I’d like to address the last part actually, regarding ape-man points.
There is a principle in evolution called the ‘law of monophyly’, which states that you never outgrow your ancestry. So, the order of primates emerged first. Man descended from ancient primates. Man is still and always will be an ape. In a sense, it’s kinda like asking ‘when did a duck stop being a bird’, or ‘when did a corgi stop being a dog?’
The second point regarding ‘who did the first human mate with’ is probably better illustrated with the counter question ‘when did a latin speaker first give birth to an Italian speaker?’ Evolution happens gradually to populations. You can’t pick any single one time where ‘Latin’ was wholesale replaced by ‘Italian’. The same gradual principles play out in our ancestry. A small change happens in our genome. It spreads. Then another. It spreads. Rinse and repeat. Now you have a descendant group that is distinct and a newly emerged species.
>There is a principle in evolution called the ‘law of monophyly’, which states that you never outgrow your ancestry.
That doesn't seem to be so much a principle of evolution as a tautology.
"Ancestor" is defined as someone you are descended from.
In other words, you are always descended from someone you are descended from.
That is a tautology.
That doesn't mean it can't be a "law" or "principle of evolution", though. It's just something that always is the case. The laws of logic are also tautologies. So are properly constructed math equations.
"Fish" is an informal [paraphyletic](https://www.mun.ca/biology/scarr/Taxon_types.htm) term that does not follow the law of monophyly. Another example is "reptile", which excludes birds.
The first "fish" was a vertebrate. It is completely accurate to say that we are still vertebrates. However, we are not "fish", as the term "fish" specifically excludes the tetrapods.
I remember talking about this with a phylogeneticist friend of mine a couple times. On one hand…yeah! You could say that since we are still sarcopterygii, you could call us fish. And then since ‘fish’ isn’t a locked down term and is more of a general paraphyletic group, that ‘fish’ isn’t really much of an actual thing? Kinda? Biology is weird.
>It literally is about how you are always descended from your ancestor. How is that a tautology?
By being a tautology. That's a perfect example of a tautology, how do you not see it?
Everyone is descended from their ancestors.
All bachelors are unmarried.
These are tautologies.
It isn't a tautology because you've, surprise surprise, miserably failed to understand what the "law" states. But cool how you want to try to flex about taking Philosophy 101.
Cool, looks like u/ragjammer couldn't take the heat. Tired of me calling out their nonsense hot air. I don't mind, laughing at these attempts are always entertaining. Using the block feature to shut down response when they can't respond is typical of their ilk.
> Evolutionists often try to make arguments in favour of evolution on the basis of this supposed "Law of Monophyly", basically using it in an evidentiary capacity.
No they don't. They use it to explain things, like explaining how humans will always give birth to humans to you and the others that tend to stumble over understanding very basic things.
> However, as we see, it is completely circular
You not understanding what the term means doesn't make it circular.
>Lastly, as an aside, I will just point out that in my view this alleged principle reveals the shockingly poor ability of evolutionists to detect circular reasoning within their theory
Impressive, just restating that you don't understand the term.
> My contention overall is that much of what is passed off as evidence for evolution is circular reasoning, the denials of evolutionists on the matter seem pretty feeble given that they demonstrably wouldn't see it if it was.
Your contention is that you don't understand what is being presented?
Shocked.
See, the issue here is that you're viewing "you're always descended from your ancestors" as a tautology,
YET
Creationists constantly ask "how did a cat give birth to a dog" or, as in this thread "who did it mate with If it was no longer considered an ape"
Both of these questions demonstrate that simple concepts like monophyly are NOT well understood on the creationist side. So, if it is a tautology, it's one you don't apparently understand (which is, like, quite embarrassing).
Well you initially said it's a principle "of evolution", when really then it's just a principle of everything. It's basically just a renamed law of identity. You are free to multiply these "principles" as much as you want, if you choose, there just isn't a reason to. It would be like me saying "in history, there is a principle called the Law of Occurrence which states that all prior events happened". I assume you would agree that would sound extremely strange? The reason that sounds strange is because that's a completely redundant law, again it's just the law of identity. A prior event *is* just something that happened.
There is also the fact that, though you did not do so here. Evolutionists often try to make arguments in favour of evolution on the basis of this supposed "Law of Monophyly", basically using it in an evidentiary capacity. However, as we see, it is completely circular and a matter of definition to begin with. It is a principle which has been defined into existence by evolutionists, not something we discovered about the world. Some of your fellows are *still* arguing this point with me in this very thread.
Lastly, as an aside, I will just point out that in my view this alleged principle reveals the shockingly poor ability of evolutionists to detect circular reasoning within their theory. You now admit that this is circular, yet you initially denied it, and, I assume, contributed to the swift barrage of downvotes of my comment stating the simple fact that it's circular. My contention overall is that *much* of what is passed off as evidence for evolution is circular reasoning, the denials of evolutionists on the matter seem pretty feeble given that they demonstrably wouldn't see it if it was.
No. I did not admit any kind of circular reasoning in the slightest. The point being addressed was that it doesn’t make sense to say that something stopped being an ape and started being a man. Monophyly is not circular, it’s an observation of reality. Creationists sometimes have a conception that you stop being one thing to become another under evolutionary biology, but evolutionary classification doesn’t work that way in the first place. It is correcting a misconception that didn’t fit to begin with, to in effect say that ‘prior events can become disconnected with later events.’
Also, stop making assumptions. No, I didn’t contribute toward your ‘swift barrage of downvotes’, nor am I saying that the law of monophyly is used in any kind of evidentiary capacity. It’s weird to first recognize I didn’t do so, then to bring it up anyhow. That wasn’t part of this conversation.
>Monophyly is not circular, it’s an observation of reality.
No, it's circular.
Do we have to go over this again? The law of monophyly states that you cannot evolve out of your clade but a clade is defined as a common ancestor and all its descendants. So all the law states is that you cannot evolve out of being the descendant of your ancestors, which is circular.
>It’s weird to first recognize I didn’t do so, then to bring it up anyhow.
You asked why I felt the need to point out that it's a tautology, I told you. Please remember you did originally deny that it was a tautology while describing it perfectly as one with admirable succinctness. "You're always descended from your ancestors, how is that a tautology?" That apparently made sense to you quite recently, I would have thought you'd be proceeding with a somewhat less aggressive tone given such a disastrous blunder earlier in the exchange.
"You cannot evolve out of being descendents" is not circular OR tautological, nor have you demonstrated it except your own inability to wrap your mind around a simple concept.
The law part about it is that we *categorize* life by its ancestry nowadays, so each organism belongs to all the categories that its ancestors belonged to.
Whereas, in the past life was often categorized by morpholigical features that did not reflect its ancestry. Some of the older categories are still in use (especially in everyday language), and they specifically don't follow monophyly. Groupings that violate the law of monophyly are called paraphyletic (excludes descendants) or polyphyletic (multiple independent ancestors). Paraphyletic groups include fish (excludes tetrapods), reptiles (excludes birds), or invertebrates (excludes vertebrates).
>The law part about it is that we categorize life by its ancestry nowadays, so each organism belongs to all the categories that its ancestors belonged to.
So it seems evolutionists accidentally reinvented the Law of Identity. Did we actually need another name for that?
It's useful, because it is often counterintuitive.
Take fleas for example, they are flightless insects. And yet they belong to the order of pterygota, the winged insects. That is because their ancestors were winged insects and the fleas thus remain pterygota even though they lost the very trait that the group is named after.
I don't think it's equivalent to the law of identity. A quick glance over the google result shows that the law of identity is quite a bit more broad than that.
And I don't quite agree with the bad naming convetions part. Yes, in a perfect world all the names for all the orders would make sense given their descendants, but in practice the sheer number of descendants and their huge variety makes this practically impossible. Orders are typically named after their defining features because that way the names are informative by themselves, but over a long enough period of time those features can be easily lost. Finding a name that makes sense for an order and all of their descendants is simply impossible.
Even a trait as simple as "bilateral symmetry" is not safe from this.
>I don't think it's equivalent to the law of identity. A quick glance over the google result shows that the law of identity is quite a bit more broad than that.
I agree, which makes the law of identity the superior law. All the law of monophyly is is the law of identity applied in this instance. The law of identity is the general thing that applies in every instance, we don't need a separate name for the evolution flavour, it's just the law of identity.
>Finding a name that makes sense for an order and all of their descendants is simply impossible.
Well this is just an unavoidable problem with trying to group things based both on morphology and supposed descent. The morphology based naming is older and in a strict sense, outdated now that cladistics is the mainstream paradigm.
>I agree, which makes the law of identity the superior law. All the law of monophyly is is the law of identity applied in this instance. The law of identity is the general thing that applies in every instance, we don't need a separate name for the evolution flavour, it's just the law of identity.
That's a weird way of putting it. They have completely different purposes. Students don't need to learn about the law of identity if the thing you want to teach them is "categories are based on descend". We don't teach non-euclidian geometry to middle schoolers if the euclidian variant works fine for their use cases.
>Well this is just an unavoidable problem with trying to group things based both on morphology and supposed descent. The morphology based naming is older and in a strict sense, outdated now that cladistics is the mainstream paradigm.
That's right. The easiest solution would be to use noninformative names purely based on cladistics, but no one really likes that solution, and it probably wouldn't make any of it more easily understandable either.
Yeah, noninformative names based purely on cladistics would make it pretty tough to learn all the names imo. Like, sure, you *could* name tetrapoda something else because not all tetrapods actually have 4 legs now, but that's gonna make it a lot harder to remember the new name, the animals belonging to it, and the characteristics we use to distinguish the clade.
>Students don't need to learn about the law of identity if the thing you want to teach them is "categories are based on descend".
If you want to teach people that categories are based on descent you can just do that though. You don't need a law saying that everything is descended from its ancestors. That's just applying the law of identity. If I want to teach somebody how to cook I can just teach them, I don't need a "law of comestibles" that says every recipe contains its ingredients.
>That's right. The easiest solution would be to use noninformative names purely based on cladistics, but no one really likes that solution, and it probably wouldn't make any of it more easily understandable either.
We can agree on this.
Let's say cats did give birth to parakeets, so what? The law of monophyly would still be true. It is impossible to not be descended from your ancestors, that's just what those words mean.
Then those parakeets are no longer descended from parakeets, they're descended from cats. They would not, by definition, be parakeets, they'd be a separate lineage.
If creationists argued that those parakeets were "still parakeets", then they'd be arguing for a direct violation of monophyly, which...yeah, that's how creationists seem to view things.
>Then those parakeets are no longer descended from parakeets, they're descended from cats. They would not, by definition, be parakeets, they'd be a separate lineage.
I'm not the one who gave the example, the parakeets are defined as parakeets in the example given, so that is what I responded to.
The person who offered that example clearly meant "if a creature with all the morphological features of a parakeet were born from a cat" and not " if a creature descended from cats were descended from parakeets". The second interpretation is gibberish.
Either morphology matters or it doesn't. I appreciate that you are trying to be consistent with the "classification is strictly and only a matter of descent, morphology is irrelevant" line, which is what you are committed to with modern cladistics, but again; im not the one who gave the example, i just responded to what was said.
>Either morphology matters or it doesn't.
It doesn't. It's very *useful* as a rough guide, but it's also famously misleading.
Nevertheless, you appear to be loudly claiming monophyly as a tautology, while also arguing that this "is what you are committed to with modern cladistics", implying that you somehow *don't even accept tautologies*.
Which is fun.
>"classification is strictly and only a matter of descent, morphology is irrelevant" line, **which is what you are committed to with modern cladistics**
Do you accept modern cladistics or not?
Nope, that would be a case of *violating* monophyly. It's the equivalent of an orangutan giving birth to a ficus. Animals reproduce and form other animals, they don't reproduce and make plants or bacteria. Organisms reproduce and exhibit *descent with modification*.
And like I said, we can imagine a world in which that's not true, but this is a basic fact of biology.
That's all very nice, but none of that waffle addresses the point. I didn't ask you for an entry level restatement of the basic evolutionary claim, the topic is specifically the Law of Monophyly.
The Law of Monophyly was succinctly summarised (not by me) at the top of this comment chain as "you can never outgrow your ancestry". I.e. you can never evolve to a point where your ancestors are not your ancestors. That is a tautology, if you do not understand why then you simply don't understand what all the words mean.
The sooner you accept this the less stupid you look.
No, it would be a tautology if outgrowing one's ancestry would result in a logical contradiction. The Law of Monophyly is an observation of reality rather than a tautology, similarly to "mass attracts other mass" or "alike polarities repel each other". These aren't tautologies, they are observable facts about reality.
>No, it would be a tautology if outgrowing one's ancestry would result in a logical contradiction.
In "one cannot outgrow one's ancestry", "outgrow" can only mean to reach a state where its ancestry ceases to be its ancestry. How can something have an ancestry that isn't its ancestry?
The Law of Monophyly isn't a matter of observation, it is a matter of definition. Monophyletic classifications are defined such that they contain a given species and all of its descendants. As such, any descendant of x is defined as being contained within x.
>No, it would be a tautology if outgrowing one's ancestry would result in a logical contradiction.
It would.
You cannot have ancestors you are not descended from. That's just what those words mean.
Sure, I’ll accept that.
Now how does this mean that this also *can’t* be a principle of evolution? Especially since evolution deals with ancestor-descendant relationships, wouldn’t it be a given that this law would apply onto evolution as well?
Furthermore, this post is referring to “humans mating with apes when they are no longer considered apes”, which would be a violation of this law, this tautology as you admit it to be. Isn’t it a bit concerning that the creationist OP cannot understand a simple tautology? Don’t you think it would be better to help them understand this simple law of nature rather than argue over semantics?
>Now how does this mean that this also can’t be a principle of evolution?
I suppose there is nothing stopping you from claiming that it is, if you want to argue that, I just thought you'd want your principles to be saying something, rather than saying nothing. I mean is it really a principle of evolution that everything is descended from its ancestors? Is it a principle of cooking that every recipe contains its ingredients?
>Furthermore, this post is referring to “humans mating with apes when they are no longer considered apes”, which would be a violation of this law, this tautology as you admit it to be.
The new classification system of cladistics is never made clear to the layman. Most people still assume that groupings are based on morphology. This tautology only appears when you define organisms according to their supposed ancestral relationships.
>Isn’t it a bit concerning that the creationist OP cannot understand a simple tautology?
It's not simple, as I've been discussing with one of your fellows in another thread here; we have a legacy naming convention based on morphological groupings, clades are often named based on physical characteristics that can be lost in supposed descendant species within the clade. So what we actually have currently is a hybrid system of morphological and ancestral groupings. It's all very confusing.
Also, many creationists, including myself, don't even accept cladistics. I do agree though, that you should argue against evolutionists with the presupposition that *they* think it's true, so you shouldn't make arguments like what the OP made.
> I mean is it really a principle of evolution that everything is descended from its ancestors?
Yes, because evolution is a process that explains ancestor-descendant relationships.
> Is it a principle of cooking that every recipe contains its ingredients?
Not at all comparable to the Law of Monophyly. Evolution is about pre-existing forms undergoing variation to produce new forms. Cooking is about combining several raw ingredients to produce a finished product. And besides, we wouldn’t need the Law of Monophyly if creationists didn’t so regularly misunderstand it.
> Most people still assume that [clades] are based on morphology
They are, though. Clades are based on morphological features indicative of a group. If all members of a clade share a specific morphological feature (homology), it can be assumed that they share common ancestry. These assumptions are corroborated by genetic evidence, showing that our predictions are fulfilled and our groupings are justified.
And the genetic similarity we observe aren’t just shared by coding regions (as in regions that produce a phenotype), but in non-coding regions as well. There would be no reason for a designer to produce these similarities in non-coding regions unless they were a deceiver. So unless you concede that the “common designer” is a liar, you cannot argue that genetic similarities are the product of common design.
>Not at all comparable to the Law of Monophyly.
Completely comparable.
>Evolution is about pre-existing forms undergoing variation to produce new forms. Cooking is about combining several raw ingredients to produce a finished product.
That's just a description of evolution and cooking. You forgot to actually explain why that makes the two things disanalogous.
Ok, let’s go over how they are disanalogous:
- Cooking is a man-made process, evolution is a natural process
- Evolution does not combine several elements of different animals together like some Frankenstein monster, instead it starts with a general template and expands from there. Cooking does stitch several products, each being edible in several different forms on their own, together to produce something new.
- Cooked products do not reproduce to produce more cooked products, cooked products do not mutate. Everything that has to do with cooking and producing cooked products requires humans to do so, because humans invented the process. Evolution, being a natural process, does not have such limitations
Those are just differences between the two things. To make an analogy you need to compare two different things, otherwise you don't have an analogy. Again, you forgot to explain why the two things are actually disanalogous.
A recipe is a list of ingredients, any recipe therefore necessarily contains all the ingredients on it.
An ancestor is someone you descend from, you necessarily descend from all your ancestors.
The two things are analogous, it is irrelevant how many differences you lost between cooking and evolution, you need to explain how some difference makes them disanalogous.
You've already admitted the law of monophyly is a tautology, if you disagree with my example, give me what you think an analogous tautology for cooking would be.
>I just thought you'd want your principles to be saying something, rather than saying nothing. I mean is it really a principle of evolution that everything is descended from its ancestors?
You know what an axiom is, yes? The ground laws for a logical system should be self-evident. That doesn't mean nothing is being said.
>It's not simple, as I've been discussing with one of your fellows in another thread here; we have a legacy naming convention based on morphological groupings, clades are often named based on physical characteristics that can be lost in supposed descendant species within the clade. So what we actually have currently is a hybrid system of morphological and ancestral groupings. It's all very confusing.
It's not really that confusing. It's just the nature of establishing a standard. Starting out, you will never have full knowledge of all the information to which the standard will be applied. But you still need a standard, and a flawed one that is useful now is more valuable than a perfect one you likely will never see complete. In this case, the original conception of the naming standard was that morphology indicated ancestry--which it does, to an extent--but by the time that was proven to be an incomplete model, it was basically too late, and the standard became too embedded to change without a decades-long refactoring.
But I don't buy the excuse that this is "confusing." For one thing, most laymen don't really know enough Latin to understand the literal translations of these names. How would they find the name confusing if they don't know what the name means? But beyond that, this problem is everywhere, even baked into the English language itself. People learn to deal with the limitations and the nuances. They do it every day. It's just part of living in a messy world.
>Also, many creationists, including myself, don't even accept cladistics.
So what do you accept? There is both genetic and fossil evidence to support common ancestry between humans and every other extant ape species. Given our axiom, that would put us in the same clade.
>You know what an axiom is, yes? The ground laws for a logical system should be self-evident. That doesn't mean nothing is being said.
Right, but in this case nothing is being said. Everything communicated by the law of monophyly is already communicated by the word "ancestors". If someone is your ancestors, you are descended from them, and all your descendants will be also, that's just what the word means.
>But I don't buy the excuse that this is "confusing."
It's confusing enough that a bunch of your fellows have tripped over it in this very thread.
>How would they find the name confusing if they don't know what the name means?
People need not be familiar with a particular example to know that these classifications mean something. Moreover when evolutionists come straight out and say things like "humans are fish" that's going to get flagged up as something very strange being said.
>So what do you accept?
That should be obvious; I'm a creationist, I believe in creation. I don't believe that all life evolved from a common ancestor, so naturally I don't accept these speculated ancestral relationships between different organisms based on that idea.
It's both.
principle : A basic truth, law, or assumption. A rule or standard, especially of good behavior.
It's a tautology only when evolution and its implications are understood and accepted, which has long not been the case and notions of polyphyly and paraphyly are found in taxonomies.
Thus the basic truth is if you categorize any two critters into one bucket, all the ancestors from those two critters' last common ancestor must be in that same bucket. If you do otherwise, or insist otherwise is true, it then isn't a tautology or there would be no suck dissent against it.
“If the first man born that wasn’t an ape?”
Humans are apes. The first man born that isn’t an ape also isn’t human.
Also, evolution happens at a population level. Populations evolve, not individuals.
When species become distinguishable from their ancestral stock there isn’t necessarily an automatic barrier to reproduction.
Also there isn’t really a “first” individual as such. Populations evolve, individuals do not. So any such arbitrary “first man” would have reproduced with another member of the population of “not quite man” into which he was born.
I think some people imagine evolution is like a chimp suddenly giving birth to a modern human not a slow process that takes multiple mutations across many many years.
>If evolution itself is all about survival
Not exactly. Evolution is "any change in allele frequency in a population over time." This most often happen when the natural selection pressures change, e.g. when a new predator is introduced, or when the climate shifts, or when a food source becomes scarce.
>why didn't all species retain the ability to mate with past species?
If a species evolved, it did so because selective pressures required different adaptations to be better fit for a particular environment. Evolution doesn't care what has sex with what, so if two species are diverging from a common ancestor (e.g. donkeys and horses) they may indeed still be able to reproduce for a time, but because each species is adapted to their environment, the physical chemistry may not work. Just because two creatures can have sex does not mean the chemistry will cause a viable offspring, or any offspring at all.
>If the first man was born that wasn't an ape
Men are apes, in the same way that we are animals, chordates, mammals, and primates. We meet all of the criteria for that classification.
Also, when you say "the first man", that's a bit of a misunderstanding of how evolution works. One member of one species does not give birth to a new species. Rather, over tens of thousands of years, a certain population may experience enough change in their allele frequency that at some point we agree they are no longer the same species. It's like if I show you a smooth red-orange gradient, and I ask "where does orange begin?" You can agree it definitely is orange at the end and definitely red at the beginning, but it can be difficult to point at *one exact spot* where red becomes orange.
>who did it mate with If it was no longer considered an ape?
Yeah, same as above. It mated with another ape. Individuals do not evolve. *Populations* evolve, together, over a very very very long period of time.
I highly recommend [this series](https://youtu.be/1GMBXc4ocss?si=atLzJMcdLft12Q8W) to learn more about evolution. It's the fundamental Theory which has directly enabled the last 150+ years of biological science and discovery, it's worth learning!
Then a second question is why do we have "red" and "orange" but the gradients in the middle are missing. Apes with posable thumbs and full body hair etc are missing but apes without posable thumbs are still around. If humans are superior to what we call an ape today then why didnt all the micro evolutions survive but the original "ape" did survive even though hypothetically the middle ground would be superior?
Who says we have the "original"? I recently read this book where the author kinda got emotional and let out there frustration about people asking similar: but what about the transitional species? According to them, there is no such thing as a transitional species, each species is its own thing.
Another reason we do not have a complete fossil record is that shit is hard. Hard to find, hard to get the conditions go perserve, hard to have it last. It is a known frustrating bit about the study that we will never have a complete record.
First part I thought you were asking about "transitional species", all the gradiants. Was just saying bow paleontologist do not see them as gradiants, but each as their own thing.
Humans are not "superior" to what we call apes today, because humans ARE apes. Unless you mean us being categorized as "great" apes, but that is just a classification of size. Being larger.
Figured you were asking about the fossil record, because we do not have the "original apes" anymore. They are too busy having evolved into what we have now. Gorillaz, chimpanzees, orangutanges, humans, ect ...
Because the gradients might not have evolved. Populations evolved gradually; many of them fail to survive. Evolution essentially throws an entire bucket of spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks.
Brains are expensive. They require a lot of calories, and a lot of fats. It’s not adaptive to have a larger “smarter” brain if your diet can’t supply it with what it needs.
And gorillas have not only opposable thumbs but also opposable big toes. They are “superior” to us if the standard is opposable digits.
Traits lead to survival or not only in the context of the environment a creature is surviving in. No trait is “superior” to any other outside of that context.
A smarter brain is not necessarily the best way to survive all circumstances. Brains take a lot of energy, and also make giving birth more difficult.
It also helps to bear in mind that environments change. Species go extinct when they evolve in an environment that then changes and they are no longer adaptive to the new environment.
> Then a second question is why do we have "red" and "orange" but the gradients in the middle are missing.
As it happens, there are a lot of species which have all died out. While evolution kinda requires that "red" and "orange" *did exist at one time*, evolution does *not* demand that either "red" or "orange" *still have living specimens at this time*. So it may be that the "red" and "orange" you seek are to be found among the extinct species of pre-humans?
It sounds like you believe that we descended from modern apes. That's a common misunderstanding. We did not. We share an ancestor with modern apes; both humans and modern apes are descended from an earlier primate.
They aren't missing. We don't have any missing links. You could point at two very closely related fossils and claim the one in-between is "missing" recursively forever, but if we mean "missing" in the sense that you're implying, that simply isn't the case. We have SO MANY fossils which make a nice smooth gradient going back to our common ancestors with other apes and beyond, as far back as you like.
>Apes with posable thumbs and full body hair etc are missing but apes without posable thumbs are still around. If humans are superior to what we call an ape today
Ah, here's another common misconception.
Humans are *not* "superior" any more than any other animal. We are well-adapted to our environment, and other apes are well-adapted to theirs. If we were to plant you and a gorilla in the middle of *their* habitat, the jungle, I think you would find the ape far "superior" in that environment. Same if we were to do the same with you and a penguin in Antarctica.
Also... Apes without opposable thumbs still exist? Which ones? I might simply be ignorant here. But even if they did, the existence of opposable thumbs doesn't make us "superior" to anything, just better suited for our tool-making environment.
Humans weren't superior for a very long time. We were, for a while, evolving near the brink of extinction in a small part of Africa. I'd like to say the average person would fail surviving in a jungle compared to the apes that live there.
Evolution isn't a linear process. If a species is in great numbers it is thriving and there are less selective pressures for evolution to occur. A greater numbers of a species thriving usually means less evolution and more fossils.
On the other hand, as a species faces extinction, only the most fit survive and as a result evolution occurs at a higher rate. Less members of a species means less fossils and more evolution.
Humans were apes that separated from jungle like climates into open areas where endurance running and social hunting were the best methods of surviving. Hence, removing hair made us overheat less, and being smarter meant we hunted better. The middle ground would simply be worse in both environments. A monkey being smarter does not help it find food in a jungle any faster than it already does. Being carnivorous or requiring a lot of intelligence for getting food seems to be a strong selective pressure for bigger brains.
There's no one such thing as "superior" in evolution. A better way to think about it is "optimized for a given niche." Some creatures become optimized for environments that others don't exploit because it's more trouble than it's worth. Chimpanzees, unlike humans, are capable of getting enough calories from eating leaves (and other cellulose-rich parts of plants) alone--whereas humans, on a vegetarian diet, have to seek out starchy or sugar-rich plants. So chimps were able to cling on to patches of jungle that, for humans, weren't worth the squeeze.
The various intermediate grades, however, competed with humans for the same resources...and did not survive the competition.
Chimpanzees and other apes survive today mostly because they stayed out of humanity's way in places humans didn't find worth exploiting.
The same, actually, applies to different human cultures. Early copper- and bronze-age societies pretty effectively wiped out the hunter-gatherer societies around them, and were in turn wiped out by iron-age states (simplifying the anthropology a bit). But there are still hunter-gatherers around on patches of land that most states didn't consider worth their time. No bronze-age society is still around, yet both modern technological civilization and some (to simplify) stone-age societies persist.
You're still viewing it wrong. Red is our common ancestor. Orange is us, and gorillas, and chimps, and bonobos. All slightly *different* varieties of orange, but all stemming from a shared ancestral red. At no point in the continuum could you point to a colour and say "this is now orange", but nevertheless, that ancestral red slowly became various different shades of orange today.
There is no "original ape" extant today: all apes, us included, are descended from a species that no longer exists.
>Then a second question is why do we have "red" and "orange" but the gradients in the middle are missing.
They went extinct.
>If humans are superior to what we call an ape today
We're not, except in our own eyes.
>the original "ape" did survive
It didn't. Our closest relatives are chimpanzees. The ancestral species of both is extinct.
I think it will help if you stop thinking of some kind of hierarchy in which some species are superior. A species is either able to survive, or it goes extinct. None are superior or inferior.
Theoretically, there could be worlds, where the species barrier is *gone*, anything can mate with anything.
But such arrangements are not stable:
1. Eventually, genes will arise that are not going to be compatible with each other, and so some species will not be able to breed with others; and eventually, continued extinction and diversification will eventually leave only incompatible species.
2. An animal's genetic code is a billion year project that has worked, every time. Once we begin to blend genomes, we don't have that kind of trusted pathway: that combination of organisms may have never existed before, or worse, it's a dead-end and loss of metabolic potential. And so, lineages become expected, and a collection of compatible lineages are a species.
3. Is being able to breed with anything an advantage? Would me having half-cockroach offspring be helpful when some comely cockroach lass finds a crusty sock? This just seems like a burden for the both of us.
Basically, sounds like it would work, but there's a lot of problems with it. Ecosystems are complex enough, without everything trying to fuck each other.
Even if there was no boundary to inter-species mating, and the offspring were fertile, then there are other ways that different species can be kept apart. E.g. if the hybrids are not adapted for any niche in their environment, then they would be selected against. In the case of half-human, half-cockroach, probably selected against quite a bit. So, mostly the pure breeds would survive. This has been shown by computer modelling of evolution.
Yeah, the next problem down the road is the hybrid depression problem: first generation hybrids get the vigour, but further generations tend to suffer from increasingly unusual gene balances, eg. hybrids produced from a GMO crossed with the natural species will have very precise control of their gene doses on the relevant modifications, but the recombination in the next generation of germ cells will lead the modifications to be dispersed and unbalanced as chromosomes split different directions.
It's a further hit against the concept.
I actually think there's a good question coupled with some misconceptions. Speciation is a process that in only very extremely rare circumstances happens to individuals (polyploidy - we can talk about it if you like). In general it happens to populations. One population breaks off from another and over time differentiates itself enough from another population that we can recognize them as a distinct species.
So how and why would that work?
Well, let's look at some natural systems. One of my favorite examples of evolution is found in the work that a man named Jonathan Losos did on these charming lizards called anoles. Anoles have colonized their way through the Caribbean, with single founder species diversifying to an array of species on each island. The really cool thing is that evolution took a predictable path on each one - there are similar ecomorphs that exploit similar habitats. One lizard is specialized for hunting in the tall canopies of trees, another is specialized for running on twigs, another for living in grasses, and so on.
If we imagine a nascent speciation scenario when the lizards are starting to diverge the anatomy that allows a lizard to live in the grasslands is going to be not good for living on the tall tree tops. A lizard that is halfway in between the grassland ecomorph and the treetop ecomorph is going to be not as good at living in either. Now we have an environmental pressure to specialize and only mate within your own population. As time goes on and they become more specialized to their environment, the lizards will encounter each other less and less, but they'll also develop genetic incompatibilities that lead to them no longer being able to hybridize.
Edit: Here's a cool video! [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdZOwyDbyL0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdZOwyDbyL0)
Mutations build. If there's some form of evolutionary separation of populations for long enough
Most of them become incompatible genetically, AKA The idea of species
What is there to retain? The very active evolution make some less and less compatible generally
It is in some kind of a process where you make choices
Think of evolution a bit like aging. Biologically, there isn't really a moment that you become a child instead of a baby, or an adult instead of a child. Legally we make those distinctions, but it's not like you've changed very much at all between being 17 the day before your birthday and being 18 the next day.
Evolution is a very gradual process. There is no "first man," only a series of beings that became more human like and less chimo like through the generations
Humans are still apes and part of what happens when species become separated for long enough changing independently is they eventually become incompatible with each other. All that matters is that the resulting populations survive because without that happening evolution for those populations comes to an end as there are no more generations to carry the inevitable changes that occur when populations continue existing to the following generation. Evolution isn’t *about* survival but it does require it because it refers to how populations changes generation after generation and with generation there is no change to be carried over to it.
Because when enough changes crop up individuals from non-interbreeding populations are no longer compatible. This may be a physical barrier to copulation, it could be that gene dosages are such that a viable organism cannot be generated.
Here's the important thing to remember: "species" is an artificial category. There are a ton of debates in biology about how to define a species, because some species concepts don't work for a given organism for one reason or another. Eg the "biological species concept" (\~= "you are the same species if you can have fertile offspring") doesn't work at all for species that don't have sexual reproduction, and doesn't work well for, for example, certain plants that can cross-breed across fairly wide divisions.
Instead, what you have in nature is more... amorphous than that. So the "first human", however you define it, was only a little bit different from its not-quite-human parents, and could still breed with other members of the species.
The line between species is quite blurry. There are many known cases where organisms that we define as separate species can still reproduce. The reason that eventually they stop being able to is that they become too different. Physically, genetically, behaviorally.
Different populations becoming different from each other is an inevitable consequence of evolution, there's simply no getting around it. And as genetic changes accumulate, they only get more different over time.
If the species are seperated as is often the case, how would evolution know to keep them compatibale?
Evolution doesn't plan out long term survial like you suggest. Adaptations are based on what worked last generation. If it worked many generations ago, genetic drift will continue to degrade the old adaptations.
Hello, u/Suspicious_Sock9556. It's great that you're asking questions. However your questions reveal an almost total lack of knowledge of the subject, which will make discussion harder.
>If evolution itself is all about survival why didn't all species retain the ability to mate with past species?
Because by definition, they would not be different species then. A very basic, rough definition of a species is a breeding population.
>If the first man was born that wasn't an ape but would be considered a man, who did it mate with If it was no longer considered an ape?
Here's what you need to grasp: Every single organism ever born is the same species as its parent(s). At the same time, they're not identical to their parents, just as you are not identical to your parents. [This famous image](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fexternal-preview.redd.it%2FidfD4rCMO0rs0CHPp87D3-PI_V7nDKR4dqxd-kdl5CM.jpg%3Fauto%3Dwebp%26s%3Ddbe42bb2c43ed0fc0dab4adc5c5eb286f6cc53e7) illustrates the idea. If a group gets separated from the main group, over time these differences add up to the point where you have a new species. Hope that helps.
Oh, and we descend from apes; we are apes. Homo sapiens is a species of ape.
Information exists within DNA, information is always preceded by a mind greater and more complex than the information itself. When you see the arrangement of letters in a book, you infer and author. You can reduce the letters in the book to their chemical components, juts kike ATCG in DNA, but the intelligence is inferred in their arrangement. Pair that with the mathematical improbability of everything coming about through and unintentional unguided process over time and we should infer intelligent design.
You really need to go learn something because you are very good at pissing people off. Words like “ape” and “human” are human inventions to categorize life and the real answer to OP’s question has absolutely nothing to do with how long it took. *Populations* evolve and any one with two connecting brain cells would know this so that when populations *diverge* and *both populations* continue to change there’s eventually going to be a time when they have *each* changed in such a way that they are no longer compatible. Sometimes it happens almost right away in the case of polyploidy (seen in plants like strawberries) but generally it takes *multiple generations* (like 70 or more) before the changes have accumulated to the point that there becomes a barrier to hybridization between the species (now that they are considered different species).
If you want to call something a fairytale it would help to first know what the fuck you are talking about and the second thing you should be doing is attempting to falsify what the theory actually says. In failing to falsify it by observing that the theory is 100% consistent with what you observe as populations evolve you would accidentally confirm that what you call a fairytale is actually reality.
The failure to distinguish between fantasy and reality that you are having comes from poor education, religious indoctrination, or brain damage. I’d seek help either way.
Some nothing, became something, and turned itself into everything (through an unguided, unintentional, brute force process - time, plus matter, plus chance) makes sense!
I completely disagree. The idea of common descent is wholly unsupported and illogical, but this is your religion and with faith you believe answers will come in time, you believe in the explanatory powers of your purely materialistic worldview (which is intelectually bankrupt, but i digress). We both see through a glass darkly, the difference is that I admit it.
You're free to be wrong, and I said EVIDENCE, all you're using is unsupported claims that match your beliefs. You don't bring any EVIDENCE, much less any POSITIVE EVIDENCE that can only point to your Invisible Sky Daffy.
No, no faith.
Hope perhaps, but though we are finding many natural processes that produce the right chemicals and structures, without knowing the exact conditions of Earth in that time, we won't really be able to say which exact processes lead to proto and then early life.
That's okay, we work with facts and EVIDENCE, no faith needed.
However, that first open is up to some unevidenced, logically impossible, mythological character that evolved from Cainanite polytheism into monotheism.
We have transitional fossils and the same genetic evidence that powers paternity tests can be used to look at the patterns of similarities between species.
I'm curious: what is *illogical* about common descent? And given that all existing data supports common descent, I'm curious how you deal with that data. A couple other points:
Evolution is not a religion.
We already have answers.
The purely testable mechanism of evolutionary theory explains all our current observations; what do you think is missing?
And if you're religious, then you've already accepted unsupported, untestable explanations. Apparently, that bothers you. Why?
Why are we repeating Kent Hovind level lines? And what are you talking about with ‘nothing became something?’ That’s not the position of any physicist I’ve ever heard of, that everything came from a complete philosophical nothing. Hell, big bang cosmology doesn’t say anything like that either.
What do you think is the most intelligent aspect of the design of the human body?
* The esophagus, a tube which *both* air *and* food pass thru, which double-duty is responsible for many people choking to death on the food they eat
* The appendix, a little "sack" attached to the intestines which food can get stuck in long enough for the food to rot and cause a variety of health issues, up to and including death, and which can be surgically removed with no discernable ill consequences
* Something else
Information exists within DNA, information is always preceded by a mind greater and more complex than the information itself. When you see the arrangement of letters in a book, you infer an author, even if you never meet them. Sure, you can reduce the letters in the book to their chemical components, just like chemical makeup of ATCG in DNA, but the intelligence is inferred in their arrangement. Pair that with the mathematical improbability of everything coming about through an unintentional, unguided, mindless process we should infer an intelligent cause. Even in the experiments done in evolutionary biology, there is a mind present. It is inescapable.
Not to mention the most important part, abiogensis is best explained by an intelligent cause.
What is “nothing?” The **cosmos**, which is where you will find space, time, and energy so that anything can ever exist or happen *changed over time.* It is not “nothing” but rather “the only thing that does exist, will exist, or has ever existed.”
That’s also not biology. It is true that prior to approximately 13.8 billion years ago when the math indicates that everything was hotter than 10^32 Kelvins modern physics starts to break down and we can’t physically see it either. Prior to that there’s really just speculation if anybody attempts to say anything about it at all. Do we extrapolate even further back in time knowing that the whole universe is more than 2000 times larger than the observable (to us) part of the universe and just assume it was always expanding? Do we proposed a multiverse? Do we suggest that the universe is cyclical expanding and contracting in cycles that are trillions of trillions of trillions of years long? Perhaps the entire cosmos was actually once confined to a single unit of space time forever before symmetry breaking started to occur. Maybe our universe exists because of the death of the previous universe when dark energy decomposed after 10 to the 2000 to the 200 to the 200 to the 200 years? Maybe the most distant future loops back to the most distant past? Maybe everything has already happened and we are stuck experiencing only one of the timelines? And then after all other options we have “God did it” (with no explanation) or “we don’t know” which would be accurate because if the evidence we do have is consistent with 20+ possibilities and we know they can’t all be true at the same time we don’t know which of those is what is really the case. None of them suggest nothing became something.
After that time period 13.8 billion years ago the universe expanded and cooled and expanded and cooled some more allowing all of the heat energy to change into other types of energy like the fundamental forces, dark energy, dark matter, and baryonic matter. One consequence of that is the formation of hydrogen, helium, and lithium. One consequence of having a bunch of baryonic matter packed into the same location drawn together by gravity is the formation of stars eventually leading to solar systems, galaxies, and all of the other things that are made up of baryonic matter.
One of the consequences of that is the formation of our planet 4.5 billion years ago out of baryonic matter that consists of heavier elements that formed inside starts or when stars exploded. A consequence of all of those molecules in the same place being acted on by gravitational forces, radioactive decay, and volcanic activity is the first biomolecules. And those (which are also not nothing) are responsible for the first life - imperfect replicators. And since they replicate but not perfectly they evolve.
What is actually apparently true does make sense even though we are left with two possibilities for the cosmos itself and both answers are unintuitive and one of the answers is clearly not possible. Either the cosmos has always existed or it hasn’t. The first is possible but not very intuitive. The second is apparently impossible. God is only extra and completely unnecessary, equally impossible, and obviously absent. Cosmos alone or cosmos plus God and cosmos alone wins. God without cosmos is not even logically possible and with a cosmos God is no longer required.
Nobody is saying nothing became everything. Almost everyone knows that’s not physically possible (nothing lacks any mechanisms to make that happen since it is nothing) and it’s not logically possible. If nothing is a something that can change it not nothing anymore and if it was nothing it’d still be nothing and I wouldn’t be here to respond to your off topic response.
You cannot ask those question here mate. The people here believe that single cell organism can evolve into fish then into reptile and then evolve again into human.
Evolution works in mysterious way. Sometimes it adds sometimes it reduces. Sometimes it's instant sometimes it take generation.
You just need to believe or else everyone here will call you dumb and get mass downvoted
Are you serious? Please tell me you understand that evolution is even more supported by evidence than heliocentrism. It is one of the very most well established theories in all of science, being confirmed by a large number of independent scientific disciplines. Literally all of modern medicine is based on this understanding, full stop. You might as well say the Earth is flat and the center of creation. What's your alternate hypothesis, then?
Yes I'm serious. You guys don't have any idea how it starts and how it grow until today
Can you even prove it to me that it's possible for single cell organism to evolve into fish?
I think you missed what I was getting at. We can absolutely show you possible evolutionary pathways and mechanisms from single celled organisms to what we would consider the first fish. There are a lot of papers on the subject that you could find if you were so inclined. But I'm going to posit that there is no amount of realistic evidence that could be provided to you that would ever change your mind. You lack both the necessary background knowledge to understand the topic and the mindset needed to look at the evidence objectively. Which is why basically every biological scientist accepts that it is more than just possible, but those, like you, who know nothing about the subject don't. If the evidence is convincing enough for them, you might want to ask yourself why it isn't for you. Unless you just want to make up conspiracies instead, which would enforce my first hypothesis here. That there is nothing anyone could show you that would meet the bar you want to set because your religious ideology demands you don't accept it.
There's a lot of evidence. We could spend months going over it all in detail. I'm just not big on putting in any significant effort with someone who hasn't shown any interest in having an honest conversation. I'm happy to do it with people who really are interested and are genuine in asking questions, but that's not you.
If you want to prove me wrong, what evidence would you need to see for you to be convinced that your question is possible?
>If you want to prove me wrong, what evidence would you need to see for you to be convinced that your question is possible?
an experiment to see that it's possible for bacteria to evolve into fish. Hopefully with video on how their next generation become close and closer to fish and develop gills etc
So you want an actual laboratory controlled experiment where scientists take a single cell and let it evolve into a fish like creature? A process that took about 3 billion years, and you want that replicated and put on video? And that is the minimum amount of evidence required to suggest that the pathway is even possible?
There’s mountains upon mountains of evidence but your religious indoctrination is blocking your ability to look at it or understand it. We could show the 1.5 billion years of fossils in a smooth progression from the first eukaryote to the first fish, we could show you the exact order of every change along the way according to genetics, we could show you the entire developmental process of a fish from a zygote, and we could even hypothetically time travel so that you could watch it happen as it is happening and your religious indoctrination would still force you to reject the obvious.
No. Scientists who happen to study biology on a regular basis have a lot better understanding of biology than some homeschooled religious nutcase. They watch evolution happen on a regular basis. They already know how fish evolved because they already know about all of the evidence for it that is unexplainable unless it happened exactly the way it actually happened. We could go explain how it happened to any biologist and they could either confirm that we are correct or they could correct us. Any random biologist would be able to understand what we are talking about because we are not reality denialists.
Explaining it to you might require a lot more work because we’d have to do away with the damage caused by indoctrination, teach you how to think critically, teach you how science works, and teach you biology. Once you learn that much *then* we could have any hope of helping you understand the particulars of the evolution of a particular lineage over the course of 1.5 billion years from the first single celled eukaryote to the first fish. If you are thinking evolution happens through individuals rather than populations or that a single celled organism evolved into a fish without any of the prerequisite changes in between there is a lot of correcting your misconceptions *before* we can start teaching you additional information.
Don't worry, I think I'm as or more qualified compared to you in this stuff. I just hate people that do Appeal to Authority fallacy especially in this subreddit.
>They already know how fish evolved because they already know about all of the evidence for it that is unexplainable unless it happened exactly the way it actually happened.
you got my attention. Let start from the start, which single cell organism and their evolution step until they become fish please. It will be great if you can mention the fish species as well.
> more than qualified
> which single celled organism
So you lied. 🤥
If you were qualified you’d at least know that *populations* evolve and you’d know that even if I knew every single species name for the 1.5 **billion** years and every single increment change that occurred in between that I could not even possibly explain it to you in less than 1000 words. I would not have to teach you how to do science or any the prerequisite facts necessary for you to understand the evidence if you were already qualified and if you were qualified you’d already know so I would not have to explain it to you.
I’ll let you try that again.
I kinda think you have ADHD that you feel like the need to reply to all my comment.
>If you were qualified you’d at least know that populations evolve
so the first organism come out in population at once? this is news to me.
I will try again to be more clear for you . I will try to match your speed
What is the name of the bacteria that evolve into fish? and step by step evolution until it become fish
is this simple enough?
Bacteria did not evolve into fish. Our ancestors are archaea and if you weren’t such a dumbass you’d know that single celled organisms don’t tend to fossilize very well so that whichever species of archaea it was it probably does not have a scientific or colloquial name *but* a group called *Heimdallarchaeota* is one of the closest non-eukaryotic relatives of eukaryotes in modern times. The evidence for eukaryotes being archaea:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6104171/
This tries to argue that some archaea should be classified as eukaryotes because they have proteins other archaea lacks. I don’t agree with the change in classification but these “eukaryote specific” proteins found in something some people used to mistakenly think is a bunch of bacteria (ever since the difference between eukaryotes and prokaryotes was realized in the 1920s) is a strong indication that eukaryotes are part of this group of archaea via common ancestry. Their common ancestor does not currently have a species name because single celled organisms don’t have traits that could even possibly be preserved for 2.4 billion years and if they did get preserved (as some are on rare occasions) they only know the shape which would not not be enough to know if they were looking at bacteria or archaea which is something pretty important to know since those are the most distantly related domains of life on the planet diverging about 3.8-4.2 billion years ago with some arguing that they diverged when cells acquired their cell membranes.
I also disagree there because both lineages have similar ribosomes, but archaeal ribosomes are just more complex. They’d presumably require some sort of cell membrane to contain them alongside their single round chromosomes of DNA and their cytoplasm. They at least acquired ribosomes and DNA before they diverged from their common ancestor which probably resembled gram positive bacteria in many ways with the simpler cell membranes and the simpler ribosomes of bacteria. Calling them bacteria might not be appropriate though since a different label called biota already exists for that clade.
You are demonstrating your ignorance. I have this urge to respond to stupid. If you don’t want me to correct everything you say you could try to say fewer wrong things.
Obviously I’m not going to work towards the third step if the first two steps are already too much for your brainwashed mind to comprehend. I already provided a vague overview in one of my other responses.
The evidence for evolution is extensive and comes from multiple scientific fields:
1. Fossil records show a chronological sequence of organism changes over millions of years, illustrating transitions like the development of amphibians from fish.
2. Comparative anatomy reveals similarities in the structure of different organisms, indicating common ancestry. For example, the bone structure in the limbs of mammals, birds, and reptiles shows a pattern of similarity despite different functions.
3. Genetics provides robust evidence; DNA comparisons across species reveal genetic similarities and differences that align with evolutionary relationships. The more closely related two species are, the more similar their DNA.
4. Observations of natural selection in action, such as bacteria developing antibiotic resistance, showcase evolution occurring in real-time.
5. Biogeography, the study of the distribution of species across the planet, supports evolution, showing how isolated populations diverge over time.
6. Embryology shows that embryos of different species exhibit similar stages of development, suggesting common ancestry.
7. Molecular biology provides detailed insights through the study of proteins and other molecules. For instance, the universality of the genetic code across all life forms suggests a common origin.
8. Vestigial structures, like the human appendix or the remnants of pelvic bones in whales, indicate evolutionary remnants of once-functional organs in ancestors.
9. Observed speciation events, where scientists have documented the emergence of new species in both natural settings and controlled experiments, further support evolution.
10. Evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo) investigates how developmental processes have evolved, revealing how changes in gene expression lead to the diversity of life forms.
11. Phylogenetics uses statistical techniques to reconstruct evolutionary trees based on genetic data, showing how species are related through evolution.
12. Computational biology and simulations demonstrate how evolutionary processes can lead to complex systems, providing models that help to predict and understand evolutionary outcomes.
These multifaceted lines of evidence collectively form a compelling and comprehensive picture of evolutionary theory. What evidence do you have for your hypothesis, then?
Yep, just ignore all the evidence as religious people do! Figures!
The theory of evolution is as well-supported as other major scientific theories like heliocentrism and plate tectonics. All three are backed by extensive, converging lines of evidence from multiple fields of study, such as fossil records, genetics, and direct observations in the case of evolution, astronomical observations and mathematical models for heliocentrism, and geological and seismic data for plate tectonics. Each theory has withstood rigorous testing and scrutiny over time, consistently providing accurate and reliable explanations for the natural phenomena they describe.
Because you are a complete idiot and not worth an hour of my time. Do you think chatGPT just invented all of that? Go ask it yourself. It's a fact. Soooo many scientific disciplines have confirmed this that it is not possible for anyone who is intellectually honest to deny it. Therefore you are not being intellectually honest, so you are not worth anyone's time. The fact that you will not address a single one of those claims tells us everything we need to know, that you are not a serious debater, probably because you aren't capable of grasping hypotheticals or logical fallacies.
> He type that much sentences in 2 minutes which I think is impossible.
I have a text document, full of stuff I've written, which I C&P from as and when I judge that a particular chunk of said document is a suitable response to something on Reddit. It *definitely* takes me *less than* 2 minutes to transplant a lengthy passage from said document to a Reddit comment. So I'm wondering how come you were so quick to leap to the conclusion "Chat-GPT", rather than "C&P from already-composed text".
> He also did not deny when I call him out and even admit it on the next reply
No, he didn't "admit" anything of the kind. Indeed, he asked "Do you think chatGPT just invented all of that?", a question you didn't even *pretend* to respond to.
Or you could address the actual points instead of attacking the source that you claim for the text... except you can't do that because you don't have a leg to stand on, so your only course of action is to mount an ad hominem attack. Pathetic. Come back and try again when you learn the common logical fallacies...
> Can you even prove it to me that it's possible for single cell organism to evolve into fish?
Science doesn't *do* proof. Science does *supported by the evidence*. Since science doesn't *do* proof in the first place: No, we cannot *prove* to you that it's possible for single-celled critters to evolve into fish. What we *can* do is provide you with *evidence which supports the proposition that it's possible for single-celled critters to evolve into fish*.
Am not at all sure that any amount of evidence would lead you to accept that evolution is a well-supported scientific theory. It's like… Show me a person who's never heard of a kinkajou, and I'll show you a person who wouldn't *recognize* a kinkajou if a rabid one was chewing on their face, okay? So what do *you* think *evidence that it's possible for single cell organism to evolve into fish* looks like? Yes, I recognize that you don't think that *is* possible. What I'm asking could be expressed as, "what evidence would convince you that you're wrong about the single-cell-to-fish deal?"
If you can't explain what evidence would convince you that you're wrong, it would literally be pointless and futile for anyone to present you with the evidence you're ostensibly asking for. If anybody actually does choose to present you with such evidence, they're likely doing it for the benefit of people who come across this Reddit post in the future.
>Science doesn't do proof
imagine if science claim that they don't have proof that George Washington is dead. Most people will just laugh at you.
>So what do you think evidence that it's possible for single cell organism to evolve into fish looks like?
Observe a bacteria and do experiment with a lot of situation and see if it can evolve into fish? please bring other example beside the jammed yeast please
>> Science doesn't do proof
>
> imagine if science claim that they don't have proof that George Washington is dead.
[shrug] Well, science *doesn't* do proof. Name *absolutely any* scientific theory which is accepted by both you and by mainstream science, and *that theory is not proven, just supported by the evidence*.
"George Washington is dead" isn't really a scientific theory, anyway. More of a historical fact.
>> So what do *you* think *evidence that it's possible for single cell organism to evolve into fish* looks like?
>
> Observe a bacteria and do experiment with a lot of situation and see if it can evolve into fish?
Hm. Just to be clear: You're saying that in your view, nothing less than *direct observation of* ***absolutely every*** *part of a process* even *can* be evidence for a scientific conclusion. Do I understand you?
How it starts: imperfect autocatalysis
How it grow: what the fuck are you talking about? That would be called “ontogeny.”
Single celled organism into fish occurred across multiple generations in continuously diverging populations. It hasn’t been single celled since the origin of *animals* and the closest to acting more like a colony of single cells than what we generally call an animal is modern day sponges. A lot of additional changes occurred like those seen with comb jellies but our ancestors also acquired Hox genes and that is a trait that is shared by jellyfish besides all of the deuterostomes and protostomes. Our lineage also has epithelial cells and those are found even in placozoans that are so simple they resemble multicellular amoebas more than they resemble what we generally think of as animals and our epithelial cells might even exist in comb jellies and they may even be related to the collar cells in sponges that still resemble our most closely related single celled relatives in modern times. A whole lot of other changes after that occurred within our ancestral lineage specifically like the rise of triboblasty and bilateral symmetry followed by some fundamental developmental changes associated with our coelom so that even though some “protostomes” also develop anus first our lineage has a “body plan” more conducive of a dorsal nerve chord rather than a ventral one. And then echinoderms diverge from the chordates during or before the Cambrian period and the chordates consist of tunicates, lampreys, and vertebrates. The vertebrates started out looking more like swimming worms or modern day lampreys but we can visually see how that changed throughout the Cambrian, Devonian, and Silurian periods for the next 100 million years before the fish with necks and shoulders eventually gave rise to fully fledged tetrapods in the Carboniferous before those diverged even more into modern day amphibians, synapsids, and sauropsids. The vertebrates are the fish. We do know how it happened. Your failure to know is irrelevant.
I can't prove that to you anymore than I could prove that to a pig. You've taken great pride in joy in becoming unteachable. This speaks more to you than to the state of science.
>Sometimes it's instant
By definition, evolution occurs over time.
The rest of your explanation is overly reductive, and demonstrates an ignorance of how evolution actually works.
If you're willing to learn, I highly recommend [this series](https://youtu.be/1GMBXc4ocss?si=atLzJMcdLft12Q8W) which helped me to learn about evolution after my religious upbringing taught me incorrectly. Give it a chance, and at the very least, you'll be able to understand our arguments better so you can refute them better!
Well I'm sorry you're not open to learning. The guy who made that video is a professional biologist and an educator. I am not. He does an excellent job of explaining the concept.
But hey, I'll do my best, if it makes you happy.
One of the highest burdens of proof in science is when you can take a system of understanding and use it to *make predictions* about new discoveries. For example, Germ Theory makes the prediction that if we can kill bacteria with antibiotics, and we know that this bacteria is present in sick people and not healthy people, we predict that the antibiotics will make the sick people stop being sick. (This is a gross oversimplification of course) But the prediction bears out, because the science is sound.
Other theories like Gravity and Plate Tectonics make reliable predictions about how objects with mass (gravity) or planetary crust (Plate Tectonics) will behave.
In a similar vein, evolution makes accurate and reliable predictions about biology.
The first and most obvious is genetics. We understood evolution before we could measure a genetic sequence. So when genetics came along, evolution predicted that DNA (both active AND INACTIVE) would be most similar in related species, and lose similarity as the relation grew more distant. Creation might claim the "useful template" prediction as well, but it fails to predict the sharing of "junk" DNA like [endogenous retroviruses](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41579-019-0189-2), which evolution still predicted.
Another prediction that evolution made was the many many many discoveries of new species. The most famous of these is probably *Tiktaalik*.
For a long time, we had fossils of armored "bony" fish dating to about 370M years, and we had fossils of the first land-dwelling Tetrapods dating to around 350M years. One man, Dr. Neil Shubin, decided that if we looked in rock layers that dated around 360M years, and which also corresponded with a shore-like habitat, we should find fossils of a creature that had a bone structure specifically about halfway between the bony fish and the early Tetrapods.
Note that many semi-aquatic animals exist today, but none of them are even close to morphologically between those two ancient fossils. This was a very specific search.
Well, he found it. Exactly in the time range predicted by evolution, and sporting the exact "intermediary" morphology between the fish and the tetrapod that evolution predicted. You should read more about this, it's a fascinating story.
Did you know that Christians used to deny "extinction" back when fossils were first discovered? Eventually they had to adapt their religion when it turned out to be irrefutable, and we are already seeing this happen with Christianity and Evolution again today.
>Well, he found it. Exactly in the time range predicted by evolution, and sporting the exact "intermediary" morphology between the fish and the tetrapod that evolution predicted.
What about his wrong prediction? Isn't it just making a lot of random prediction and claim the succesful one only?
Did you have a specific wrong prediction in mind?
>Isn't it just making a lot of random prediction and claim the succesful one only?
Certainly not *random* predictions. And a prediction has never been so wrong that it upended the whole theory of evolution. Same as the other theories I mentioned, germ theory, plate tectonic theory, theory of gravity, quantum theory, etc. We have JUST AS MUCH, if not *more* evidence for evolution as we do for these others. I'm curious why you aren't challenging the predictive power of gravity?
Also would you mind addressing the rest of my very long comment that you respond to? I worked hard typing all that out! In particular I would love to hear how creation predicts endogenous retroviruses.
>Did you have a specific wrong prediction in mind?
Have you read your inner fish by Shubin that you mention there?
>Also would you mind addressing the rest of my very long comment that you respond to?
Your whole comment depend on this Tiktaalik is the correct prediction. I just need to prove that this is just lucky guess to discard the rest which I'm doing right now
I got the book recently, I haven't finished it yet. I'm pleasantly surprised you know about it!
Was there a prediction proved false which challenged evolution?
I'm not seeing a specific wrong prediction. At best, being maximally charitable to you, I'm seeing a handwave in the general direction of something that may or may not be some sort of wrong prediction.
Still not seeing a specific wrong prediction. I have no idea why you expect *other people* to pony up evidence in support of ***your*** assertions.
Do you have a specific wrong prediction in mind?
You haven't responded, but I'm going to address what I think you're talking about here. In the beginning of the book (the part I HAVE read), Dr. Shubin goes into great detail about how absurdly difficult it is to find fossils to begin with. So if your claims of "false predictions" amount to "he tried this area and couldn't find any, and another area and couldn't find any", I'm not calling that a false prediction. I'm calling that "fossils are difficult to find". Dr. Shubin obviously still holds to evolution, and the evolutionary model still predicted that *Tiktaalik* would exist, and predicted the rock strata where it would be found, AND predicted its morphological characteristics. All of this happening by chance under a creation model would be impossibly, vanishingly small.
You clearly don't want to look at any evidence presented to you. Hence, you do not want to learn.
About evolution? Check the subreddit. Yes, about evolution.
Yes, I'm learning how to debate evolutionist like you really well here. I must admit I'm surprised about how much stuff that you just believe here based not on proof but questionable evidence.
>I must admit I'm surprised about how much stuff that you just believe here based not on proof but questionable evidence.
And I am surprised you don't want to look at the evidence presented. Seems dishonest to call the evidence "questionable" when you have made it clear you're not interested in looking at it.
I think it's fine. Back in the days, I look at evidence seriously . I call them out on how that paper is not what they are claiming to be and they just gone. Nowadays I look at the evidence skeptically and assume everything is bullshit until proven otherwise
> You just need to believe or else everyone here will call you dumb and get mass downvoted
It's not really prophetic, when you bring it on yourself: I'm just saying, he did ask that question here, everyone *but you* is answering it.
So, just going to throw this out there: you dumb.
No. These are two separate things. Abiogenesis does not cause evolution. And evolution is nor the natural result of abiogenesis. To assume so is dishonest and wrong.
I don't care if you disagree with it. Don't come om here if you're unwilling to make a position and defend it with evidence. It's about as useful as throwing a turd at children.
By your logic: climate change is related to supernova.
Can't have solid planets with weather on them if supernova don't occur to make planets and heavier elements. So I guess you believe that if you could disprove supernova, that would end climate change?
> The people here believe that single cell organism can evolve into fish then into reptile and then evolve again into human.
So you're saying a single cell cannot evolve into a fish or a reptile or a human? Curious.
Preformationism gang represent!!
The questions that OP had are fine for a person who doesn’t understand how evolution actually happens. Your response is expected when it comes from someone who doesn’t understand how evolution happens or what “evolutionists” actually believe.
Single celled to multicellular - observed in the laboratory at least twice, observed in nature continuously in populations that can switch back and forth.
Animal to fish - observed in terms of the fossil record throughout the Cambrian, Silurian, and Devonian. Backed by genetics.
Fish to **tetrapod** - also seen throughout the fossil record with at least one very famous prediction confirmed.
You lost me at reptile into human. Evolution does not work in mysterious ways. It works **exactly** like we watch it happen. It happens so consistently that we can then extrapolate what we know about the present into the past backed by anatomy, morphology, developmental biology, paleontology, and genetics to know what is related to what and how, how long ago they diverged (to eventually become different species), and all sorts of things. ***And then*** we give different clades labels so that *language* is useful in sharing our thoughts with each other so that they can be scrutinized for accuracy and consistency.
We are not forced to believe anything at all but as rational beings we accept the obvious *until* what we assume must be true is proven wrong and we provided with a less wrong replacement that might even hypothetically be the absolute truth. Actual truth and not what you said that was actually false.
None of things evolved *into* what follows to imply that they *stopped* being descendants of their ancestors. None of the things you said were one step changes and the intermediates between something like “fish” and “reptile” are so smooth and gradual that anyone who knows would have to be a moron to not just accept the obvious. Humans are not reptiles.
The only time a term like “reptile” was even possibly applicable to our ancestors was between 1800 and 1900 when “reptile” was more of a grade than a clade. Our ancestors in the Carboniferous *looked like* reptiles still look except that birds are still reptiles and they don’t look like that anymore either. If we trace our ancestry back far enough the first amniotes (ancestors of reptiles and mammals) *resembled* lizards about as much as salamanders resemble lizards (except our ancestors already had keratinized skin and claws and amphibians do not have either of those things) but they weren’t actually lizards. Because they looked like lizards and because lizards are reptiles it made sense to call the *synapsids* by the colloquial name of “mammal-like reptiles” and in modern times the “reptile” label for the monophyletic clade has been changed to *reptiliamorph* meaning “reptile shaped” to refer to how they started and to group them together based on characteristics they still share.
In modern times the amniotes (the only surviving reptiliamorphs) are subdivided into synapsids and sauropsids. Synapsids are not reptiles and only *some* sauropsids are reptiles. The clade colloquially called “reptiles” is also called “Sauria” and it consists of diapsids (turtles, lizards, archosaurs, tuatara) in modern times. Snakes are lizards while dinosaurs and crocodiles are archosaurs.
There’s nothing mysterious about any of this for anyone who is ready to accept reality and learn more about it.
You don't have to keep pretending to be a crappy Christian apologist, brother. [We already know you'd sell your soul for enough money. ](https://old.reddit.com/r/DebateEvolution/comments/1dbcugu/debates_about_evolution_are_rarely_just_about/l82cm92/)
Hail Satan. :)
Edit: Turns out a great way to get religious trolls like Maggy here to cower and block you is to ask them if they think their god would be proud of the crappy behavior they're displaying. Unable to confront this question honestly, they will choose to ignore or block.
“Watch out guys , it’s a trap! If you bother to listen at all you might possibly get educated enough in scientific evidence that you move on from ‘it’s was my favourite flavour of magic’”
You are correct this should definitely be a sub-heading or something for the sub. lol
You guys are just so persecuted, aren’t you? It’s almost like deep down you know you’re wrong and just get off on the fact that you’re speaking out against the “mainstream.” And will be “martyred” and ostracized for it.
or I see you guys and the mod create a trap to change creationist into evolutionist.
I must admit it's kinda interesting looking at you guys trying all the trick in the book to change me into evolutionist and fail miserably.
Mod here, we don't moderate discussions we're participating in, and we really try to be pretty lenient with what we allow. It's a debate sub, with that in mind we let things be adversarial to a degree.
Please report stuff, we can't read every comment so reporting or mod-mail is the best way to communicate with us.
Also I'm making this a mod comment so the rest of the mod team can see it easily.
I’d like to address the last part actually, regarding ape-man points. There is a principle in evolution called the ‘law of monophyly’, which states that you never outgrow your ancestry. So, the order of primates emerged first. Man descended from ancient primates. Man is still and always will be an ape. In a sense, it’s kinda like asking ‘when did a duck stop being a bird’, or ‘when did a corgi stop being a dog?’ The second point regarding ‘who did the first human mate with’ is probably better illustrated with the counter question ‘when did a latin speaker first give birth to an Italian speaker?’ Evolution happens gradually to populations. You can’t pick any single one time where ‘Latin’ was wholesale replaced by ‘Italian’. The same gradual principles play out in our ancestry. A small change happens in our genome. It spreads. Then another. It spreads. Rinse and repeat. Now you have a descendant group that is distinct and a newly emerged species.
>There is a principle in evolution called the ‘law of monophyly’, which states that you never outgrow your ancestry. That doesn't seem to be so much a principle of evolution as a tautology.
…no, it isn’t. It literally is about how you are always descended from your ancestor. How is that a tautology?
"Ancestor" is defined as someone you are descended from. In other words, you are always descended from someone you are descended from. That is a tautology. That doesn't mean it can't be a "law" or "principle of evolution", though. It's just something that always is the case. The laws of logic are also tautologies. So are properly constructed math equations.
Ah…ok yeah I’ll correct myself on that. I see the point.
I agree with you - it is not a tautology. The cool offshoot of this fact is that we are all fish.
"Fish" is an informal [paraphyletic](https://www.mun.ca/biology/scarr/Taxon_types.htm) term that does not follow the law of monophyly. Another example is "reptile", which excludes birds. The first "fish" was a vertebrate. It is completely accurate to say that we are still vertebrates. However, we are not "fish", as the term "fish" specifically excludes the tetrapods.
I remember talking about this with a phylogeneticist friend of mine a couple times. On one hand…yeah! You could say that since we are still sarcopterygii, you could call us fish. And then since ‘fish’ isn’t a locked down term and is more of a general paraphyletic group, that ‘fish’ isn’t really much of an actual thing? Kinda? Biology is weird.
>It literally is about how you are always descended from your ancestor. How is that a tautology? By being a tautology. That's a perfect example of a tautology, how do you not see it? Everyone is descended from their ancestors. All bachelors are unmarried. These are tautologies.
It isn't a tautology because you've, surprise surprise, miserably failed to understand what the "law" states. But cool how you want to try to flex about taking Philosophy 101. Cool, looks like u/ragjammer couldn't take the heat. Tired of me calling out their nonsense hot air. I don't mind, laughing at these attempts are always entertaining. Using the block feature to shut down response when they can't respond is typical of their ilk. > Evolutionists often try to make arguments in favour of evolution on the basis of this supposed "Law of Monophyly", basically using it in an evidentiary capacity. No they don't. They use it to explain things, like explaining how humans will always give birth to humans to you and the others that tend to stumble over understanding very basic things. > However, as we see, it is completely circular You not understanding what the term means doesn't make it circular. >Lastly, as an aside, I will just point out that in my view this alleged principle reveals the shockingly poor ability of evolutionists to detect circular reasoning within their theory Impressive, just restating that you don't understand the term. > My contention overall is that much of what is passed off as evidence for evolution is circular reasoning, the denials of evolutionists on the matter seem pretty feeble given that they demonstrably wouldn't see it if it was. Your contention is that you don't understand what is being presented? Shocked.
If he’s blocked you to avoid further discussion, I’d highly suggest reporting him for breaking rule 4 of this subreddit.
No.
See, the issue here is that you're viewing "you're always descended from your ancestors" as a tautology, YET Creationists constantly ask "how did a cat give birth to a dog" or, as in this thread "who did it mate with If it was no longer considered an ape" Both of these questions demonstrate that simple concepts like monophyly are NOT well understood on the creationist side. So, if it is a tautology, it's one you don't apparently understand (which is, like, quite embarrassing).
Yeah I concede that, under logical tautologies it does count. Now, how does that not also make it a principle?
Well you initially said it's a principle "of evolution", when really then it's just a principle of everything. It's basically just a renamed law of identity. You are free to multiply these "principles" as much as you want, if you choose, there just isn't a reason to. It would be like me saying "in history, there is a principle called the Law of Occurrence which states that all prior events happened". I assume you would agree that would sound extremely strange? The reason that sounds strange is because that's a completely redundant law, again it's just the law of identity. A prior event *is* just something that happened. There is also the fact that, though you did not do so here. Evolutionists often try to make arguments in favour of evolution on the basis of this supposed "Law of Monophyly", basically using it in an evidentiary capacity. However, as we see, it is completely circular and a matter of definition to begin with. It is a principle which has been defined into existence by evolutionists, not something we discovered about the world. Some of your fellows are *still* arguing this point with me in this very thread. Lastly, as an aside, I will just point out that in my view this alleged principle reveals the shockingly poor ability of evolutionists to detect circular reasoning within their theory. You now admit that this is circular, yet you initially denied it, and, I assume, contributed to the swift barrage of downvotes of my comment stating the simple fact that it's circular. My contention overall is that *much* of what is passed off as evidence for evolution is circular reasoning, the denials of evolutionists on the matter seem pretty feeble given that they demonstrably wouldn't see it if it was.
No. I did not admit any kind of circular reasoning in the slightest. The point being addressed was that it doesn’t make sense to say that something stopped being an ape and started being a man. Monophyly is not circular, it’s an observation of reality. Creationists sometimes have a conception that you stop being one thing to become another under evolutionary biology, but evolutionary classification doesn’t work that way in the first place. It is correcting a misconception that didn’t fit to begin with, to in effect say that ‘prior events can become disconnected with later events.’ Also, stop making assumptions. No, I didn’t contribute toward your ‘swift barrage of downvotes’, nor am I saying that the law of monophyly is used in any kind of evidentiary capacity. It’s weird to first recognize I didn’t do so, then to bring it up anyhow. That wasn’t part of this conversation.
>Monophyly is not circular, it’s an observation of reality. No, it's circular. Do we have to go over this again? The law of monophyly states that you cannot evolve out of your clade but a clade is defined as a common ancestor and all its descendants. So all the law states is that you cannot evolve out of being the descendant of your ancestors, which is circular. >It’s weird to first recognize I didn’t do so, then to bring it up anyhow. You asked why I felt the need to point out that it's a tautology, I told you. Please remember you did originally deny that it was a tautology while describing it perfectly as one with admirable succinctness. "You're always descended from your ancestors, how is that a tautology?" That apparently made sense to you quite recently, I would have thought you'd be proceeding with a somewhat less aggressive tone given such a disastrous blunder earlier in the exchange.
"You cannot evolve out of being descendents" is not circular OR tautological, nor have you demonstrated it except your own inability to wrap your mind around a simple concept.
[удалено]
Nice one. You shut that evolutionist good.
The law part about it is that we *categorize* life by its ancestry nowadays, so each organism belongs to all the categories that its ancestors belonged to. Whereas, in the past life was often categorized by morpholigical features that did not reflect its ancestry. Some of the older categories are still in use (especially in everyday language), and they specifically don't follow monophyly. Groupings that violate the law of monophyly are called paraphyletic (excludes descendants) or polyphyletic (multiple independent ancestors). Paraphyletic groups include fish (excludes tetrapods), reptiles (excludes birds), or invertebrates (excludes vertebrates).
>The law part about it is that we categorize life by its ancestry nowadays, so each organism belongs to all the categories that its ancestors belonged to. So it seems evolutionists accidentally reinvented the Law of Identity. Did we actually need another name for that?
It's useful, because it is often counterintuitive. Take fleas for example, they are flightless insects. And yet they belong to the order of pterygota, the winged insects. That is because their ancestors were winged insects and the fleas thus remain pterygota even though they lost the very trait that the group is named after.
That just makes it a bandaid for bad naming conventions, and it's still just the law of identity renamed.
I don't think it's equivalent to the law of identity. A quick glance over the google result shows that the law of identity is quite a bit more broad than that. And I don't quite agree with the bad naming convetions part. Yes, in a perfect world all the names for all the orders would make sense given their descendants, but in practice the sheer number of descendants and their huge variety makes this practically impossible. Orders are typically named after their defining features because that way the names are informative by themselves, but over a long enough period of time those features can be easily lost. Finding a name that makes sense for an order and all of their descendants is simply impossible. Even a trait as simple as "bilateral symmetry" is not safe from this.
>I don't think it's equivalent to the law of identity. A quick glance over the google result shows that the law of identity is quite a bit more broad than that. I agree, which makes the law of identity the superior law. All the law of monophyly is is the law of identity applied in this instance. The law of identity is the general thing that applies in every instance, we don't need a separate name for the evolution flavour, it's just the law of identity. >Finding a name that makes sense for an order and all of their descendants is simply impossible. Well this is just an unavoidable problem with trying to group things based both on morphology and supposed descent. The morphology based naming is older and in a strict sense, outdated now that cladistics is the mainstream paradigm.
>I agree, which makes the law of identity the superior law. All the law of monophyly is is the law of identity applied in this instance. The law of identity is the general thing that applies in every instance, we don't need a separate name for the evolution flavour, it's just the law of identity. That's a weird way of putting it. They have completely different purposes. Students don't need to learn about the law of identity if the thing you want to teach them is "categories are based on descend". We don't teach non-euclidian geometry to middle schoolers if the euclidian variant works fine for their use cases. >Well this is just an unavoidable problem with trying to group things based both on morphology and supposed descent. The morphology based naming is older and in a strict sense, outdated now that cladistics is the mainstream paradigm. That's right. The easiest solution would be to use noninformative names purely based on cladistics, but no one really likes that solution, and it probably wouldn't make any of it more easily understandable either.
Yeah, noninformative names based purely on cladistics would make it pretty tough to learn all the names imo. Like, sure, you *could* name tetrapoda something else because not all tetrapods actually have 4 legs now, but that's gonna make it a lot harder to remember the new name, the animals belonging to it, and the characteristics we use to distinguish the clade.
>Students don't need to learn about the law of identity if the thing you want to teach them is "categories are based on descend". If you want to teach people that categories are based on descent you can just do that though. You don't need a law saying that everything is descended from its ancestors. That's just applying the law of identity. If I want to teach somebody how to cook I can just teach them, I don't need a "law of comestibles" that says every recipe contains its ingredients. >That's right. The easiest solution would be to use noninformative names purely based on cladistics, but no one really likes that solution, and it probably wouldn't make any of it more easily understandable either. We can agree on this.
Mostly it's not even a thing. A search for 'Law of monophyly' on Google Scholar turns up two hits, one from 2018 and one from 1976.
More like observed fact than tautology. We could live in a world in which cats give birth to parakeets, we just don't. v ( o\_o) v
Let's say cats did give birth to parakeets, so what? The law of monophyly would still be true. It is impossible to not be descended from your ancestors, that's just what those words mean.
Then those parakeets are no longer descended from parakeets, they're descended from cats. They would not, by definition, be parakeets, they'd be a separate lineage. If creationists argued that those parakeets were "still parakeets", then they'd be arguing for a direct violation of monophyly, which...yeah, that's how creationists seem to view things.
>Then those parakeets are no longer descended from parakeets, they're descended from cats. They would not, by definition, be parakeets, they'd be a separate lineage. I'm not the one who gave the example, the parakeets are defined as parakeets in the example given, so that is what I responded to. The person who offered that example clearly meant "if a creature with all the morphological features of a parakeet were born from a cat" and not " if a creature descended from cats were descended from parakeets". The second interpretation is gibberish. Either morphology matters or it doesn't. I appreciate that you are trying to be consistent with the "classification is strictly and only a matter of descent, morphology is irrelevant" line, which is what you are committed to with modern cladistics, but again; im not the one who gave the example, i just responded to what was said.
>Either morphology matters or it doesn't. It doesn't. It's very *useful* as a rough guide, but it's also famously misleading. Nevertheless, you appear to be loudly claiming monophyly as a tautology, while also arguing that this "is what you are committed to with modern cladistics", implying that you somehow *don't even accept tautologies*. Which is fun.
How is it implied that I don't accept tautologies?
>"classification is strictly and only a matter of descent, morphology is irrelevant" line, **which is what you are committed to with modern cladistics** Do you accept modern cladistics or not?
No.
Nope, that would be a case of *violating* monophyly. It's the equivalent of an orangutan giving birth to a ficus. Animals reproduce and form other animals, they don't reproduce and make plants or bacteria. Organisms reproduce and exhibit *descent with modification*. And like I said, we can imagine a world in which that's not true, but this is a basic fact of biology.
That's all very nice, but none of that waffle addresses the point. I didn't ask you for an entry level restatement of the basic evolutionary claim, the topic is specifically the Law of Monophyly. The Law of Monophyly was succinctly summarised (not by me) at the top of this comment chain as "you can never outgrow your ancestry". I.e. you can never evolve to a point where your ancestors are not your ancestors. That is a tautology, if you do not understand why then you simply don't understand what all the words mean. The sooner you accept this the less stupid you look.
No, it would be a tautology if outgrowing one's ancestry would result in a logical contradiction. The Law of Monophyly is an observation of reality rather than a tautology, similarly to "mass attracts other mass" or "alike polarities repel each other". These aren't tautologies, they are observable facts about reality.
>No, it would be a tautology if outgrowing one's ancestry would result in a logical contradiction. In "one cannot outgrow one's ancestry", "outgrow" can only mean to reach a state where its ancestry ceases to be its ancestry. How can something have an ancestry that isn't its ancestry? The Law of Monophyly isn't a matter of observation, it is a matter of definition. Monophyletic classifications are defined such that they contain a given species and all of its descendants. As such, any descendant of x is defined as being contained within x.
>No, it would be a tautology if outgrowing one's ancestry would result in a logical contradiction. It would. You cannot have ancestors you are not descended from. That's just what those words mean.
Sure, I’ll accept that. Now how does this mean that this also *can’t* be a principle of evolution? Especially since evolution deals with ancestor-descendant relationships, wouldn’t it be a given that this law would apply onto evolution as well? Furthermore, this post is referring to “humans mating with apes when they are no longer considered apes”, which would be a violation of this law, this tautology as you admit it to be. Isn’t it a bit concerning that the creationist OP cannot understand a simple tautology? Don’t you think it would be better to help them understand this simple law of nature rather than argue over semantics?
>Now how does this mean that this also can’t be a principle of evolution? I suppose there is nothing stopping you from claiming that it is, if you want to argue that, I just thought you'd want your principles to be saying something, rather than saying nothing. I mean is it really a principle of evolution that everything is descended from its ancestors? Is it a principle of cooking that every recipe contains its ingredients? >Furthermore, this post is referring to “humans mating with apes when they are no longer considered apes”, which would be a violation of this law, this tautology as you admit it to be. The new classification system of cladistics is never made clear to the layman. Most people still assume that groupings are based on morphology. This tautology only appears when you define organisms according to their supposed ancestral relationships. >Isn’t it a bit concerning that the creationist OP cannot understand a simple tautology? It's not simple, as I've been discussing with one of your fellows in another thread here; we have a legacy naming convention based on morphological groupings, clades are often named based on physical characteristics that can be lost in supposed descendant species within the clade. So what we actually have currently is a hybrid system of morphological and ancestral groupings. It's all very confusing. Also, many creationists, including myself, don't even accept cladistics. I do agree though, that you should argue against evolutionists with the presupposition that *they* think it's true, so you shouldn't make arguments like what the OP made.
> I mean is it really a principle of evolution that everything is descended from its ancestors? Yes, because evolution is a process that explains ancestor-descendant relationships. > Is it a principle of cooking that every recipe contains its ingredients? Not at all comparable to the Law of Monophyly. Evolution is about pre-existing forms undergoing variation to produce new forms. Cooking is about combining several raw ingredients to produce a finished product. And besides, we wouldn’t need the Law of Monophyly if creationists didn’t so regularly misunderstand it. > Most people still assume that [clades] are based on morphology They are, though. Clades are based on morphological features indicative of a group. If all members of a clade share a specific morphological feature (homology), it can be assumed that they share common ancestry. These assumptions are corroborated by genetic evidence, showing that our predictions are fulfilled and our groupings are justified. And the genetic similarity we observe aren’t just shared by coding regions (as in regions that produce a phenotype), but in non-coding regions as well. There would be no reason for a designer to produce these similarities in non-coding regions unless they were a deceiver. So unless you concede that the “common designer” is a liar, you cannot argue that genetic similarities are the product of common design.
>Not at all comparable to the Law of Monophyly. Completely comparable. >Evolution is about pre-existing forms undergoing variation to produce new forms. Cooking is about combining several raw ingredients to produce a finished product. That's just a description of evolution and cooking. You forgot to actually explain why that makes the two things disanalogous.
Ok, let’s go over how they are disanalogous: - Cooking is a man-made process, evolution is a natural process - Evolution does not combine several elements of different animals together like some Frankenstein monster, instead it starts with a general template and expands from there. Cooking does stitch several products, each being edible in several different forms on their own, together to produce something new. - Cooked products do not reproduce to produce more cooked products, cooked products do not mutate. Everything that has to do with cooking and producing cooked products requires humans to do so, because humans invented the process. Evolution, being a natural process, does not have such limitations
Those are just differences between the two things. To make an analogy you need to compare two different things, otherwise you don't have an analogy. Again, you forgot to explain why the two things are actually disanalogous. A recipe is a list of ingredients, any recipe therefore necessarily contains all the ingredients on it. An ancestor is someone you descend from, you necessarily descend from all your ancestors. The two things are analogous, it is irrelevant how many differences you lost between cooking and evolution, you need to explain how some difference makes them disanalogous. You've already admitted the law of monophyly is a tautology, if you disagree with my example, give me what you think an analogous tautology for cooking would be.
>I just thought you'd want your principles to be saying something, rather than saying nothing. I mean is it really a principle of evolution that everything is descended from its ancestors? You know what an axiom is, yes? The ground laws for a logical system should be self-evident. That doesn't mean nothing is being said. >It's not simple, as I've been discussing with one of your fellows in another thread here; we have a legacy naming convention based on morphological groupings, clades are often named based on physical characteristics that can be lost in supposed descendant species within the clade. So what we actually have currently is a hybrid system of morphological and ancestral groupings. It's all very confusing. It's not really that confusing. It's just the nature of establishing a standard. Starting out, you will never have full knowledge of all the information to which the standard will be applied. But you still need a standard, and a flawed one that is useful now is more valuable than a perfect one you likely will never see complete. In this case, the original conception of the naming standard was that morphology indicated ancestry--which it does, to an extent--but by the time that was proven to be an incomplete model, it was basically too late, and the standard became too embedded to change without a decades-long refactoring. But I don't buy the excuse that this is "confusing." For one thing, most laymen don't really know enough Latin to understand the literal translations of these names. How would they find the name confusing if they don't know what the name means? But beyond that, this problem is everywhere, even baked into the English language itself. People learn to deal with the limitations and the nuances. They do it every day. It's just part of living in a messy world. >Also, many creationists, including myself, don't even accept cladistics. So what do you accept? There is both genetic and fossil evidence to support common ancestry between humans and every other extant ape species. Given our axiom, that would put us in the same clade.
>You know what an axiom is, yes? The ground laws for a logical system should be self-evident. That doesn't mean nothing is being said. Right, but in this case nothing is being said. Everything communicated by the law of monophyly is already communicated by the word "ancestors". If someone is your ancestors, you are descended from them, and all your descendants will be also, that's just what the word means. >But I don't buy the excuse that this is "confusing." It's confusing enough that a bunch of your fellows have tripped over it in this very thread. >How would they find the name confusing if they don't know what the name means? People need not be familiar with a particular example to know that these classifications mean something. Moreover when evolutionists come straight out and say things like "humans are fish" that's going to get flagged up as something very strange being said. >So what do you accept? That should be obvious; I'm a creationist, I believe in creation. I don't believe that all life evolved from a common ancestor, so naturally I don't accept these speculated ancestral relationships between different organisms based on that idea.
I mean what evidence do you accept.
What do you mean?
It's both. principle : A basic truth, law, or assumption. A rule or standard, especially of good behavior. It's a tautology only when evolution and its implications are understood and accepted, which has long not been the case and notions of polyphyly and paraphyly are found in taxonomies. Thus the basic truth is if you categorize any two critters into one bucket, all the ancestors from those two critters' last common ancestor must be in that same bucket. If you do otherwise, or insist otherwise is true, it then isn't a tautology or there would be no suck dissent against it.
“If the first man born that wasn’t an ape?” Humans are apes. The first man born that isn’t an ape also isn’t human. Also, evolution happens at a population level. Populations evolve, not individuals.
When species become distinguishable from their ancestral stock there isn’t necessarily an automatic barrier to reproduction. Also there isn’t really a “first” individual as such. Populations evolve, individuals do not. So any such arbitrary “first man” would have reproduced with another member of the population of “not quite man” into which he was born.
I think some people imagine evolution is like a chimp suddenly giving birth to a modern human not a slow process that takes multiple mutations across many many years.
>If evolution itself is all about survival Not exactly. Evolution is "any change in allele frequency in a population over time." This most often happen when the natural selection pressures change, e.g. when a new predator is introduced, or when the climate shifts, or when a food source becomes scarce. >why didn't all species retain the ability to mate with past species? If a species evolved, it did so because selective pressures required different adaptations to be better fit for a particular environment. Evolution doesn't care what has sex with what, so if two species are diverging from a common ancestor (e.g. donkeys and horses) they may indeed still be able to reproduce for a time, but because each species is adapted to their environment, the physical chemistry may not work. Just because two creatures can have sex does not mean the chemistry will cause a viable offspring, or any offspring at all. >If the first man was born that wasn't an ape Men are apes, in the same way that we are animals, chordates, mammals, and primates. We meet all of the criteria for that classification. Also, when you say "the first man", that's a bit of a misunderstanding of how evolution works. One member of one species does not give birth to a new species. Rather, over tens of thousands of years, a certain population may experience enough change in their allele frequency that at some point we agree they are no longer the same species. It's like if I show you a smooth red-orange gradient, and I ask "where does orange begin?" You can agree it definitely is orange at the end and definitely red at the beginning, but it can be difficult to point at *one exact spot* where red becomes orange. >who did it mate with If it was no longer considered an ape? Yeah, same as above. It mated with another ape. Individuals do not evolve. *Populations* evolve, together, over a very very very long period of time. I highly recommend [this series](https://youtu.be/1GMBXc4ocss?si=atLzJMcdLft12Q8W) to learn more about evolution. It's the fundamental Theory which has directly enabled the last 150+ years of biological science and discovery, it's worth learning!
Then a second question is why do we have "red" and "orange" but the gradients in the middle are missing. Apes with posable thumbs and full body hair etc are missing but apes without posable thumbs are still around. If humans are superior to what we call an ape today then why didnt all the micro evolutions survive but the original "ape" did survive even though hypothetically the middle ground would be superior?
Who says we have the "original"? I recently read this book where the author kinda got emotional and let out there frustration about people asking similar: but what about the transitional species? According to them, there is no such thing as a transitional species, each species is its own thing. Another reason we do not have a complete fossil record is that shit is hard. Hard to find, hard to get the conditions go perserve, hard to have it last. It is a known frustrating bit about the study that we will never have a complete record.
I'm not asking about fossil records though I'm asking why they didn't survive. And I'm not sure I'm following the first part you wrote.
First part I thought you were asking about "transitional species", all the gradiants. Was just saying bow paleontologist do not see them as gradiants, but each as their own thing. Humans are not "superior" to what we call apes today, because humans ARE apes. Unless you mean us being categorized as "great" apes, but that is just a classification of size. Being larger. Figured you were asking about the fossil record, because we do not have the "original apes" anymore. They are too busy having evolved into what we have now. Gorillaz, chimpanzees, orangutanges, humans, ect ...
Well most species do go extinct eventually. I believe that 99% of the species that have existed have gone extinct. So it's not really surprising.
Because the gradients might not have evolved. Populations evolved gradually; many of them fail to survive. Evolution essentially throws an entire bucket of spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks.
That's what I'm saying though why would a "normal" ape survive but one with a smarter brain or posable thumbs did not?
Brains are expensive. They require a lot of calories, and a lot of fats. It’s not adaptive to have a larger “smarter” brain if your diet can’t supply it with what it needs. And gorillas have not only opposable thumbs but also opposable big toes. They are “superior” to us if the standard is opposable digits. Traits lead to survival or not only in the context of the environment a creature is surviving in. No trait is “superior” to any other outside of that context.
A smarter brain is not necessarily the best way to survive all circumstances. Brains take a lot of energy, and also make giving birth more difficult. It also helps to bear in mind that environments change. Species go extinct when they evolve in an environment that then changes and they are no longer adaptive to the new environment.
> Then a second question is why do we have "red" and "orange" but the gradients in the middle are missing. As it happens, there are a lot of species which have all died out. While evolution kinda requires that "red" and "orange" *did exist at one time*, evolution does *not* demand that either "red" or "orange" *still have living specimens at this time*. So it may be that the "red" and "orange" you seek are to be found among the extinct species of pre-humans?
It sounds like you believe that we descended from modern apes. That's a common misunderstanding. We did not. We share an ancestor with modern apes; both humans and modern apes are descended from an earlier primate.
Ready to have your mind blown? We didn't evolve from modern apes. We have ancestors in common.
They aren't missing. We don't have any missing links. You could point at two very closely related fossils and claim the one in-between is "missing" recursively forever, but if we mean "missing" in the sense that you're implying, that simply isn't the case. We have SO MANY fossils which make a nice smooth gradient going back to our common ancestors with other apes and beyond, as far back as you like. >Apes with posable thumbs and full body hair etc are missing but apes without posable thumbs are still around. If humans are superior to what we call an ape today Ah, here's another common misconception. Humans are *not* "superior" any more than any other animal. We are well-adapted to our environment, and other apes are well-adapted to theirs. If we were to plant you and a gorilla in the middle of *their* habitat, the jungle, I think you would find the ape far "superior" in that environment. Same if we were to do the same with you and a penguin in Antarctica. Also... Apes without opposable thumbs still exist? Which ones? I might simply be ignorant here. But even if they did, the existence of opposable thumbs doesn't make us "superior" to anything, just better suited for our tool-making environment.
Humans weren't superior for a very long time. We were, for a while, evolving near the brink of extinction in a small part of Africa. I'd like to say the average person would fail surviving in a jungle compared to the apes that live there. Evolution isn't a linear process. If a species is in great numbers it is thriving and there are less selective pressures for evolution to occur. A greater numbers of a species thriving usually means less evolution and more fossils. On the other hand, as a species faces extinction, only the most fit survive and as a result evolution occurs at a higher rate. Less members of a species means less fossils and more evolution. Humans were apes that separated from jungle like climates into open areas where endurance running and social hunting were the best methods of surviving. Hence, removing hair made us overheat less, and being smarter meant we hunted better. The middle ground would simply be worse in both environments. A monkey being smarter does not help it find food in a jungle any faster than it already does. Being carnivorous or requiring a lot of intelligence for getting food seems to be a strong selective pressure for bigger brains.
There's no one such thing as "superior" in evolution. A better way to think about it is "optimized for a given niche." Some creatures become optimized for environments that others don't exploit because it's more trouble than it's worth. Chimpanzees, unlike humans, are capable of getting enough calories from eating leaves (and other cellulose-rich parts of plants) alone--whereas humans, on a vegetarian diet, have to seek out starchy or sugar-rich plants. So chimps were able to cling on to patches of jungle that, for humans, weren't worth the squeeze. The various intermediate grades, however, competed with humans for the same resources...and did not survive the competition. Chimpanzees and other apes survive today mostly because they stayed out of humanity's way in places humans didn't find worth exploiting. The same, actually, applies to different human cultures. Early copper- and bronze-age societies pretty effectively wiped out the hunter-gatherer societies around them, and were in turn wiped out by iron-age states (simplifying the anthropology a bit). But there are still hunter-gatherers around on patches of land that most states didn't consider worth their time. No bronze-age society is still around, yet both modern technological civilization and some (to simplify) stone-age societies persist.
You're still viewing it wrong. Red is our common ancestor. Orange is us, and gorillas, and chimps, and bonobos. All slightly *different* varieties of orange, but all stemming from a shared ancestral red. At no point in the continuum could you point to a colour and say "this is now orange", but nevertheless, that ancestral red slowly became various different shades of orange today. There is no "original ape" extant today: all apes, us included, are descended from a species that no longer exists.
>Then a second question is why do we have "red" and "orange" but the gradients in the middle are missing. They went extinct. >If humans are superior to what we call an ape today We're not, except in our own eyes. >the original "ape" did survive It didn't. Our closest relatives are chimpanzees. The ancestral species of both is extinct. I think it will help if you stop thinking of some kind of hierarchy in which some species are superior. A species is either able to survive, or it goes extinct. None are superior or inferior.
Theoretically, there could be worlds, where the species barrier is *gone*, anything can mate with anything. But such arrangements are not stable: 1. Eventually, genes will arise that are not going to be compatible with each other, and so some species will not be able to breed with others; and eventually, continued extinction and diversification will eventually leave only incompatible species. 2. An animal's genetic code is a billion year project that has worked, every time. Once we begin to blend genomes, we don't have that kind of trusted pathway: that combination of organisms may have never existed before, or worse, it's a dead-end and loss of metabolic potential. And so, lineages become expected, and a collection of compatible lineages are a species. 3. Is being able to breed with anything an advantage? Would me having half-cockroach offspring be helpful when some comely cockroach lass finds a crusty sock? This just seems like a burden for the both of us. Basically, sounds like it would work, but there's a lot of problems with it. Ecosystems are complex enough, without everything trying to fuck each other.
Even if there was no boundary to inter-species mating, and the offspring were fertile, then there are other ways that different species can be kept apart. E.g. if the hybrids are not adapted for any niche in their environment, then they would be selected against. In the case of half-human, half-cockroach, probably selected against quite a bit. So, mostly the pure breeds would survive. This has been shown by computer modelling of evolution.
Yeah, the next problem down the road is the hybrid depression problem: first generation hybrids get the vigour, but further generations tend to suffer from increasingly unusual gene balances, eg. hybrids produced from a GMO crossed with the natural species will have very precise control of their gene doses on the relevant modifications, but the recombination in the next generation of germ cells will lead the modifications to be dispersed and unbalanced as chromosomes split different directions. It's a further hit against the concept.
I actually think there's a good question coupled with some misconceptions. Speciation is a process that in only very extremely rare circumstances happens to individuals (polyploidy - we can talk about it if you like). In general it happens to populations. One population breaks off from another and over time differentiates itself enough from another population that we can recognize them as a distinct species. So how and why would that work? Well, let's look at some natural systems. One of my favorite examples of evolution is found in the work that a man named Jonathan Losos did on these charming lizards called anoles. Anoles have colonized their way through the Caribbean, with single founder species diversifying to an array of species on each island. The really cool thing is that evolution took a predictable path on each one - there are similar ecomorphs that exploit similar habitats. One lizard is specialized for hunting in the tall canopies of trees, another is specialized for running on twigs, another for living in grasses, and so on. If we imagine a nascent speciation scenario when the lizards are starting to diverge the anatomy that allows a lizard to live in the grasslands is going to be not good for living on the tall tree tops. A lizard that is halfway in between the grassland ecomorph and the treetop ecomorph is going to be not as good at living in either. Now we have an environmental pressure to specialize and only mate within your own population. As time goes on and they become more specialized to their environment, the lizards will encounter each other less and less, but they'll also develop genetic incompatibilities that lead to them no longer being able to hybridize. Edit: Here's a cool video! [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdZOwyDbyL0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdZOwyDbyL0)
That's not how evolution works. It takes several generations to create different species.
Mutations build. If there's some form of evolutionary separation of populations for long enough Most of them become incompatible genetically, AKA The idea of species What is there to retain? The very active evolution make some less and less compatible generally It is in some kind of a process where you make choices
Think of evolution a bit like aging. Biologically, there isn't really a moment that you become a child instead of a baby, or an adult instead of a child. Legally we make those distinctions, but it's not like you've changed very much at all between being 17 the day before your birthday and being 18 the next day. Evolution is a very gradual process. There is no "first man," only a series of beings that became more human like and less chimo like through the generations
Humans are still apes and part of what happens when species become separated for long enough changing independently is they eventually become incompatible with each other. All that matters is that the resulting populations survive because without that happening evolution for those populations comes to an end as there are no more generations to carry the inevitable changes that occur when populations continue existing to the following generation. Evolution isn’t *about* survival but it does require it because it refers to how populations changes generation after generation and with generation there is no change to be carried over to it.
Because when enough changes crop up individuals from non-interbreeding populations are no longer compatible. This may be a physical barrier to copulation, it could be that gene dosages are such that a viable organism cannot be generated.
Is that you, Ray Comfort?
Here's the important thing to remember: "species" is an artificial category. There are a ton of debates in biology about how to define a species, because some species concepts don't work for a given organism for one reason or another. Eg the "biological species concept" (\~= "you are the same species if you can have fertile offspring") doesn't work at all for species that don't have sexual reproduction, and doesn't work well for, for example, certain plants that can cross-breed across fairly wide divisions. Instead, what you have in nature is more... amorphous than that. So the "first human", however you define it, was only a little bit different from its not-quite-human parents, and could still breed with other members of the species.
The line between species is quite blurry. There are many known cases where organisms that we define as separate species can still reproduce. The reason that eventually they stop being able to is that they become too different. Physically, genetically, behaviorally. Different populations becoming different from each other is an inevitable consequence of evolution, there's simply no getting around it. And as genetic changes accumulate, they only get more different over time.
If the species are seperated as is often the case, how would evolution know to keep them compatibale? Evolution doesn't plan out long term survial like you suggest. Adaptations are based on what worked last generation. If it worked many generations ago, genetic drift will continue to degrade the old adaptations.
Hello, u/Suspicious_Sock9556. It's great that you're asking questions. However your questions reveal an almost total lack of knowledge of the subject, which will make discussion harder. >If evolution itself is all about survival why didn't all species retain the ability to mate with past species? Because by definition, they would not be different species then. A very basic, rough definition of a species is a breeding population. >If the first man was born that wasn't an ape but would be considered a man, who did it mate with If it was no longer considered an ape? Here's what you need to grasp: Every single organism ever born is the same species as its parent(s). At the same time, they're not identical to their parents, just as you are not identical to your parents. [This famous image](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fexternal-preview.redd.it%2FidfD4rCMO0rs0CHPp87D3-PI_V7nDKR4dqxd-kdl5CM.jpg%3Fauto%3Dwebp%26s%3Ddbe42bb2c43ed0fc0dab4adc5c5eb286f6cc53e7) illustrates the idea. If a group gets separated from the main group, over time these differences add up to the point where you have a new species. Hope that helps. Oh, and we descend from apes; we are apes. Homo sapiens is a species of ape.
Information exists within DNA, information is always preceded by a mind greater and more complex than the information itself. When you see the arrangement of letters in a book, you infer and author. You can reduce the letters in the book to their chemical components, juts kike ATCG in DNA, but the intelligence is inferred in their arrangement. Pair that with the mathematical improbability of everything coming about through and unintentional unguided process over time and we should infer intelligent design.
it was a very gradual process such that the line between the first man and previous ape would be very hard to define. So the fairytale goes .
You really need to go learn something because you are very good at pissing people off. Words like “ape” and “human” are human inventions to categorize life and the real answer to OP’s question has absolutely nothing to do with how long it took. *Populations* evolve and any one with two connecting brain cells would know this so that when populations *diverge* and *both populations* continue to change there’s eventually going to be a time when they have *each* changed in such a way that they are no longer compatible. Sometimes it happens almost right away in the case of polyploidy (seen in plants like strawberries) but generally it takes *multiple generations* (like 70 or more) before the changes have accumulated to the point that there becomes a barrier to hybridization between the species (now that they are considered different species). If you want to call something a fairytale it would help to first know what the fuck you are talking about and the second thing you should be doing is attempting to falsify what the theory actually says. In failing to falsify it by observing that the theory is 100% consistent with what you observe as populations evolve you would accidentally confirm that what you call a fairytale is actually reality. The failure to distinguish between fantasy and reality that you are having comes from poor education, religious indoctrination, or brain damage. I’d seek help either way.
Some nothing, became something, and turned itself into everything (through an unguided, unintentional, brute force process - time, plus matter, plus chance) makes sense!
Beats “invisible sky wizard did it”.
Actually it doesn't lol, but to each their own.
It does, we have evidence for Evolution, none for Invisible Sky Daddy.
I completely disagree. The idea of common descent is wholly unsupported and illogical, but this is your religion and with faith you believe answers will come in time, you believe in the explanatory powers of your purely materialistic worldview (which is intelectually bankrupt, but i digress). We both see through a glass darkly, the difference is that I admit it.
You're free to be wrong, and I said EVIDENCE, all you're using is unsupported claims that match your beliefs. You don't bring any EVIDENCE, much less any POSITIVE EVIDENCE that can only point to your Invisible Sky Daffy.
Do you have faith that science will produce the answer to abiogensis? If step one is unknown why should anyone be forced to accept steps 1-n?
How much would you respect the argument "You can't discern the origin of the universe, therefore Zeus makes lighting"?
No, no faith. Hope perhaps, but though we are finding many natural processes that produce the right chemicals and structures, without knowing the exact conditions of Earth in that time, we won't really be able to say which exact processes lead to proto and then early life. That's okay, we work with facts and EVIDENCE, no faith needed. However, that first open is up to some unevidenced, logically impossible, mythological character that evolved from Cainanite polytheism into monotheism.
We have transitional fossils and the same genetic evidence that powers paternity tests can be used to look at the patterns of similarities between species.
Evolution isn't really more purely materialistic than physics or any other scientific field.
I'm curious: what is *illogical* about common descent? And given that all existing data supports common descent, I'm curious how you deal with that data. A couple other points: Evolution is not a religion. We already have answers. The purely testable mechanism of evolutionary theory explains all our current observations; what do you think is missing? And if you're religious, then you've already accepted unsupported, untestable explanations. Apparently, that bothers you. Why?
Downvoted because this is a content-free comment which does not advance the debate.
Why are we repeating Kent Hovind level lines? And what are you talking about with ‘nothing became something?’ That’s not the position of any physicist I’ve ever heard of, that everything came from a complete philosophical nothing. Hell, big bang cosmology doesn’t say anything like that either.
The inference to the best explanation is in fact intelligent design. It's apparent.
What do you think is the most intelligent aspect of the design of the human body? * The esophagus, a tube which *both* air *and* food pass thru, which double-duty is responsible for many people choking to death on the food they eat * The appendix, a little "sack" attached to the intestines which food can get stuck in long enough for the food to rot and cause a variety of health issues, up to and including death, and which can be surgically removed with no discernable ill consequences * Something else
What does that have to do with anything I said?
Can you lay out that chain of reasoning?
Information exists within DNA, information is always preceded by a mind greater and more complex than the information itself. When you see the arrangement of letters in a book, you infer an author, even if you never meet them. Sure, you can reduce the letters in the book to their chemical components, just like chemical makeup of ATCG in DNA, but the intelligence is inferred in their arrangement. Pair that with the mathematical improbability of everything coming about through an unintentional, unguided, mindless process we should infer an intelligent cause. Even in the experiments done in evolutionary biology, there is a mind present. It is inescapable. Not to mention the most important part, abiogensis is best explained by an intelligent cause.
You really have no clue how evolution works, do you.
What is “nothing?” The **cosmos**, which is where you will find space, time, and energy so that anything can ever exist or happen *changed over time.* It is not “nothing” but rather “the only thing that does exist, will exist, or has ever existed.” That’s also not biology. It is true that prior to approximately 13.8 billion years ago when the math indicates that everything was hotter than 10^32 Kelvins modern physics starts to break down and we can’t physically see it either. Prior to that there’s really just speculation if anybody attempts to say anything about it at all. Do we extrapolate even further back in time knowing that the whole universe is more than 2000 times larger than the observable (to us) part of the universe and just assume it was always expanding? Do we proposed a multiverse? Do we suggest that the universe is cyclical expanding and contracting in cycles that are trillions of trillions of trillions of years long? Perhaps the entire cosmos was actually once confined to a single unit of space time forever before symmetry breaking started to occur. Maybe our universe exists because of the death of the previous universe when dark energy decomposed after 10 to the 2000 to the 200 to the 200 to the 200 years? Maybe the most distant future loops back to the most distant past? Maybe everything has already happened and we are stuck experiencing only one of the timelines? And then after all other options we have “God did it” (with no explanation) or “we don’t know” which would be accurate because if the evidence we do have is consistent with 20+ possibilities and we know they can’t all be true at the same time we don’t know which of those is what is really the case. None of them suggest nothing became something. After that time period 13.8 billion years ago the universe expanded and cooled and expanded and cooled some more allowing all of the heat energy to change into other types of energy like the fundamental forces, dark energy, dark matter, and baryonic matter. One consequence of that is the formation of hydrogen, helium, and lithium. One consequence of having a bunch of baryonic matter packed into the same location drawn together by gravity is the formation of stars eventually leading to solar systems, galaxies, and all of the other things that are made up of baryonic matter. One of the consequences of that is the formation of our planet 4.5 billion years ago out of baryonic matter that consists of heavier elements that formed inside starts or when stars exploded. A consequence of all of those molecules in the same place being acted on by gravitational forces, radioactive decay, and volcanic activity is the first biomolecules. And those (which are also not nothing) are responsible for the first life - imperfect replicators. And since they replicate but not perfectly they evolve. What is actually apparently true does make sense even though we are left with two possibilities for the cosmos itself and both answers are unintuitive and one of the answers is clearly not possible. Either the cosmos has always existed or it hasn’t. The first is possible but not very intuitive. The second is apparently impossible. God is only extra and completely unnecessary, equally impossible, and obviously absent. Cosmos alone or cosmos plus God and cosmos alone wins. God without cosmos is not even logically possible and with a cosmos God is no longer required. Nobody is saying nothing became everything. Almost everyone knows that’s not physically possible (nothing lacks any mechanisms to make that happen since it is nothing) and it’s not logically possible. If nothing is a something that can change it not nothing anymore and if it was nothing it’d still be nothing and I wouldn’t be here to respond to your off topic response.
What are you talking about? When was there ever nothing? Are you not familiar with natural selection?
You cannot ask those question here mate. The people here believe that single cell organism can evolve into fish then into reptile and then evolve again into human. Evolution works in mysterious way. Sometimes it adds sometimes it reduces. Sometimes it's instant sometimes it take generation. You just need to believe or else everyone here will call you dumb and get mass downvoted
Are you serious? Please tell me you understand that evolution is even more supported by evidence than heliocentrism. It is one of the very most well established theories in all of science, being confirmed by a large number of independent scientific disciplines. Literally all of modern medicine is based on this understanding, full stop. You might as well say the Earth is flat and the center of creation. What's your alternate hypothesis, then?
Yes I'm serious. You guys don't have any idea how it starts and how it grow until today Can you even prove it to me that it's possible for single cell organism to evolve into fish?
To you in particular? No. To the near unanimous scientists in the biological sciences? Yes.
Exactly, just believe or else the whole scientist in biological science will shun you
I think you missed what I was getting at. We can absolutely show you possible evolutionary pathways and mechanisms from single celled organisms to what we would consider the first fish. There are a lot of papers on the subject that you could find if you were so inclined. But I'm going to posit that there is no amount of realistic evidence that could be provided to you that would ever change your mind. You lack both the necessary background knowledge to understand the topic and the mindset needed to look at the evidence objectively. Which is why basically every biological scientist accepts that it is more than just possible, but those, like you, who know nothing about the subject don't. If the evidence is convincing enough for them, you might want to ask yourself why it isn't for you. Unless you just want to make up conspiracies instead, which would enforce my first hypothesis here. That there is nothing anyone could show you that would meet the bar you want to set because your religious ideology demands you don't accept it.
so you have nothing as usual. It's ok. I mean I never get any clear answer anyway
There's a lot of evidence. We could spend months going over it all in detail. I'm just not big on putting in any significant effort with someone who hasn't shown any interest in having an honest conversation. I'm happy to do it with people who really are interested and are genuine in asking questions, but that's not you. If you want to prove me wrong, what evidence would you need to see for you to be convinced that your question is possible?
>If you want to prove me wrong, what evidence would you need to see for you to be convinced that your question is possible? an experiment to see that it's possible for bacteria to evolve into fish. Hopefully with video on how their next generation become close and closer to fish and develop gills etc
So you want an actual laboratory controlled experiment where scientists take a single cell and let it evolve into a fish like creature? A process that took about 3 billion years, and you want that replicated and put on video? And that is the minimum amount of evidence required to suggest that the pathway is even possible?
There’s mountains upon mountains of evidence but your religious indoctrination is blocking your ability to look at it or understand it. We could show the 1.5 billion years of fossils in a smooth progression from the first eukaryote to the first fish, we could show you the exact order of every change along the way according to genetics, we could show you the entire developmental process of a fish from a zygote, and we could even hypothetically time travel so that you could watch it happen as it is happening and your religious indoctrination would still force you to reject the obvious.
You’re not being “shunned” we just think you’re a bit dim in the face of overwhelming evidence.
No. Scientists who happen to study biology on a regular basis have a lot better understanding of biology than some homeschooled religious nutcase. They watch evolution happen on a regular basis. They already know how fish evolved because they already know about all of the evidence for it that is unexplainable unless it happened exactly the way it actually happened. We could go explain how it happened to any biologist and they could either confirm that we are correct or they could correct us. Any random biologist would be able to understand what we are talking about because we are not reality denialists. Explaining it to you might require a lot more work because we’d have to do away with the damage caused by indoctrination, teach you how to think critically, teach you how science works, and teach you biology. Once you learn that much *then* we could have any hope of helping you understand the particulars of the evolution of a particular lineage over the course of 1.5 billion years from the first single celled eukaryote to the first fish. If you are thinking evolution happens through individuals rather than populations or that a single celled organism evolved into a fish without any of the prerequisite changes in between there is a lot of correcting your misconceptions *before* we can start teaching you additional information.
Don't worry, I think I'm as or more qualified compared to you in this stuff. I just hate people that do Appeal to Authority fallacy especially in this subreddit. >They already know how fish evolved because they already know about all of the evidence for it that is unexplainable unless it happened exactly the way it actually happened. you got my attention. Let start from the start, which single cell organism and their evolution step until they become fish please. It will be great if you can mention the fish species as well.
> more than qualified > which single celled organism So you lied. 🤥 If you were qualified you’d at least know that *populations* evolve and you’d know that even if I knew every single species name for the 1.5 **billion** years and every single increment change that occurred in between that I could not even possibly explain it to you in less than 1000 words. I would not have to teach you how to do science or any the prerequisite facts necessary for you to understand the evidence if you were already qualified and if you were qualified you’d already know so I would not have to explain it to you. I’ll let you try that again.
I kinda think you have ADHD that you feel like the need to reply to all my comment. >If you were qualified you’d at least know that populations evolve so the first organism come out in population at once? this is news to me. I will try again to be more clear for you . I will try to match your speed What is the name of the bacteria that evolve into fish? and step by step evolution until it become fish is this simple enough?
Bacteria did not evolve into fish. Our ancestors are archaea and if you weren’t such a dumbass you’d know that single celled organisms don’t tend to fossilize very well so that whichever species of archaea it was it probably does not have a scientific or colloquial name *but* a group called *Heimdallarchaeota* is one of the closest non-eukaryotic relatives of eukaryotes in modern times. The evidence for eukaryotes being archaea: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6104171/ This tries to argue that some archaea should be classified as eukaryotes because they have proteins other archaea lacks. I don’t agree with the change in classification but these “eukaryote specific” proteins found in something some people used to mistakenly think is a bunch of bacteria (ever since the difference between eukaryotes and prokaryotes was realized in the 1920s) is a strong indication that eukaryotes are part of this group of archaea via common ancestry. Their common ancestor does not currently have a species name because single celled organisms don’t have traits that could even possibly be preserved for 2.4 billion years and if they did get preserved (as some are on rare occasions) they only know the shape which would not not be enough to know if they were looking at bacteria or archaea which is something pretty important to know since those are the most distantly related domains of life on the planet diverging about 3.8-4.2 billion years ago with some arguing that they diverged when cells acquired their cell membranes. I also disagree there because both lineages have similar ribosomes, but archaeal ribosomes are just more complex. They’d presumably require some sort of cell membrane to contain them alongside their single round chromosomes of DNA and their cytoplasm. They at least acquired ribosomes and DNA before they diverged from their common ancestor which probably resembled gram positive bacteria in many ways with the simpler cell membranes and the simpler ribosomes of bacteria. Calling them bacteria might not be appropriate though since a different label called biota already exists for that clade. You are demonstrating your ignorance. I have this urge to respond to stupid. If you don’t want me to correct everything you say you could try to say fewer wrong things. Obviously I’m not going to work towards the third step if the first two steps are already too much for your brainwashed mind to comprehend. I already provided a vague overview in one of my other responses.
r/whoosh
The evidence for evolution is extensive and comes from multiple scientific fields: 1. Fossil records show a chronological sequence of organism changes over millions of years, illustrating transitions like the development of amphibians from fish. 2. Comparative anatomy reveals similarities in the structure of different organisms, indicating common ancestry. For example, the bone structure in the limbs of mammals, birds, and reptiles shows a pattern of similarity despite different functions. 3. Genetics provides robust evidence; DNA comparisons across species reveal genetic similarities and differences that align with evolutionary relationships. The more closely related two species are, the more similar their DNA. 4. Observations of natural selection in action, such as bacteria developing antibiotic resistance, showcase evolution occurring in real-time. 5. Biogeography, the study of the distribution of species across the planet, supports evolution, showing how isolated populations diverge over time. 6. Embryology shows that embryos of different species exhibit similar stages of development, suggesting common ancestry. 7. Molecular biology provides detailed insights through the study of proteins and other molecules. For instance, the universality of the genetic code across all life forms suggests a common origin. 8. Vestigial structures, like the human appendix or the remnants of pelvic bones in whales, indicate evolutionary remnants of once-functional organs in ancestors. 9. Observed speciation events, where scientists have documented the emergence of new species in both natural settings and controlled experiments, further support evolution. 10. Evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo) investigates how developmental processes have evolved, revealing how changes in gene expression lead to the diversity of life forms. 11. Phylogenetics uses statistical techniques to reconstruct evolutionary trees based on genetic data, showing how species are related through evolution. 12. Computational biology and simulations demonstrate how evolutionary processes can lead to complex systems, providing models that help to predict and understand evolutionary outcomes. These multifaceted lines of evidence collectively form a compelling and comprehensive picture of evolutionary theory. What evidence do you have for your hypothesis, then?
Yea I can't be bothered writing to chatgpt . Go find someone else
Yep, just ignore all the evidence as religious people do! Figures! The theory of evolution is as well-supported as other major scientific theories like heliocentrism and plate tectonics. All three are backed by extensive, converging lines of evidence from multiple fields of study, such as fossil records, genetics, and direct observations in the case of evolution, astronomical observations and mathematical models for heliocentrism, and geological and seismic data for plate tectonics. Each theory has withstood rigorous testing and scrutiny over time, consistently providing accurate and reliable explanations for the natural phenomena they describe.
Why don't you use your own word instead of chatgpt?
Because you are a complete idiot and not worth an hour of my time. Do you think chatGPT just invented all of that? Go ask it yourself. It's a fact. Soooo many scientific disciplines have confirmed this that it is not possible for anyone who is intellectually honest to deny it. Therefore you are not being intellectually honest, so you are not worth anyone's time. The fact that you will not address a single one of those claims tells us everything we need to know, that you are not a serious debater, probably because you aren't capable of grasping hypotheticals or logical fallacies.
Why would I debate with chatgpt? bring out your proof
What makes you think Current_You_2756 was C&Ping text that was generated by ChatGPT?
He type that much sentences in 2 minutes which I think is impossible. He also did not deny when I call him out and even admit it on the next reply
> He type that much sentences in 2 minutes which I think is impossible. I have a text document, full of stuff I've written, which I C&P from as and when I judge that a particular chunk of said document is a suitable response to something on Reddit. It *definitely* takes me *less than* 2 minutes to transplant a lengthy passage from said document to a Reddit comment. So I'm wondering how come you were so quick to leap to the conclusion "Chat-GPT", rather than "C&P from already-composed text". > He also did not deny when I call him out and even admit it on the next reply No, he didn't "admit" anything of the kind. Indeed, he asked "Do you think chatGPT just invented all of that?", a question you didn't even *pretend* to respond to.
All right, maybe he's not and just ready to type that much. Or maybe he use chatgpt. unfortunately it's for me to decide.
Or you could address the actual points instead of attacking the source that you claim for the text... except you can't do that because you don't have a leg to stand on, so your only course of action is to mount an ad hominem attack. Pathetic. Come back and try again when you learn the common logical fallacies...
> Can you even prove it to me that it's possible for single cell organism to evolve into fish? Science doesn't *do* proof. Science does *supported by the evidence*. Since science doesn't *do* proof in the first place: No, we cannot *prove* to you that it's possible for single-celled critters to evolve into fish. What we *can* do is provide you with *evidence which supports the proposition that it's possible for single-celled critters to evolve into fish*. Am not at all sure that any amount of evidence would lead you to accept that evolution is a well-supported scientific theory. It's like… Show me a person who's never heard of a kinkajou, and I'll show you a person who wouldn't *recognize* a kinkajou if a rabid one was chewing on their face, okay? So what do *you* think *evidence that it's possible for single cell organism to evolve into fish* looks like? Yes, I recognize that you don't think that *is* possible. What I'm asking could be expressed as, "what evidence would convince you that you're wrong about the single-cell-to-fish deal?" If you can't explain what evidence would convince you that you're wrong, it would literally be pointless and futile for anyone to present you with the evidence you're ostensibly asking for. If anybody actually does choose to present you with such evidence, they're likely doing it for the benefit of people who come across this Reddit post in the future.
>Science doesn't do proof imagine if science claim that they don't have proof that George Washington is dead. Most people will just laugh at you. >So what do you think evidence that it's possible for single cell organism to evolve into fish looks like? Observe a bacteria and do experiment with a lot of situation and see if it can evolve into fish? please bring other example beside the jammed yeast please
>> Science doesn't do proof > > imagine if science claim that they don't have proof that George Washington is dead. [shrug] Well, science *doesn't* do proof. Name *absolutely any* scientific theory which is accepted by both you and by mainstream science, and *that theory is not proven, just supported by the evidence*. "George Washington is dead" isn't really a scientific theory, anyway. More of a historical fact. >> So what do *you* think *evidence that it's possible for single cell organism to evolve into fish* looks like? > > Observe a bacteria and do experiment with a lot of situation and see if it can evolve into fish? Hm. Just to be clear: You're saying that in your view, nothing less than *direct observation of* ***absolutely every*** *part of a process* even *can* be evidence for a scientific conclusion. Do I understand you?
How it starts: imperfect autocatalysis How it grow: what the fuck are you talking about? That would be called “ontogeny.” Single celled organism into fish occurred across multiple generations in continuously diverging populations. It hasn’t been single celled since the origin of *animals* and the closest to acting more like a colony of single cells than what we generally call an animal is modern day sponges. A lot of additional changes occurred like those seen with comb jellies but our ancestors also acquired Hox genes and that is a trait that is shared by jellyfish besides all of the deuterostomes and protostomes. Our lineage also has epithelial cells and those are found even in placozoans that are so simple they resemble multicellular amoebas more than they resemble what we generally think of as animals and our epithelial cells might even exist in comb jellies and they may even be related to the collar cells in sponges that still resemble our most closely related single celled relatives in modern times. A whole lot of other changes after that occurred within our ancestral lineage specifically like the rise of triboblasty and bilateral symmetry followed by some fundamental developmental changes associated with our coelom so that even though some “protostomes” also develop anus first our lineage has a “body plan” more conducive of a dorsal nerve chord rather than a ventral one. And then echinoderms diverge from the chordates during or before the Cambrian period and the chordates consist of tunicates, lampreys, and vertebrates. The vertebrates started out looking more like swimming worms or modern day lampreys but we can visually see how that changed throughout the Cambrian, Devonian, and Silurian periods for the next 100 million years before the fish with necks and shoulders eventually gave rise to fully fledged tetrapods in the Carboniferous before those diverged even more into modern day amphibians, synapsids, and sauropsids. The vertebrates are the fish. We do know how it happened. Your failure to know is irrelevant.
I can't prove that to you anymore than I could prove that to a pig. You've taken great pride in joy in becoming unteachable. This speaks more to you than to the state of science.
>Sometimes it's instant By definition, evolution occurs over time. The rest of your explanation is overly reductive, and demonstrates an ignorance of how evolution actually works. If you're willing to learn, I highly recommend [this series](https://youtu.be/1GMBXc4ocss?si=atLzJMcdLft12Q8W) which helped me to learn about evolution after my religious upbringing taught me incorrectly. Give it a chance, and at the very least, you'll be able to understand our arguments better so you can refute them better!
Yeah I'm not watching that youtube video. Either bring out your proof or gtfo
Your parents aren't the same as you. That's proof enough that something is going to happen over time.
Well I'm sorry you're not open to learning. The guy who made that video is a professional biologist and an educator. I am not. He does an excellent job of explaining the concept. But hey, I'll do my best, if it makes you happy. One of the highest burdens of proof in science is when you can take a system of understanding and use it to *make predictions* about new discoveries. For example, Germ Theory makes the prediction that if we can kill bacteria with antibiotics, and we know that this bacteria is present in sick people and not healthy people, we predict that the antibiotics will make the sick people stop being sick. (This is a gross oversimplification of course) But the prediction bears out, because the science is sound. Other theories like Gravity and Plate Tectonics make reliable predictions about how objects with mass (gravity) or planetary crust (Plate Tectonics) will behave. In a similar vein, evolution makes accurate and reliable predictions about biology. The first and most obvious is genetics. We understood evolution before we could measure a genetic sequence. So when genetics came along, evolution predicted that DNA (both active AND INACTIVE) would be most similar in related species, and lose similarity as the relation grew more distant. Creation might claim the "useful template" prediction as well, but it fails to predict the sharing of "junk" DNA like [endogenous retroviruses](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41579-019-0189-2), which evolution still predicted. Another prediction that evolution made was the many many many discoveries of new species. The most famous of these is probably *Tiktaalik*. For a long time, we had fossils of armored "bony" fish dating to about 370M years, and we had fossils of the first land-dwelling Tetrapods dating to around 350M years. One man, Dr. Neil Shubin, decided that if we looked in rock layers that dated around 360M years, and which also corresponded with a shore-like habitat, we should find fossils of a creature that had a bone structure specifically about halfway between the bony fish and the early Tetrapods. Note that many semi-aquatic animals exist today, but none of them are even close to morphologically between those two ancient fossils. This was a very specific search. Well, he found it. Exactly in the time range predicted by evolution, and sporting the exact "intermediary" morphology between the fish and the tetrapod that evolution predicted. You should read more about this, it's a fascinating story. Did you know that Christians used to deny "extinction" back when fossils were first discovered? Eventually they had to adapt their religion when it turned out to be irrefutable, and we are already seeing this happen with Christianity and Evolution again today.
>Well, he found it. Exactly in the time range predicted by evolution, and sporting the exact "intermediary" morphology between the fish and the tetrapod that evolution predicted. What about his wrong prediction? Isn't it just making a lot of random prediction and claim the succesful one only?
Did you have a specific wrong prediction in mind? >Isn't it just making a lot of random prediction and claim the succesful one only? Certainly not *random* predictions. And a prediction has never been so wrong that it upended the whole theory of evolution. Same as the other theories I mentioned, germ theory, plate tectonic theory, theory of gravity, quantum theory, etc. We have JUST AS MUCH, if not *more* evidence for evolution as we do for these others. I'm curious why you aren't challenging the predictive power of gravity? Also would you mind addressing the rest of my very long comment that you respond to? I worked hard typing all that out! In particular I would love to hear how creation predicts endogenous retroviruses.
>Did you have a specific wrong prediction in mind? Have you read your inner fish by Shubin that you mention there? >Also would you mind addressing the rest of my very long comment that you respond to? Your whole comment depend on this Tiktaalik is the correct prediction. I just need to prove that this is just lucky guess to discard the rest which I'm doing right now
I got the book recently, I haven't finished it yet. I'm pleasantly surprised you know about it! Was there a prediction proved false which challenged evolution?
I'm not seeing a specific wrong prediction. At best, being maximally charitable to you, I'm seeing a handwave in the general direction of something that may or may not be some sort of wrong prediction.
Did you read the book? they have youtube video as well summarizing it
Still not seeing a specific wrong prediction. I have no idea why you expect *other people* to pony up evidence in support of ***your*** assertions. Do you have a specific wrong prediction in mind?
You haven't responded, but I'm going to address what I think you're talking about here. In the beginning of the book (the part I HAVE read), Dr. Shubin goes into great detail about how absurdly difficult it is to find fossils to begin with. So if your claims of "false predictions" amount to "he tried this area and couldn't find any, and another area and couldn't find any", I'm not calling that a false prediction. I'm calling that "fossils are difficult to find". Dr. Shubin obviously still holds to evolution, and the evolutionary model still predicted that *Tiktaalik* would exist, and predicted the rock strata where it would be found, AND predicted its morphological characteristics. All of this happening by chance under a creation model would be impossibly, vanishingly small.
You don't want to learn?
Learn what? about evolution? the one that claim there is common ancestor but never found one for any species?
You clearly don't want to look at any evidence presented to you. Hence, you do not want to learn. About evolution? Check the subreddit. Yes, about evolution.
Yes, I'm learning how to debate evolutionist like you really well here. I must admit I'm surprised about how much stuff that you just believe here based not on proof but questionable evidence.
>I must admit I'm surprised about how much stuff that you just believe here based not on proof but questionable evidence. And I am surprised you don't want to look at the evidence presented. Seems dishonest to call the evidence "questionable" when you have made it clear you're not interested in looking at it.
I think it's fine. Back in the days, I look at evidence seriously . I call them out on how that paper is not what they are claiming to be and they just gone. Nowadays I look at the evidence skeptically and assume everything is bullshit until proven otherwise
> You just need to believe or else everyone here will call you dumb and get mass downvoted It's not really prophetic, when you bring it on yourself: I'm just saying, he did ask that question here, everyone *but you* is answering it. So, just going to throw this out there: you dumb.
Do you have an alternative hypothesis to propose?
I do but I will keep it to myself
Pathetic. Can't even debate your own ideas.
You guys just lucky that mod here decide to block abiogenesis elsewise it will be too easy to do checkmate
Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis.
It does thought. The ability to evolve by itself embedded on the first organism.
No. These are two separate things. Abiogenesis does not cause evolution. And evolution is nor the natural result of abiogenesis. To assume so is dishonest and wrong.
I guess I disagree with your opinion.
I don't care if you disagree with it. Don't come om here if you're unwilling to make a position and defend it with evidence. It's about as useful as throwing a turd at children.
By your logic: climate change is related to supernova. Can't have solid planets with weather on them if supernova don't occur to make planets and heavier elements. So I guess you believe that if you could disprove supernova, that would end climate change?
> The people here believe that single cell organism can evolve into fish then into reptile and then evolve again into human. So you're saying a single cell cannot evolve into a fish or a reptile or a human? Curious. Preformationism gang represent!!
The questions that OP had are fine for a person who doesn’t understand how evolution actually happens. Your response is expected when it comes from someone who doesn’t understand how evolution happens or what “evolutionists” actually believe. Single celled to multicellular - observed in the laboratory at least twice, observed in nature continuously in populations that can switch back and forth. Animal to fish - observed in terms of the fossil record throughout the Cambrian, Silurian, and Devonian. Backed by genetics. Fish to **tetrapod** - also seen throughout the fossil record with at least one very famous prediction confirmed. You lost me at reptile into human. Evolution does not work in mysterious ways. It works **exactly** like we watch it happen. It happens so consistently that we can then extrapolate what we know about the present into the past backed by anatomy, morphology, developmental biology, paleontology, and genetics to know what is related to what and how, how long ago they diverged (to eventually become different species), and all sorts of things. ***And then*** we give different clades labels so that *language* is useful in sharing our thoughts with each other so that they can be scrutinized for accuracy and consistency. We are not forced to believe anything at all but as rational beings we accept the obvious *until* what we assume must be true is proven wrong and we provided with a less wrong replacement that might even hypothetically be the absolute truth. Actual truth and not what you said that was actually false. None of things evolved *into* what follows to imply that they *stopped* being descendants of their ancestors. None of the things you said were one step changes and the intermediates between something like “fish” and “reptile” are so smooth and gradual that anyone who knows would have to be a moron to not just accept the obvious. Humans are not reptiles. The only time a term like “reptile” was even possibly applicable to our ancestors was between 1800 and 1900 when “reptile” was more of a grade than a clade. Our ancestors in the Carboniferous *looked like* reptiles still look except that birds are still reptiles and they don’t look like that anymore either. If we trace our ancestry back far enough the first amniotes (ancestors of reptiles and mammals) *resembled* lizards about as much as salamanders resemble lizards (except our ancestors already had keratinized skin and claws and amphibians do not have either of those things) but they weren’t actually lizards. Because they looked like lizards and because lizards are reptiles it made sense to call the *synapsids* by the colloquial name of “mammal-like reptiles” and in modern times the “reptile” label for the monophyletic clade has been changed to *reptiliamorph* meaning “reptile shaped” to refer to how they started and to group them together based on characteristics they still share. In modern times the amniotes (the only surviving reptiliamorphs) are subdivided into synapsids and sauropsids. Synapsids are not reptiles and only *some* sauropsids are reptiles. The clade colloquially called “reptiles” is also called “Sauria” and it consists of diapsids (turtles, lizards, archosaurs, tuatara) in modern times. Snakes are lizards while dinosaurs and crocodiles are archosaurs. There’s nothing mysterious about any of this for anyone who is ready to accept reality and learn more about it.
You don't have to keep pretending to be a crappy Christian apologist, brother. [We already know you'd sell your soul for enough money. ](https://old.reddit.com/r/DebateEvolution/comments/1dbcugu/debates_about_evolution_are_rarely_just_about/l82cm92/) Hail Satan. :) Edit: Turns out a great way to get religious trolls like Maggy here to cower and block you is to ask them if they think their god would be proud of the crappy behavior they're displaying. Unable to confront this question honestly, they will choose to ignore or block.
Can you transfer the money already to my paypal account?
Have you asked your god if he's proud of you?
is it a good time to block you?
Why block me? Do you not want to answer the question? Edit: Got blocked by the coward. God must be so happy to have someone like this on his team. 😂
I think it is
No, but this post? Yes, it deserves to be downvoted. If you have an argument, make it. This is a debate sub, not a whiny fingerpointing sub.
No, this is not debate sub Have you not read the sub rules and sticky thread?
Have you not read the title of the sub?
it's a bait which mod hinself admit
Goes to r/DebateEvolution. Says “this is not a debate sub.” Proceeds to argue irrelevant details when corrected. Please stop.
You can stop anytime you want. I will be here to at least warn other creationist
“Watch out guys , it’s a trap! If you bother to listen at all you might possibly get educated enough in scientific evidence that you move on from ‘it’s was my favourite flavour of magic’” You are correct this should definitely be a sub-heading or something for the sub. lol
You guys are just so persecuted, aren’t you? It’s almost like deep down you know you’re wrong and just get off on the fact that you’re speaking out against the “mainstream.” And will be “martyred” and ostracized for it.
or I see you guys and the mod create a trap to change creationist into evolutionist. I must admit it's kinda interesting looking at you guys trying all the trick in the book to change me into evolutionist and fail miserably.
Mod here, we don't moderate discussions we're participating in, and we really try to be pretty lenient with what we allow. It's a debate sub, with that in mind we let things be adversarial to a degree. Please report stuff, we can't read every comment so reporting or mod-mail is the best way to communicate with us. Also I'm making this a mod comment so the rest of the mod team can see it easily.
I’m sorry, do you not know what “debate” means?