Can the history of life on earth be proven to be the result of any natural process?

[St.Roymond]

@RichardG

I am not including other scientific endeavours! Why can’t anyone see this?

Because you are claiming a difference that doesn’t exist. Over and over you criticize things about ToE, but those very things are operative – and essential – to many other sciences.

[Paraleptopecten (Timothy Campbell)]

@St.Roymond

the difference is that the pollsters work to get random sampling; the formation of fossils is not random.

Pollsters are (or hopefully are) working to get even sampling; fossil formation is random, but highly unevenly distributed.

[Paraleptopecten (Timothy Campbell)]

@RichardG

@Paraleptopecten

@RichardG

You are making wild assumptions based on similarities.

The computer doing the analyses is assuming that parsimony works

And who programmed the computer? God perhaps?

Hopefully, someone who knows how to get a computer to do math correctly, since phylogenetic trees are purely mathematical outputs.

@RichardG

@Paraleptopecten

have written a program

Now i understand. Too close to home.

That’s either projection or just wrong. All I mean is that I ought to know some of the underlying mathematics if I can use them to write an input file for an analysis.

@RichardG

I am not including other scientific endeavours! Why can’t anyone see this? Is it really that outrageous?

The reason no one can see it is that the reasoning being used to reject evolution or portions thereof would equally apply to other fields.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@St.Roymond

@RichardG

I am not including other scientific endeavours! Why can’t anyone see this?

Because you are claiming a difference that doesn’t exist.

IN YOUR OPINION!

I have tried to explain how I see the difference, but you cannot even understand it let alone try and accept it as possible.
It is worse than talking to a brick wall, at least then you get an echo.

I am not going to repeat it, just accept that is my view and move on instead of claiming I must see it your way.

I combine my Theology into all my understanding. I know that you do not.

For some unaccountable reason you seem to think that because Science cannot see God, it is free to make whatever claims it likes about reality.

Wrong.

You seem to think that there is only one diagnostic and understanding method (AKA the scientific method)

Wrong

You seem to think that there is no subjectivity in Science

Wrong

You seem to think that human learning is necessary

wrong

And you apply Ad hominem to your acceptance of anything

wrong

Richard

[T_aquaticus]

@RichardG

And you cannot se the ambiguity of this ridiculous comparison>

It’s not ambiguous. As an example:

#1 P. troglodytes (i.e. chimp)
#2 A. afarensis (i.e. Lucy’s species)
#3 H. sapiens (us)

It sure looks like 2 looks a lot more like 3 than 1. A. afarensis had a pelvis that was more human-like than any living non-human ape. A. afarensis also had other features that are much more ape-like than humans. A. afarensis had a mixture of ape-like and human-like features, exactly what the theory of evolution predicts should have existed in the last 5 million years (A. afarensis is found around 2.5 million years ago).

@RichardG

Been there, looked, rejected. Repetition of failed argument.

It is a shame you cannot see your own dogma and narrow minded view.

It’s rather telling that you can’t come up with a single reason to reject the 29 predictions I gave you, nor why they are dogma or narrow minded. All you do is put labels on stuff so you can ignore it.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@T_aquaticus

It’s rather telling that you can’t come up with a single reason to reject the 29 predictions I gave you, nor why they are dogma or narrow minded. All you do is put labels on stuff so you can ignore it.

I commented first time around but you rejected it. No point in repeating .

@T_aquaticus

As an example

So, visual comparison means what. Ever seen a face in clouds?

A pelvis has a function, There would be no difference between a designed one and the real one. You cannot prove otherwise. It is all assumption.

Richard

[T_aquaticus]

@RichardG

I commented first time around but you rejected it.

You accused me of listing too many.

You are now claiming that the theory of evolution makes no predictions. How can you say that when you have to complain about the number of predictions I am showing you?

@RichardG

So, visual comparison means what. Ever seen a face in clouds?

A pelvis has a function, There would be no difference between a designed one and the real one. You cannot prove otherwise. It is all assumption.

Again, the level of denial is pretty high amongst those who reject the theory of evolution. That’s quite telling.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@T_aquaticus

You are now claiming that the theory of evolution makes no predictions

No i did not.

I was just claiming that in terms of principles the predictions of ToE do compare to other scientific predictions.

@T_aquaticus

Again, the level of denial is pretty high amongst those who reject the theory of evolution. That’s quite telling.

Back at you.

You are swimming in the Nile as well, and not well.

Richard

[T_aquaticus]

@RichardG

No i did not.

I was just claiming that in terms of principles the predictions of ToE do compare to other scientific predictions.

This is what you claimed before:

“You can predict and prove, or deny. (That is scientific methodology)
There is not such predictions in ToE”

I just showed you 29 such predictions. You ignore them because they are inconvenient.

Here is one of those predictions:

All fossilized animals found should conform to the standard phylogenetic tree. If all organisms are united by descent from a common ancestor, then there is one single true historical phylogeny for all organisms. Similarly, there is one single true historical genealogy for any individual human. It directly follows that if there is a unique universal phylogeny, then all organisms, both past and present, fit in that phylogeny uniquely. Since the standard phylogenetic tree is the best approximation of the true historical phylogeny, we expect that all fossilized animals should conform to the standard phylogenetic tree within the error of our scientific methods.

Every node shared between two branches in a phylogeny or cladogram represents a predicted common ancestor; thus there are ~29 common ancestors predicted from the tree shown in Figure 1. Our standard tree shows that the bird grouping is most closely related to the reptilian grouping, with a node linking the two (A in Figure 1); thus we predict the possibility of finding fossil intermediates between birds and reptiles. The same reasoning applies to mammals and reptiles (B in Figure 1). However, we predict that we should never find fossil intermediates between birds and mammals.

It should be pointed out that there is no requirement for intermediate organisms to go extinct. In fact, all living organisms can be thought of as intermediate between adjacent taxa in a phylogenetic tree. For instance, modern reptiles are intermediate between amphibians and mammals, and reptiles are also intermediate between amphibians and birds. As far as macroevolutionary predictions of morphology are concerned, this point is trivial, as it is essentially just a restatement of the concept of a nested hierarchy.

However, a phylogenetic tree does make significant predictions about the morphology of intermediates which no longer exist or which have yet to be discovered. Each predicted common ancestor has a set of explicitly specified morphological characteristics, based on each of the most common derived characters of its descendants and based upon the transitions that must have occurred to transform one taxa into another (Cunningham et al. 1998; Futuyma 1998, pp. 107-108). From the knowledge of avian and reptilian morphology, it is possible to predict some of the characteristics that a reptile-bird intermediate should have, if found. Therefore, we expect the possibility of finding reptile-like fossils with feathers, bird-like fossils with teeth, or bird-like fossils with long reptilian tails. However, we do not expect transitional fossils between birds and mammals, like mammalian fossils with feathers or bird-like fossils with mammalian-style middle ear bones.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1

@RichardG

Back at you.

You are swimming in the Nile as well, and not well.

What am I denying?

[St.Roymond]

@RichardG

I have tried to explain how I see the difference, but you cannot even understand it let alone try and accept it as possible.

You see the difference because you introduce metaphysics into evolution but not elsewhere.
The fact remains that every claim you’ve made about ToE also applies to most other sciences – yet you have no problem with them.

@RichardG

I am not going to repeat it, just accept that is my view and move on instead of claiming I must see it your way.

I don’t care what way you see it, only that you recognize that you are being logically inconsistent.

@RichardG

I combine my Theology into all my understanding. I know that you do not.

Perhaps; and false. The appropriate theology is that fallen man has no way to detect God, and thus is left – by God! – to work with means that cannot bring Him into the equations. That is what science is: the attempts of fallen man to make sense of a universe fashioned by Someone they cannot detect.
I know; you reject the Fall.

@RichardG

You seem to think that there is only one diagnostic and understanding method (AKA the scientific method)

In science, yes – just as the rules of baking apply to baking, the rules of diving apply to diving, and the rules of laser printing to laser printers.

@RichardG

You seem to think that there is no subjectivity in Science

No, I just point out that the way in which science is done serves to exclude subjectivity.

@RichardG

You seem to think that human learning is necessary

Reading is “human learning”. For that matter, according to you, all of scripture is human learning. When it comes down to it, “human learning” is a term you throw about when you object to having to do some homework to understand something.

@RichardG

And you apply Ad hominem to your acceptance of anything

Haven’t yet. That you take objective statements as personal attacks is your problem, not mine.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@St.Roymond

@RichardG

I am not going to repeat it, just accept that is my view and move on instead of claiming I must see it your way.

I don’t care what way you see it, only that you recognize that you are being logically inconsistent.

Same difference. You are still claiming that i am wrong.

@St.Roymond

The appropriate theology is that fallen man has no way to detect God, and thus is left – by God! – to work with means that cannot bring Him into the equations. That is what science is:

So why do you defend it?

@St.Roymond

@RichardG

You seem to think that there is no subjectivity in Science

No, I just point out that the way in which science is done serves to exclude subjectivity.

Same difference, or amounts to the same thing

@St.Roymond

“human learning” is a term you throw about when you object to having to do some homework to understand something.

False

@St.Roymond

@RichardG

And you apply Ad hominem to your acceptance of anything

Haven’t yet.

Really? Tell me that you accept opinions of people you either do not know or have differences with And then tell me that you do not respect your many tutors because of their qualifications. And that applies to Paul as well.

Richard

[St.Roymond]

@RichardG

@St.Roymond

recognize that you are being logically inconsistent.

Same difference. You are still claiming that i am wrong.

When you are logically inconsistent, then yes – you are wrong.

@RichardG

So why do you defend it?

Because it is an investigation into the glory of God.

@RichardG

Tell me that you accept opinions of people you either do not know or have differences with

Opinions? I don’t worry about opinions, I’m interested in the logical, evidenced-supported arguments people make.

@RichardG

And then tell me that you do not respect your many tutors because of their qualifications.

Of course I respect people with qualifications – it’s only rational.

[Buzzard]

Atheists won’t admit it, but they have a desperate need to believe that evolution by natural means is true. Their whole world-view and psychological well-being depends on it.

[Buzzard]

@Buzzard

“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils”

Stephen Jay Gould

@Roy

So your use of Gould’s ‘quote’ was a case of dishonesty

Talking about dishonesty, Gould’s comment about the extreme rarity of transitional fossils being the “trade secret” of paleontology seems to imply that paleontologists have been hiding something and haven’t been completely honest with the public about what the fossil record reveals, presumably viz-a-viz evolution.

Then Gould points out that the evolutionary trees that are found in textbooks include “ghost branches” that aren’t based on the evidence of fossils. The “ghost branches” are added (and often not declared) to make the alleged evolutionary tree look more convincing, I would imagine. Is that honest?

[Buzzard]

@T_aquaticus

@Buzzard

The fossil record can’t be relied on to teach us that history. For all we know, fossils could reveal only a tiny fraction of the organisms that have existed, so the true history of life on earth could be very different to what the fossil record suggests.

Then you would have to explain why all of the fossils we have found match the predictions of the theory of evolution. If you have to invent data that doesn’t exist it appears to be a tacit admission that the data we do have supports the theory of evolution.

For all we know, the true history of life on earth could be very very different from what the fossil record suggests. It seems to me that without knowing the true history, the claim that the fossil record confirms predictions made by ToE seems rather impotent…

[Buzzard]

@T_aquaticus

We can observe all of these processes happening in the here and now (i.e. natural selection, random mutation, neutral drift, and speciation).

I was obviously not referring to “the here and now”. I was referring to genus-or-above-level transitions evident in the fossil record. No one has observed a genus-or-above-level evolutionary transition in real time, let alone observe the processes responsible, so I dare say the same applies to the fossil record.

@T_aquaticus

@Buzzard

There’s no way you can prove, for example, that the Cambrian biota evolved from the Edicaran biota via the natural processes you mention. Therefore you can’t claim that the processes are known.

Prove absolutely, 100%? No, we can’t.

That’s the understatement of the century. You can’t prove that the Cambrian biota evolved from the Ediacaran biota via any natural process, let alone claim to know what those processes were.

The evidence we do have, such as distribution within the geologic record and the nested hierarchy, are exactly what we would expect to see if the known mechanisms were responsible for past biodiversity.

How can the Cambrian and Ediacaran biota from a nested hierarchy? The morphological and functional gap between them is enormous. For starters. most of the Ediacaran were sessile, not motile like the Cambrian biota.
Furthermore, as I understand it, most of the Ediacaran biota became extinct before the Cambrian period, and just about all that existed were the so-called Small Shelly fauna.

We don’t need to know the blow-by-blow, mutation-by-mutation history of a lineage in order to evidence evolution. That’s just silly.

… except I didn’t ask for evidence for evolution.
You claim that you know that certain biological mechanisms were responsible for the evolutionary journey of mammals from fish, in which case you should be able to describe the steps involved. Evidently, you can’t, which may suggest that your claim is a tad suspect.

What we do know is that all vertebrates fall into a nested hierarchy, exactly what the theory of evolution would predict.

… except neither you nor anyone else knows the the nuts and bolts of how a mammal evolved from a fish, for example. How did a double-circulation heart (allegedly) evolve from a single-circulation heart? No one knows.
How did the limbs of a tetrapod (allegedly) evolve from the fins of a fish? No one knows.

The unanswerable questions are endless.

[Buzzard]

@RichardG

You claim ancestry but cannot prove any birth or death is related.

“No fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way… To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story - amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”
(Henry Gee, In Search of Deep Time)

“The intervals of time that separate the fossils are so huge that we cannot say anything definite about their possible connection through ancestry and descent.”
(Henry Gee)

[rsewell (RON SEWELL)]

Henry Gee in his book, In Search of Deep Time, advocates establishing evolutionary relationships in terms of cladistics, emphasizing phylogeny rather than direct descent. In part, the point of his book is that related fossils may represent cousin relationships rather than linear descent, which is true enough. He assuredly accepts evolution. He is also a theist, as he writes in Nature

I ‘believe’ in God, but also ‘subscribe’ to evolution. The first matter is purely personal — the latter quite properly a matter of science, in which one’s personal ‘belief’ is neither here nor there.
…
Religion, for all its ills and inequities, is one of the few things that makes us human: I am with the scientists of an earlier age, who found that their motivation in advancing the cause of knowledge was to magnify the name of the Creator.

[rsewell (RON SEWELL)]

@Buzzard

Gould’s comment about the extreme rarity of transitional fossils being the “trade secret” of paleontology seems to imply that paleontologists have been hiding something and haven’t been completely honest with the public about what the fossil record reveals, presumably viz-a-viz evolution.

The published data is, and always has been, publicly available. Nowadays, you can search the Paleobiology database yourself if you wish to get started.

[Buzzard]

@Roy

Something that’s completely absent from this thread is any alternative proposal.
Sure, we can’t prove Cambrian biota evolved from Ediacaran biota. But its the best available idea we have at present. Nothing else even comes close.

I accept that the theory of evolution is the best available scientific explanation for what produced the history of life on earth.

However, I certainly don’t accept ToE as the truth … I don’t even think it’s a very good theory, but an inadequate theory based on a simplistic, outdated, nineteenth-century idea.
Little wonder some evolutionary theorists have expressed doubts about its adequacy.

Criticising evolutionary processes as being unknown when we can watch them happening leads to an obvious counter-question

I never criticised evolutionary processes that are observable as being unknown.

What processes do you think occurred instead, and where can we see proof or the evidence for those, either historically or currently?

Sorry, but I have no intention of proposing what processes were responsible for producing the history of life on earth. That would be irrational and futile, for that history is unknown and unknowable.

It’s obvious that every criticism of evolution you have raised applies at least as much to your own preferred history, and you are being a massive hypocrite.

I’m wondering how you know what my “preferred history” is, when I don’t even have one. I’m happy to accept the history of life on earth largely as a mystery that can’t ever be solved.

The fossil record provides some snapshots of that history, but we have no way of knowing what the true history is. The fossil record (for what it’s worth) suggests that life began as (relatively) simple organisms and that over time, life-forms became more diverse and complex … a process one could describe as “evolution”.