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

[Buzzard]

@rsewell

The train runs both directions. We observe that reproduction introduces variation, that limited resources will differentiate successful traits, that neutral drift is mathematically described by population genetics, that populations can become isolated by geography, breeding, and survival strategies, and that once independent, distinctive traits will accumulate. Given that, evolution is inevitable and inescapable. They are as much predictors of evolution as mechanisms of evolution.

Yet no one knows how mammals allegedly evolved from fish, for example.

[St.Roymond]

@RichardG

I wonder what evolve means.

Let’s see, it’s only been explained to you maybe five dozen times.

[St.Roymond]

@Buzzard

Secondly, why does Gen 2:5 say “there was no man to till the ground” if humans already existed?

Thirdly, Gen 2:7 says “then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground”. It doesn’t say “a man”, as in one man - it says “man”, meaning mankind. So Gen 2:7 describes the creation of the first of mankind.

That’s probably the strongest argument for that point, but I’m not convinced. It is possible to render the first occurrence of a definite article as “a”, and some translations go with that; the later D.A. occurrences then refer back to the first.

This is one of those days when I think the first Garden story is mythologized history, and since its details just don’t match chapter 1 I consider it to be a very different event.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@St.Roymond

@RichardG

I wonder what evolve means.

Let’s see, it’s only been explained to you maybe five dozen times.

For someone who claims to understand written text in the way it was written you show a woefully lacking of mine.

perhaps I should have added in brackets “rhetorical” or “sarcastic”

And it appears that someone liked your poor understanding!
(It takes little imagination or guesswork to identify that other person)

But that is par for the course.

Richard

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@Mervin_Bitikofer

ot in one generation, no. Why is it so hard to accept that things can and do happen gradually?

Because they can’t always do it. There are no transitional steps possible. You either have a heat or you don’t. So we go back to the old arguments of irrriducibility. Obviously you do not think that exists.

@Mervin_Bitikofer

Asking for identification of one clear point of transition is like asking someone to identify the day and hour that a baby became a toddler.

False analogy.

We are talking about construction not maturation. There becomes a point when a fruit is over ripe. It is definable.

When you are building a car, it is useless until built. If you were building it piece by piece over even a year, that car is useless. In nature, it would die. Th car has to work every second of the time. (this is not foetal growth, because that is supported by the mother, or egg)

Fish cannot just grow legs, and half a leg is useless. Legs have joints. It is not a case of growing an extra stick or lump. If a fin turns into a leg then there will be a point when the fin no longer functions but the leg is not built. The creature dies.

Just claiming “we have thousands of years” is fallacy. It ignores basic biology and physics. In this case, details matter and you do not have them

It is such a simple concept and yet it seems beyond evolutionists.

Richard

[Roy]

@RichardG

When you are building a car, it is useless until built. If you were building it piece by piece over even a year, that car is useless.

Refutation.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@Roy

@RichardG

When you are building a car, it is useless until built. If you were building it piece by piece over even a year, that car is useless.

Refutation.

Now try an incomplete engine.
(or one without wheels, or s steering system.)

I suggest you think how to change a petrol car into a diesel car and have the vehicle able to function at all stages (Not only function but able to compete with others who are not changing), That is basically what you are claiming when changing a reptile into a mammal.

Richard

[Roy]

@RichardG

I suggest you think how to change a petrol car into a diesel car and have the vehicle able to function at all stages (Not only function but able to compete with others who are not changing),

1. Add a diesel engine
2. Start using the diesel engine
3. Stop using the petrol engine
4. Remove the petrol engine

[Roy]

@RichardG

@Roy

@RichardG

When you are building a car, it is useless until built. If you were building it piece by piece over even a year, that car is useless.

Refutation.

Now try an incomplete engine.

No point. You’ve just shown that you wouldn’t admit you were wrong if I do.

Added: Anyway, I’ve already done this. I know in practice, too, having once had a hire car which only had three spark plugs connected.

You moved the goal posts last time, you’ve moved the goalposts this time, you’d move the goalposts again.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@Roy

@RichardG

I suggest you think how to change a petrol car into a diesel car and have the vehicle able to function at all stages (Not only function but able to compete with others who are not changing),

1. Add a diesel engine
2. Start using the diesel engine
3. Stop using the petrol engine
4. Remove the petrol engine

Obviously not a mechanic.

Two things/

1. Building and fitting an engine is not a “small” step.

2. You can’t run a diesel engine with the electrical, and fuel systems of a petrol one, neither can you run two engines at once They would not fit for a start)

You are showing ignorance

Richard

Edit.

Besides there is no reason to build a second engine in nature. it cannot know that the second one will be beneficial, and it will be disadvamtageous while being built. It does not fit with Survival of the fittest. There is no advantage until or unless the new system is fully functional.

[Roy]

@RichardG

… neither can you run two engines at once They would not fit for a start.

Refutation #1.

Refutation #2.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@Roy

@RichardG

neither can you run two engines at once They would not fit for a start.

Refutation #1.

Refutation #2.

any more?

I need a rest from laughing.

Richard

[Roy]

@Roy

As I see it, you now have three options:
…

3. Disappear silently and hope that your ignorance and innumeracy will be forgotten, only to run the risk of being reminded of it if at any future time you post about biological population sizes or the fossil record.

Over to you.

Option 3 it was.

[Roy]

I’m replying from memory without looking anything up, and because we can never know the actual history in detail, some of the below may be wrong. But they are plausible events, which is all that is necessary.

@Buzzard

@Roy

That bit’s easy - if poison glands evolved from saliva glands, they’d already exit into the mouth after which connecting them to the (not-yet-hollow) fangs is just a gradual change to the glands’ exit location.

Please explain how “gradual” changes - in terms of natural selection and survival advantage - would construct an enclosed duct that conveys the secretions of a snake’s poison glands to its fangs?

If snake venom is modified saliva, no construction would be necessary. Snakes already had enclosed saliva ducts that transported saliva from the saliva glands to the mouth. The changes required would be (i) modification of saliva to venom, and (ii) relocation of the duct exit from it’s original location to the base of the fangs. The duct already existed.

This is a common theme in creationist/ID arguments against evolution. They insist that features would need to be constructed from scratch, when in reality almost all evolutionary changes consist of modifying existing features - possibly after duplication - rather than building new ones.

The effect is that their audience gets used to thinking in terms of building things from scratch, and doesn’t consider other options. Thus the most likely evolutionary routes are never imagined.

@Buzzard

And how did the gradually-constructed duct know which direction to head in to connect precisely with the fangs (which each conveniently featured a hole its base to receive the duct)?

It didn’t know. Variation in exit location would be effectively random with respect to the location of the fangs, but once the saliva became even mildly venomous, having it emerge nearer the fangs would be advantageous because it would increase the likelihood of venom being on the fangs when the snake bit its prey, so natural selection would favour snakes in which the duct exited nearer and nearer the fangs.

Nor did the hollow fangs necessarily exist at the time the duct changed exit location. They were probably a later adaptation once the duct exited at the base of the fangs, since while hollow fangs would be of no use without a venom duct beneath them, a venom duct next to a fang that wasn’t hollow would be useful.

I suspect (but haven’t checked) that since there are venomous and non-venomous snakes, there is actually a range of venom delivery systems in different snake species, with some having hollow fangs and some not, and some having the venom ducts directly below the fangs and some not.

@Buzzard

Furthermore, why would the whole procedure be necessary if the snakes are already surviving without venomous fangs?

It wouldn’t be necessary. Nothing evolves through necessity, because an animal that is lacking something necessary is a dead animal, and dead animals don’t have offspring.

It would be an advantage though. Snakes with mildly venomous saliva that sometimes gets into their prey’s bloodstream would be more likely to survive by poisoning prey that would escape from their non-venomous rivals. Even if all the venom did was weaken or slow down the escaping prey so that the snake got a second chance at it. This is how a lot of venomous snakes hunt. They don’t try to kill their prey immediately, they just try to inject venom and then track their victim until it collapses. But that behaviour would have evolved after the venom became sufficiently potent. Originally the venom would have been milder, and not directly connected to the fangs.

The potency of snake venom varies a lot across species, from causing mild irritation to being almost instantly fatal (dependent also on the size of the prey - what would be a mild irritant to us might kill a mouse). IIRC there are even animals (not snakes) who aren’t venomous, they just have really poor oral hygiene so being bitten by them frequently results in infected wounds. Once saliva becomes nasty enough to have an effect on the prey in addition to the effect of the bite itself, there is an advantage to having nastier and nastier venom, with more and more chance of injecting it, up to the point where it is nasty and injectable enough to be fatal to whatever size and type of prey the snakes hunt.

Also IIRC there aren’t any venomous constrictors. Venomous snakes don’t need to constrict their prey, since it’ll die anyway, and constrictors have no need for venom since their prey would be crushed first. So neither venom nor constriction would provide a benefit once the other existed, so wouldn’t be selected for.

Hope this makes sense.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@Roy

I’m replying from memory without looking anything up

And everytime i do that you knitpick or try to correct, and claim that i should have looked it up.

Richard

[Roy]

@RichardG

@Roy

I’m replying from memory without looking anything up

And everytime i do that you knitpick or try to correct, and claim that i should have looked it up.

Try saying that you’re doing it.

Also, try occasionally looking something up.

But neither will help unless you accept and act on criticism rather than refusing to ever admit being wrong.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@Roy

nless you accept and act on criticism rather than refusing to ever admit being wrong.

Look in a mirror

Richard

[rsewell (RON SEWELL)]

@RichardG

Fish cannot just grow legs, and half a leg is useless. Legs have joints.

Lobe finned fish have multiple bones, and multiple bone can be jointed.

Rudimentary limbs can be useful, especially where there is limited competition in that niche. Mudskippers are clearly fish, and definitely get about on land, and they make do with less than Tiktaalik would have had to work with.

@RichardG

It is such a simple concept and yet it seems beyond evolutionists.

Physician, heal thyself.

[Mervin_Bitikofer]

Richard - you’ve been part of a lot of needless tit-for-tat exchange here and other places as well which never seem to add anything to the conversation. For the sake of your own sanity as well as for the sake of others who compose long and substantive responses, it might be best if you take a hiatus from the forum here - say several days (or a week) at least. I can help you do that.

[Buzzard]

@RichardG

I suggest you think how to change a petrol car into a diesel car and have the vehicle able to function at all stages (Not only function but able to compete with others who are not changing), That is basically what you are claiming when changing a reptile into a mammal.

The same problem arises when it’s claimed that mammals descended from fish, which involves a double-circulation heart (mammal) evolving from a single-circulation heart (fish).
I liken that (alleged) transition to a two-engine evolving into a four-stroke engine … without the evolving engine ever stopping. It’s absurdly impossible.
It seems to me that the theory of evolution has serious weaknesses.