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

[T_aquaticus (The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)]

@RichardG

I said answer my question please.

I did. The physical differences between humans and chimps is due to the mutations that have accumulated in each lineage since we shared common ancestry.

Whether bipedality is an advantage or not is a much larger question. No difference between species is automatically assumed to be advantageous. As to bipedality, it does appear to be quite advantageous for modern humans who live in a savanna-like environment. The pelvis and lower girdle that we have is very good for moving about land, and pretty efficient at jogging pace. For an ape species moving from an arboreal environment into a savanna environment, it is easy to see why a human-like pelvic girdle would be advantageous. Comparatively, chimps walk around on their two leggs like bow-legged cowboys. They aren’t good walkers or joggers, but their pelvic girdle is well suited for living amongst trees.

[T_aquaticus (The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)]

@Buzzard

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).

Mammals didn’t evolve from fish. We evolved from reptile-like amniotes. Modern reptiles already have adaptations for separating the the oxygen rich and oxygen poor blood in the form of a three chambered heart with a restriction between the ventricles that prevents complete mixing. Amphibians don’t need a separation between the ventricles because they get about 30% of their oxygen by absorption across their wet skin, much like fish extract oxygen across gills. Some amphibians have no lungs at all and depend entirely on their skin for respiration.

You can also read here on the current research on the molecular basis of heart evolution:

To better understand reptile heart evolution, Dr. Bruneau’s team used modern molecular genetics to examine Tbx5. Mutations in the human gene that encodes Tbx5 result in congenital heart disease and, in particular, defects in the ventricular septum, the muscular wall that separates the ventricle into two sections. Tbx5 is a transcription factor, a protein that turns other genes on or off. In humans and other mammals, Tbx5 levels are high in the left ventricle and low in the right. The boundary of high and low levels is right where the septum forms to divide the ventricle into two parts. “Based on these observations,” said Dr. Bruneau, “we thought Tbx5 was a good candidate as a key player in the evolution of septation.”
. . .

They then wanted to determine whether Tbx5 was really a main regulator of septation or merely a bystander. Mice were genetically engineered to express Tbx5 at a moderate level throughout the developing heart, just like in turtle hearts. By mimicking the turtle pattern, mouse hearts now resembled turtle hearts. The offspring from these mice died young and had only a single ventricle. This striking result conclusively showed that a sharp line delineating an area of high level of Tbx5 is critical to induce formation of a septum between the two ventricles.
First genetic link between reptile and human heart evolution

Also, the tissues that make up the atria of the heart can be traced to tissues found in lungfish:

The complete division of the atrial cavity by a septum, resulting in a left and right atrium, is found in many amphibians and all amniotes (reptiles, birds, and mammals). Surprisingly, it is only in eutherian, or placental, mammals that full atrial septation necessitates addition from a second septum. The high incidence of incomplete closure of the atrial septum in human, so-called probe patency, suggests this manner of closure is inefficient. We review the evolution and development of the atrial septum to understand the peculiar means of forming the atrial septum in eutherian mammals. The most primitive atrial septum is found in lungfishes and comprises a myocardial component with a mesenchymal cap on its leading edge, reminiscent to the primary atrial septum of embryonic mammals before closure of the primary foramen. In reptiles, birds, and mammals, the primary foramen is closed by the mesenchymal tissues of the atrioventricular cushions, the dorsal mesenchymal protrusion, and the mesenchymal cap. These tissues are also found in lungfishes. The closure of the primary foramen is preceded by the development of secondary perforations in the septal myocardium. In all amniotes, with the exception of eutherian mammals, the secondary perforations do not coalesce to a secondary foramen. Instead, the secondary perforations persist and are sealed by myocardial and endocardial growth after birth or hatching. We suggest that the error-prone secondary foramen allows large volumes of oxygen-rich blood to reach the cardiac left side, needed to sustain the growth of the extraordinary large offspring that characterizes eutherian mammals.
https://anatomypubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ar.23914

[Buzzard]

Evolution science readily offers stories about what allegedly occurred, but when it comes to explaining the nuts and bolts of how those things came to be, ToE generally has nothing to say … mainly bcoz no one knows, and no one will ever know.

And what would be the point of an “explanation” anyway, if no one knows if there’s any truth to it?

[Buzzard]

Stories abound, but nothing can be proven … which is where I lose interest.

[rsewell (All Truth is God's Truth)]

@Buzzard

Evolution science readily offers stories about what allegedly occurred, but when it comes to explaining the nuts and bolts of how those things came to be, ToE generally has nothing to say

The “story” as you put it, is the nuts and bolts of how those things came to be.

@Buzzard

Stories abound, but nothing can be proven … which is where I lose interest.

If you have no interest in the response, why pose the question? You brush off a high level explanation as insufficient, and could not be bothered working through a detailed explanation. If you are not interested, the drive by comments to begin with?

[Roy (Roy (Listener twice correct))]

@Buzzard

Stories abound, but nothing can be proven … which is where I lose interest.

Nothing can be proven about almost anything. At least there is physical evidence for evolution.

But you weren’t asking for proof, you were asking how snake fangs (or four-chambered hearts) could have evolved. If you didn’t want the answer, why ask?

Unless it was a rhetorical trick and you didn’t think there was an answer because you’d been told it was impossible.

[Roy (Roy (Listener twice correct))]

@Buzzard

And what would be the point of an “explanation” anyway, if no one knows if there’s any truth to it?

Because once we have a possible explanation we can look at evidence and see whether or not there may be some truth to it.

[T_aquaticus (The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)]

@Buzzard

Evolution science readily offers stories about what allegedly occurred, but when it comes to explaining the nuts and bolts of how those things came to be, ToE generally has nothing to say … mainly bcoz no one knows, and no one will ever know.

I included a lot of nuts and bolts, such as the molecular basis for ventricular septation in mammals. Perhaps you could comment on them?

Also, you seemed to claim that there had to be an immediate jump from a two chambered heart to a four chambered heart. What about the 3 chambered heart in amphibians and the 3.5 chambered heart in reptiles?

[T_aquaticus (The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)]

@Roy

Unless it was a rhetorical trick and you didn’t think there was an answer because you’d been told it was impossible.

Reminds me of a quote from Darwin.

“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.”–Charles Darwin, “Descent of Man”

[Buzzard]

@Roy

@Buzzard

And what would be the point of an “explanation” anyway, if no one knows if there’s any truth to it?

Because once we have a possible explanation we can look at evidence and see whether or not there may be some truth to it.

“truth”? To arrive at truth requires proving that an explanation is factual, which, viz-a-viz the history of life on earth, is impossible.

Therefore “once we have a possible explanation we can look at evidence” will produce nothing more than yet more pointless story-telling.
That’s OK as cafeteria chat, I suppose, but such tales don’t advance scientific knowledge one little bit.

[T_aquaticus (The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)]

@Buzzard

“truth”? To arrive at truth requires proving that an explanation is factual, which, viz-a-viz the history of life on earth, is impossible.

Therefore “once we have a possible explanation we can look at evidence” will produce nothing more than yet more pointless story-telling.

So you won’t accept anything short of time travel? If so, why ask for evidence to begin with?

[Buzzard]

@T_aquaticus

So you won’t accept anything short of time travel? If so, why ask for evidence to begin with?

Did I ask for “evidence”?

I’m not interested in evidence - science can’t so much as demonstrate that the history of life on earth is the result of a natural process, which means, viz-a-viz that history, ToE and any evidence for it are rendered meaningless.

[T_aquaticus (The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)]

@Buzzard

I’m not interested in evidence - science can’t so much as demonstrate that the history of life on earth is the result of a natural process, which means, viz-a-viz that history, ToE and any evidence for it are rendered meaningless.

So no matter what we observe, you will not change your mind, correct?

[rsewell (All Truth is God's Truth)]

@Buzzard

I’m not interested in evidence - science can’t so much as demonstrate that the history of life on earth is the result of a natural process

Then your declarations such as four chambered hearts and hollow fangs could not have naturally evolved are pointless.

[St.Roymond]

@RichardG

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.

No, we’re back to you thinking that because you can’t imagine it then it isn’t possible. That there are charts showing how the heart developed from something more primitive is enough to show that not only are transitional steps possible but that they actually happened.

@RichardG

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

Only by imposing arbitrary definitions.

@RichardG

When you are building a car, it is useless until built.

This argument assumes that evolution is like building something according to a pre-defined plan. That shows a total failure to understand the science.
As does your “leg v fin” dichotomy – it ignores the fact that there are animals that have fins that they use like legs in some circumstances.

@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

It’s been done.

@RichardG

neither can you run two engines at once

Artificial constraint.

[St.Roymond]

@Roy

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.

This is exactly what Richard keeps doing!

@T_aquaticus

Reminds me of a quote from Darwin.

“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.”–Charles Darwin, “Descent of Man”

This brought to mind a friend who claims to have an IQ of 142 or higher, yet can’t grasp why a store would charge higher prices if its shippers had to pay employees more. It strikes me as similar to the failure to grasp evolution – the inability to make the connections between intermediate steps.

@Buzzard

Therefore “once we have a possible explanation we can look at evidence” will produce nothing more than yet more pointless story-telling.

Hardly.

A few years ago I lost my phone. Our first hypothesis was that I’d misplaced it in the house. The experiment to verify this was to call it from another phone while we listened all over the house. The experiment failed, meaning that the story “You misplaced it in the house” was wrong. The second hypothesis was that it fell out of my pocket while driving; the experiment was the same, except listening in the truck.
Looking at the evidence narrows the possibilities by ruling some things out or by showing that some things are correct. But you’ll never find anything that’s correct unless you tell a story about how things happened and then test that story.
In the end we found my phone out on the dike road that leads to where I do conservation work. We didn’t plan to find it by hearing it, though; we knew that the wind out there would make that nearly impossible, so instead we waited until after dark. The story this time was that since the screen lit up when the phone rang, we would see that light in the darkness. That turned out to be true, but it also turned out that it was hearing it that got us looking in the right direction.

@Buzzard

That’s OK as cafeteria chat, I suppose, but such tales don’t advance scientific knowledge one little bit.

But that’s how science works: you make up a story to explain something, pick something in the story that could be shown to be either true or false, and use that to check the story. Obviously, every time something in the story turns out to be untrue then you change the story, and every time you find something that is true you mark it so any new story has to include it.
One beautiful thing about evolution is that God has provided us with stories that are so long and complex that there are lots of things to check as true or untrue, which means lots of imagining what He is actually up to.

[St.Roymond]

@Buzzard

I’m not interested in evidence - science can’t so much as demonstrate that the history of life on earth is the result of a natural process

You have yet to give a good rational reason for scientists to think otherwise.

[Mervin_Bitikofer]

@Buzzard

I’m not interested in evidence…

Then you’re not interested in science!

[Roy (Roy (Listener twice correct))]

@Buzzard

I’m not interested in evidence - science can’t so much as demonstrate that the history of life on earth is the result of a natural process, which means, viz-a-viz that history, ToE and any evidence for it are rendered meaningless.

Hmmm…

Religion can’t so much as demonstrate that the history of life on earth is the result of a supernatural process, which means, viz-a-viz that history, creationism/intelligent design and any evidence for it are rendered meaningless.

Is that right?

[T_aquaticus (The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)]

@Roy

Hmmm…

Religion can’t so much as demonstrate that the history of life on earth is the result of a supernatural process, which means, viz-a-viz that history, creationism/intelligent design and any evidence for it are rendered meaningless.

Is that right?

It’s not just history, either. We can’t prove 100% that the events happening right in front of us have natural causes. If the demand is 100% absolute proof then one has to reject all of science.