportunity to go to South Africa. The place I am going to isn’t exactly the bush, but it doesn’t have internet services so I will be leaving for a while, probably about 3-6 months. I hope to be able to come back after trial and give a few answers. When I get involved in the court matter I will drop ALL posting. This is the first case I have been involved in in a while I have to give it all my attention.

Nice to see you,

Phaedrus

For what a man had rather were true he more readily believes.

78

JoeyBlades,

you wrote ‘The problem is that most people (who have an opinion) tend to very polarized on the subject of evolution.’

Agreed.

‘If you are sure there is no God, you will necessarily operate under certain assumptions that preclude true scientific method. Likewise, if you are sure that God does exist and that he works in direct, non mysterious ways, then you will operate under different assumptions that also preclude the scientific method.’

I understand how people who believe the Bible is inerrant will ignore evidence that contradicts it. I DON’T see how not believing in God affects scientific method.

Thanks for your retraction about my politeness. I think you owe me another one for dismissing the relevance of me asking Phaedrus (or anyone else) how old the Earth is. :slight_smile:

79

Phaedrus wrote:

Sounds like a punt, then???

glee,

You wrote:

I’m generalizing a bit. Certainly not all scientists allow their scientific beliefs to interfere with their objectivity just as not all Christians allow their religious beliefs to interfere with their objectivity… Life is a continuum with extreme opinions on either end (independent of the subject). The distribution of opinions, however is not Gaussian - it’s an inverted Bell curve (alluding back to people tending to be polarized)…

But that doesn’t answer your question, directly. Let me answer your question with a a couple of questions that are relevant to the subject at hand. How many scientists involved in the study of evolution are sure that “survival of the fittest” is the only mechanism at play in the evolutionary process? How many more are sure that it is, at the very least, the primary mechanism? How open do you suppose those scientists are to alternative theories that might discount or de-emphasize the importance of “survival of the fittest”?

I’m not trying to suggest that “survival of the fittest” should be de-emphasized or that there is inherently anything wrong with this element of the evolutionary theory - just that there are a lot of people who defend this position with fervor with very little hard evidence, much in the same manner that religious fanatics defend their positions.
You also wrote:

I remind you that I wrote:

Which I thought was sufficient retraction, however if you’d like to see something a bit more formal:

I hearby retract any statements I may have made or implied in defense of the poster known in this thread as Phaedrus regarding his apparent position in this thread, in light of overwhelming evidence that this same person, possibly under guise of an alternate identity, may have made statements that were either contradictory and/or inflamatory in other threads.

And since Phaedrus seems to have opted to punt the ball away, it seems that there will be no further defense of this position in this thread. It looks like this thread will die the death that all threads in the “Great Debates” are doomed to… flaming apathy… Pity. It struck me as having some potential.

80

I don’t think it’s a matter of apathy, Joey.

Phaedrus started this thread as a response to David B’s thread inviting him to provide verifiable, scientific evidence that would contradict the body of evidence supporting current evolutionary theory. Since Phaedrus has no such evidence, he resorted to “oh yeah? Well why don’t you show me something speciate right here and now.”

Phaedrus doesn’t accept evolution as fact. That’s fine. I personally choose not to dismiss the evidence supporting evolution, but that’s neither here nor there.

What I find annoying is simply that Phaedrus claims the vast majority of scientists are wrong, but he doesn’t have anything to back up that claim scientifically. He’s welcome to believe what he wishes–I wouldn’t have it any other way. But for him to claim to have hard scientific evidence refuting evolutionary theory and not cough it up is disingenuous at best.

Anyhoo, you asked:

I don’t mean to sound like I’m sidestepping, but it really depends on what you mean by “survival of the fittest.” It’s a contrived term used as shorthand for a number of processes. Do you mean the entire body of theory called “natural selection?” Or some subset?

-andros-