You acknowledge adaptions, it is literally exactly the same concept, just given a lot of time. It's really not difficult. And again, you can't write something off simply as it is an interpretation, as any historian, detective, hell anyone working with the past would tell you. And interpreting the fossil record merely reaffirms what is clear today (with minor evolution clear and observable) - it would be impossible to make any factual conclusion about the past by your logic.
English
-
Your assumptions, and faulty interpretations don't mean anything in the realm of empirical science. You can assume that one day a dog will turn into something else entirely, I will continue to believe they will always produce after their own kind, like they have been, and has been observably proven to do.
-
Yet what is now a dog was once a wolf, so somewhere along the line something changed, right?
-
Edited by Coker: 4/9/2015 2:55:08 AMStill a canine. Canines produce canines. They speciate after their kind, but they don't turn into something entirely new. It won't become a horse. Horses produce horse like animals, whether zebra, or mule, or donkey, but it'll never become a bird and start laying eggs. It's those drastic kinds of changes I find to be extremely retarded, idc how much time you throw in there.
-
Edited by Britton: 4/9/2015 3:22:28 AMRight. Things only get more varied based on what they originated from. Things don't evolve into things we already have, they evolve into new things. You're still showing you don't understand how evolution works. The thing your missing Is from original species the resulting species that branch out, while still related to that original, will eventually become so different from one another, that they can be considered different "kinds"
-
These changes are not sudden, they take place after literally millions of years. If you just changed one tiny feature of an animal, they'd be pretty much the same, right? Still roughly the same thing. Change 5, still not so different, 10 still completely recognisable. 10,000, now this thing is looking a little different, 100,000, now this is a new thing, 1,000,000, let's call it another species. Then how about 100,000,000. Slowly all of these small changes are building up so much that the original features of the animal are almost totally lost, and it would be recognised as a new species. But hell, what you're talking about? Microbe to horse? That's more like billions. Just consider there was once a time that canines did not exist in, and something adapted into what we would consider the first canine. You have to look at the bigger picture, this isn't a small scale thing at all, it happens in time scales that are truly difficult to comprehend.
-
You're just asserting things. I'm an empirical scientist, I don't care much for assumptions.
-
That isn't an assumption at all. It is a logical explanation of how small adaptions can possibly lead to large changes, something you appear to be incapable of understanding.
-
Edited by Coker: 4/9/2015 3:16:56 AMLogic is a philosophical concept. You're still making grandeur leaps in conclusions with no empirical evidence. Idc how logical you think it is, it's still entirely based on assumption, not undebatable facts. You are too intellectually dishonest to acknowledge that, which is sad.
-
Adaption in animals happens. Fact. There is vast discrepancy in animals across the fossil record, yet with noticeable links between them. Fact. These adaptions led to, and continue to cause, greater change over time. Explanation. It's really simple stuff.
-
Sorry, but that was more assumptions based on fact. There's a difference between your theoretical interpretation of data, and the data it's self. Learn to differentiate the two.
-
I literally differentiated them in my former post, it was crystal clear. And I'm struggling to understand how you can call it all an assumption when an assumption is a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof. If you haven't noticed, there is plenty of supporting evidence, or proof, for evolution.
-
Edited by Coker: 4/9/2015 3:32:13 AMYou can assume things, even if there's "evidence" that supports your assumption. If it's not empirically proven, it's mere assumption even if it's logically supported by facts. That doesn't make the assumption itself a fact. You say you differentiate it, then don't even differentiate it. Nice job.
-
I believe the word you're looking for is deduction. But let's give an example, a man is found with a knife in his chest, and on this knife are the fingerprints of another person. Now according to you, concluding the second man stabbed the first is a wild assumption, because it cannot be empirically proven, we are merely assuming with facts. But anyone with an iota of reason would instead realise that such a conclusion is in fact more than likely true and that therefore the second man, without doubt, should face prison. The man with the knife in the chest is the fossil record evidencing animals with noticeable similarities, the fingerprints on the knife belong to small scale adaption observable in the world today. The conclusion? Evolution, clear as day.
-
Edited by Coker: 4/9/2015 3:50:46 AMThe assumption in your example is not that the finger prints match, that's empirically true. But you're assuming he wasn't set up, that the finger prints were planted there. There's literally a thousand plausible scenarios you can get from the evidence, but you're arrogant, or rather naive enough to assume there's only one conclusion to the scene. You can never deduce for certainty what had actually occurred. You say, "look a bat has five fingers, a human has five fingers! Therefur we share the same ancestor! Derpity derp derp!" Or "a banana has half the dna as human, therfur we have same grandpa! Durpity durp dirp!" (no offense intended) These may seem like logical "deductions", but there's a thousand other possible deductions one can get from the facts. You pretend like it's black and white. You presume evolution is true, then look at the evidence to then support your preconcived beliefs, which is not how empirical science works. But you can believe with all your heart in those assumptions, or "deductions", all you want, I will stay open minded to other plausible deductions.
-
The whole point of the example has missed you apparently. The whole point is everything points to evolution, just as it points to the second man being the murderer. Sure, it isn't set in stone but nothing is, even causation itself can be pulled into question so that is a meaningless road to travel. All the evidence on the table points to evolution, like, blatantly. This is why almost the entire scientific and academic community consider it factual, because it makes so much bloody sense. I mean seriously, if you know better than them, go ahead and publish a paper, you will be world famous if you're right. But if course you aren't, you are simply unable to comprehend what are, in reality, very basic concepts. I'm sorry to be so blunt but at this point you seem to be the one who cannot understand evolution, not evolution being a "retarded" (to use your terminology) assumption. That's not to mention that your own replacement theory was so ridiculously flawed even you left it by the wayside at first challenge.
-
No, you only think all the evidence points to evolution because you're completely closed off to alternatives. Yes, there are alternatives, crazy... i know. There's plenty of geologists, archeologists, biologists, who have different deductions of the facts. Like I said, you can believe whole heartedly in your assumptions all you want, they're decent assumptions, but I will remain open minded to other plausible explanations and theories of the facts we have.
-
Your open mindedness instead appears as rejection of a clear conclusion - for whatever reason. If you can present me with anything more convincing I will happily read it and, if it has merit, consider it more deeply. But in all my years I haven't seen one come close, and every scientist I have spoken to, even the religious ones, thought evolution to be true.
-
Clear? Far from it.
-
Again, the clarity is well acknowledged by most, the issue seems to be with your vision.
-
The issue is your dogmatic bias on your preconceived beliefs. I will remain open-minded, you're free to be close-minded from other alternatives tho.
-
No other alternatives have been presented. Unless you count your own, but that was total garbage. If someone were to present a convincing argument I would listen, for some reason you mistake your illogical rejection of evolution as open mindedness, when it is simply folly. You call it a bias, but the pieces fit, even if you don't want them to.
-
Edited by Coker: 4/9/2015 4:25:43 AMYour dogmatic bias and close-mindedness is showing. It's amazing just how religiously assumptions can be held by self-proclaimed intellectuals.
-
You have presented only one alternative, and it was pulled apart rather simply. Otherwise all I am doing is defending something which, by all accounts, seems to be true yet you decide that instead of attacking the idea or presenting alternatives you will accuse the speaker of a dogma, for reasons unknown. Even for you, this is getting incredibly weak, it's basically a "no u" at this point, responding with the ol "you're close minded with that dogmatic bias of yours. Also, faith and empiricism, did I forget any of my buzzwords?" In fact, it appears you are the close minded one here, rejecting evolution despite the host of logic and evidence presented here, without supplying any alternative thought or other method at all (again discounting that mess from early on).
-
There's nothing factual about darwinian microbe to man evolution, sorry. You can believe in whatever religion you want, but I prefer to stick to what can be empirically proven, not assumption.
-
There's only so much I can explain it until the weakest link is not evolution, but you. Have you ever considered why it has become the mainstream in science? Why anyone who's worth anything considers it the truth? Why you, an uneducated layman (in terms of biology) presumes to know more than the majority people who have dedicated themselves to this science? Does it not seem like, instead of everyone else not getting it, the one who's missing the mark is you? Now, you'll probably throw in some "appeal to authority" response or whatever, but I just want you to consider why it might be that almost all the specialists think you're wrong, but you think you're right (and hell, it's less that you disagree with the intricacies and more that you simply cannot fathom how a lot of small changes result in a large one, which honestly isn't that complex an idea).