Why evolution is true

[torridon]

WHY EVOLUTION IS TRUE STILL AN IDEA...

Why is it important to bandy about a term which is no nearer now than when it first came into mans thought to being true?

When man can actually find the real answer it will be too late. Christ will have returned or the human race ended.

They are the only two likely outcomes. Either way these arguments will still be as useless then as when they started.

That seems a bit defeatist.  For sure, all things will pass, but we can still enjoy the ride while we are here, and for humans, that means exploring, inventing and figuring things out.  That's how we roll.

[Shaker]

WHY EVOLUTION IS TRUE STILL AN IDEA...

Why is it important to bandy about a term which is no nearer now than when it first came into mans thought to being true?

Except it is; although, since it's based on the concept of evidence - one with which you're unacquainted - it would avail nothing to try to explain it to you even if space permitted.

They are the only two likely outcomes. Either way these arguments will still be as useless then as when they started.

They're only useless when you come up against people who don't understand science.

[Enki]

WHY EVOLUTION IS TRUE STILL AN IDEA...

Why is it important to bandy about a term which is no nearer now than when it first came into mans thought to being true?

When man can actually find the real answer it will be too late. Christ will have returned or the human race ended.

They are the only two likely outcomes. Either way these arguments will still be as useless then as when they started.

In which case it is just as useless for you to produce your above pessimistic message. Why not start taking some enjoyment in the capacity that humans have for trying to expand our knowledge and understanding of the world we all live in?   It isn't all bad, you know.

[Spud]

Anyone interested in 'little foot' might find this very readable article interesting, including, about halfway through, an excellent picture comparison of some of the most complete australopithecus skeletons to date.

https://medium.com/@johnhawks/will-the-most-complete-skeleton-ever-transform-human-origins-630c66ed90c4

Thanks for that. In the video of the unveiling event, the guy mentions that Stw 573 is the only Australopithecus fossil with a complete arm and leg, enabling the limb proportions to be acurately determined. He said the legs are longer than its arms, so that answers my question. I measured them on my computer screen and got an intermembral index of about 85, which shows that previous estimates based on other specimens were correct. Humans have an index of 68-70.

[Dicky Underpants]

WHY EVOLUTION IS TRUE STILL AN IDEA...

Why is it important to bandy about a term which is no nearer now than when it first came into mans thought to being true?

When man can actually find the real answer it will be too late. Christ will have returned or the human race ended.

They are the only two likely outcomes. Either way these arguments will still be as useless then as when they started.

Well, there is a vast amount of evidence for the truth of evolution than when evolutionary ideas were first thought of (the idea goes back to the ancient Greeks btw). Palaeontology, geology and genetics - to name but three - all confirm it.
As for Christ - well the predictions about his return all proved false 1918 years ago, at a very generous estimate.

[Spud]

I think you will find that paleoanthropologists have no problem with relating the 'southern ape' genera to the genus homo, but recent discoveries and recent techniques suggest that the picture is much more complex than first assumed and that the 'southern ape' and the homo line are much closer than was originally thought. Here, for instance, is a recent paper(June 2016) which suggests that in the light of recent evidence the homo line and the australopithecus line tend to blend into each other in a rather smoother transition than first thought. The paper itself is highly detailed, but the conclusion at least is definitely worth reading.

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/371/1698/20150248

I'm afraid I can't make sense of most of it- it's too full of jargon for a layman to understand. But I understood figure 5. They seem to get from figure 5 that endocranial volume increased with time; they interpret this as evidence for evolution. It's a valid observation, but how do we tell whether that interpretation is correct, or whether there is some other reason for the observed shift in brain size? I noticed that the mean ECV values for H Erectus, H Habilis, Australopithecus and chimpanzees come in two distinct groups of two, which I suggest shows that you have apes on one hand and Homo on the other. Not a smooth progression but a group with low ECV and a group with high ECV.

[jakswan]

I'm afraid I can't make sense of most of it- it's too full of jargon for a layman to understand. But I understood figure 5. They seem to get from figure 5 that endocranial volume increased with time; they interpret this as evidence for evolution. It's a valid observation, but how do we tell whether that interpretation is correct, or whether there is some other reason for the observed shift in brain size? I noticed that the mean ECV values for H Erectus, H Habilis, Australopithecus and chimpanzees come in two distinct groups of two, which I suggest shows that you have apes on one hand and Homo on the other. Not a smooth progression but a group with low ECV and a group with high ECV.

Assuming you accept evolution by artificial selection?

As evidence I enter a poodle.
http://puppyparty.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/miniature-poodle-puppy-300x225.jpg

[Spud]

Assuming you accept evolution by artificial selection?

As evidence I enter a poodle.
http://puppyparty.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/miniature-poodle-puppy-300x225.jpg

I accept that poodles may have come from wolves but wouldn't use the term evolution because that invokes the idea of shared ancestry with cats, bears, sea lions etc.

[SteveH]

I accept that poodles may have come from wolves but wouldn't use the term evolution because that invokes the idea of shared ancestry with cats, bears, sea lions etc.

That shared ancestry exists, and we now have proof from the dna, as well as fossils.

[jakswan]

I accept that poodles may have come from wolves but wouldn't use the term evolution because that invokes the idea of shared ancestry with cats, bears, sea lions etc.

Evolution is change, that humans can create breeds of dogs is a result of evolution by artificial selection.

[Spud]

That shared ancestry exists, and we now have proof from the dna, as well as fossils.

I'm reading around the subject, currently on Miacids. When I get to dna I will probably have to delete something to free up some memory.

[jakswan]

I'm reading around the subject, currently on Miacids. When I get to dna I will probably have to delete something to free up some memory.

Do you agree that I can create a breed a dogs with certain characteristics by means evolution by artificial selection?

If you do agree then you must accept evolution is true.

After this we can provide you with evidence in support of evolution by natural selection.

[Spud]

Do you agree that I can create a breed a dogs with certain characteristics by means evolution by artificial selection?

If you do agree then you must accept evolution is true.

After this we can provide you with evidence in support of evolution by natural selection.

That change due to natural or artificial selection occurs is obvious to all, and you are saying you want to call this evolution. But the phrase, "the theory of evolution" means the theory that all life shares a common ancestor. How can evolution be obvious to all yet at the same time a theory? What is actually meant by evolution?

[Sebastian Toe]

. How can evolution be obvious to all yet at the same time a theory? What is actually meant by evolution?

Substitute evolution with gravity above.
Now, think about it.

[torridon]

That change due to natural or artificial selection occurs is obvious to all, and you are saying you want to call this evolution. But the phrase, "the theory of evolution" means the theory that all life shares a common ancestor. How can evolution be obvious to all yet at the same time a theory? What is actually meant by evolution?

Differentiate between evolution (phenomenon of life) and The Theory of Evolution (body of knowledge regarding evolution)

[Gordon]

That change due to natural or artificial selection occurs is obvious to all, and you are saying you want to call this evolution. But the phrase, "the theory of evolution" means the theory that all life shares a common ancestor. How can evolution be obvious to all yet at the same time a theory? What is actually meant by evolution?

Maybe think of it this way, Spud: evolution is a fact: that things evolve, whereas the theory is about how this happens (e.g. natural selection).

[Spud]

Do you agree that I can create a breed a dogs with certain characteristics by means evolution by artificial selection?

If you do agree then you must accept evolution is true.

After this we can provide you with evidence in support of evolution by natural selection.

I agree evolution happens, just not on the scale you think it does. So according to the Theory of Evolution, dogs, cats, bears, and all carnivorous placental mammals evolved from tree-dwelling miacids. But common sense will tell you what this picture demonstrates: that miacids give rise to miacids:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b7/Miacoides2.jpg

[Sebastian Toe]

I agree evolution happens, just not on the scale you think it does. So according to the Theory of Evolution, dogs, cats, bears, and all carnivorous placental mammals evolved from tree-dwelling miacids. But common sense will tell you what this picture demonstrates: that miacids give rise to miacids:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b7/Miacoides2.jpg

Ah. Common sense.
Are you sure that is the best way to go?

[Harrowby Hall]

How can evolution be obvious to all yet at the same time a theory?

Do you actually know what the word "theory" means when it is used by a scientist?

But the phrase, "the theory of evolution" means the theory that all life shares a common ancestor.

This king of the fairies in the sky stuff has really got to you, hasn't it.  The theory of Evolution is about the process of species development NOT creation of life.

Amended 4 Oct.

[Spud]

Ah. Common sense.
Are you sure that is the best way to go?

I'll rephrase it: But a bit of investigation will tell you that miacids give rise to miacids:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b7/Miacoides2.jpg

[Sebastian Toe]

I'll rephrase it: But a bit of investigation will tell you that miacids give rise to miacids:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b7/Miacoides2.jpg

Cool. Glad to see that you reject the use of common sense.

[jakswan]

I agree evolution happens,

So evolution is a fact, we will bank that. Now lets rewind, you agree that evolution by natural selection happens?

just not on the scale you think it does.

Take it one step at a time. If you agree evolution by natural selection happens we can take baby steps to get to the scale.

[SteveH]

I think most creationists admit that what they call "micro-evolution" happens - changes within a broad "kind", but not from one kind to another. They have come up with the pseudo-science of "baraminology", from Hebrew words meaning "created kind", but baramins are not recognised as a category by real scientists.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Created_kind

[Spud]

So evolution is a fact, we will bank that. Now lets rewind, you agree that evolution by natural selection happens?

I agree that natural selection happens. It can be inferred from the changes in shape and/or size of Galapagos finch beaks and tortoise shells, depending on what food is available on the different islands.

If you think that the finches came from theropod dinosaurs I would point you to the fact that archeopteryx had flight feathers and was around before its supposed ancestors. In other words you can't infer non-bird ancestry for finches. Natural selection, or 'evolution' as you call it, has limits beyond which it cannot be observed to have occurred.

Take it one step at a time. If you agree evolution by natural selection happens we can take baby steps to get to the scale.

As I've shown you, no ancestor can be inferred for your poodle further back than an ancient canid.

[Stranger]

So Spud, have you thought any more about the two questions you avoided before?

• Why is it that almost all the people who study these things (from many nationalities, cultures, and faiths) agree that the evidence for the Theory of Evolution and common decent is overwhelming and of the tiny, tiny minority that don't, pretty much all of them have an obvious religious agenda?
  
  
• If you agree that natural selection can produce small changes, what is it that stops these small changes from adding up to arbitrarily large changes given sufficient time?

You see, some amateur with little actual knowledge and a faith based disbelief can rummage around in the details (aided and abetted by creationist misinformation) and find endless supposed 'problems' and people can keep looking up the answers for them (as I have done on many occasions) and they'll just move on to something else.

It's an endless and utterly pointless exercise.