Denial of evolution III

[James R]

Jack_:

So, we need to use the theory to predict why early humans did not survive.

If TOE cannot do this, then TOE is worthless.

The TOE can do this. See my previous post where I explained it to you in one sentence.

Anyway, you have not explained why bacteria are still here if we gradually evolved from them.

This is the tired old creationist question: "If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes?"

We did not evolve from modern apes. We did not evolve from modern bacteria. We share a common ancestor with modern apes. We share a common ancestor with modern bacteria.

 

[spidergoat]

We?

Is this how you function?

Anyway, you have not explained why bacteria are still here if we gradually evolved from them.

Let me know.

We, as in the scientifically literate.

The answer is branching. If a population is isolated, geographically or otherwise, it will gradually diverge from it's ancestral population. Often, they will evolve in a way where they do not even compete with the original population. Then, they can occupy the same environment, filling different niches, and there is no chance of them coming back together (although that can happen too if the split population is not too genetically distant, as with horses and donkeys). It's not like an entire population whether interbreeding or not, will all evolve together! The only reason a species is identifiable as a group is because they form a gene pool. This is a population that is constantly swapping genetic material.

This is why species on islands often look so different from their ancestral population. I believe the term for this is speciation.

 

[Pandaemoni]

So what.

So large and complex human brains qare not always a survival advantage, since they cost so much to operate in terms of daily Caloric intake, in addition to the high protein levels needed to support them.

As for your "why are there still monkeys if we evolved from monkeys" question, the reason is simple: We did not evolve from modern monkeys. Modern monkeies and humans evolved from common ancestors. Those ancestral primates were many in number, and likely lived in different areas of Africa. A group in one area (group A) faces selection pressures that made then evolve. The traits evolved by group A may have been, but need not have been humanlike. A group in a different area (group B) faces different selection pressures that made then evolve. The traits evolved by group B may have been, but need not have been monkeylike, but they were different than the traits evolved by group A.

As time continued more traits evolved, different in both group A and group B. Eventually humanlike traits started to emerge in group A and monkeylike traits in group B. The process is more complicated in that group B klater fractured into many groups (B-1, B-2, etc), and each of those subgroups began to evolve differently either because they faced different selection pressures of different beneficial mutations occurred in different subgroups. Because the subgroups were geographically isolated, the new trait was spread only though the subgroup that spawned it, rather than all of group B. In that way we came to have many different species of monkey.

It is "possible" that our old common ancestor with monkeys could have survived, if it was in a group (group C) geographically isolated from A and B), and it's environment/ecosystem remained very stable over the long term. That did not happen in the case of the human/monkey ancestor, but it was a possibility.

 

[Jack_]

Jack_:



The TOE can do this. See my previous post where I explained it to you in one sentence.



This is the tired old creationist question: "If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes?"

We did not evolve from modern apes. We did not evolve from modern bacteria. We share a common ancestor with modern apes. We share a common ancestor with modern bacteria.

I am not a creationist.

Here is your comment

The reason is that homo sapiens outcompeted our ancestor species for the available resources, as well as in terms of surviving hardship (especially during the last ice age).


This should be true then of all prior species and branches.

You assert a branch then dies off to the end node but that a second prior branch continues to is last node.

Now, this implies nodes do not compete.

This argument does not work.

 

[Jack_]

We, as in the scientifically literate.

The answer is branching. If a population is isolated, geographically or otherwise, it will gradually diverge from it's ancestral population. Often, they will evolve in a way where they do not even compete with the original population. Then, they can occupy the same environment, filling different niches, and there is no chance of them coming back together (although that can happen too if the split population is not too genetically distant, as with horses and donkeys). It's not like an entire population whether interbreeding or not, will all evolve together! The only reason a species is identifiable as a group is because they form a gene pool. This is a population that is constantly swapping genetic material.

This is why species on islands often look so different from their ancestral population. I believe the term for this is speciation.

OK, humans and Neanderthals were branches, yet they competed for resources.

So, this does not work.

You do not have a recursive method to expalin the survival of species according to TOE.

One argues, well the node is a gradual product of TOE.

Yet, branches also exist in all species if TOE is correct.

So, branches exist and die off and branches exist and survive or we would not have the diversity of life on this planet.

If a branch and it nodes are superior to other branches, then by TOE, they are the fittest and should all still be around.

 

[James R]

Jack_:

I am not a creationist.

What are you?

The reason is that homo sapiens outcompeted our ancestor species for the available resources, as well as in terms of surviving hardship (especially during the last ice age).

This should be true then of all prior species and branches.

You assert a branch then dies off to the end node but that a second prior branch continues to is last node.

Now, this implies nodes do not compete.

Did you see the word "outcompeted" there? That implies that different species can be in competition (and were in the case of some of the hominid species).

I said nothing about branches or nodes or dying off. I have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Jack_]

So large and complex human brains qare not always a survival advantage, since they cost so much to operate in terms of daily Caloric intake, in addition to the high protein levels needed to support them.

As for your "why are there still monkeys if we evolved from monkeys" question, the reason is simple: We did not evolve from modern monkeys. Modern monkeies and humans evolved from common ancestors. Those ancestral primates were many in number, and likely lived in different areas of Africa. A group in one area (group A) faces selection pressures that made then evolve. The traits evolved by group A may have been, but need not have been humanlike. A group in a different area (group B) faces different selection pressures that made then evolve. The traits evolved by group B may have been, but need not have been monkeylike, but they were different than the traits evolved by group A.

As time continued more traits evolved, different in both group A and group B. Eventually humanlike traits started to emerge in group A and monkeylike traits in group B. The process is more complicated in that group B klater fractured into many groups (B-1, B-2, etc), and each of those subgroups began to evolve differently either because they faced different selection pressures of different beneficial mutations occurred in different subgroups. Because the subgroups were geographically isolated, the new trait was spread only though the subgroup that spawned it, rather than all of group B. In that way we came to have many different species of monkey.

It is "possible" that our old common ancestor with monkeys could have survived, if it was in a group (group C) geographically isolated from A and B), and it's environment/ecosystem remained very stable over the long term. That did not happen in the case of the human/monkey ancestor, but it was a possibility.

Yes, modern monkeys were branches or perhaps branches that did not evolve much.

Do you have any scientific evidence as to which is which?

I am concerned since it is the case that Neanderthals were a branch and they are not around today.

So, the branch logic is insufficient to explain survival.

Yes, you may create all kinds of of events that support TOE through human imagination such that one branch is around and another is not.

But, how is a theory scientific if it requires human imagination all the time to explain its conclusions?

 

[James R]

OK, humans and Neanderthals were branches, yet they competed for resources.

Modern humans and neanderthals share a common ancestor, if that's what you mean. And yes, they probably did compete.

You do not have a recursive method to expalin the survival of species according to TOE.

What's a recursive method?

One argues, well the node is a gradual product of TOE.

What's a node?

Yet, branches also exist in all species if TOE is correct.

You mean that species split into multiple new species? Yes, they do.

So, branches exist and die off and branches exist and survive or we would not have the diversity of life on this planet.

You mean some species survive and others go extinct? Yes, they do.

If a branch and it nodes are superior to other branches, then by TOE, they are the fittest and should all still be around.

You mean if one species is "superior" to another, it should outlast the other species?

Not necessarily. It depends on the environments of each species, whether they directly compete with one another, and many contingencies.

And I'm still not clear what you think it means for one species to be "superior" to another.

 

[Jack_]

Jack_:



What are you?



Did you see the word "outcompeted" there? That implies that different species can be in competition (and were in the case of some of the hominid species).

I said nothing about branches or nodes or dying off. I have no idea what you're talking about.

James R, you are assuming from a logical point of view the truth of TOE and then proving it form your outcompeted logic.

The theory should simply supply evidence such that very little debate is required.

For example, we can show branches that died off and those that did not.

We can claim the idea of outcompeted, but we would need evidence to support this conclusion over a long period of time.

Sure, it nothing is eating you, your survive.

If you do not contract deadly viruses, you survive.

If your food supply dries up, then you will die off.

You know the story. These things all make sense.

But, that is not sufficient.

Humans through whatever means invent better methods for survival that were not there prior.

This is not explained by TOE.

 

[Jack_]

Modern humans and neanderthals share a common ancestor, if that's what you mean. And yes, they probably did compete.

This has not been proven.

What's a recursive method?

You have a starting point.
Then for any point in time, you can decide the next event.

What's a node?

A current end of a branch. All life alive today would be a node on their particular branch.

You mean if one species is "superior" to another, it should outlast the other species?

Not necessarily. It depends on the environments of each species, whether they directly compete with one another, and many contingencies.

And I'm still not clear what you think it means for one species to be "superior" to another.

The above is exactly what I mean. Human intervention is required in the theory to make it true.

Further, the theory does not explain creativity and the alterations that occur therefrom.

 

[James R]

Jack_:

James R, you are assuming from a logical point of view the truth of TOE and then proving it form your outcompeted logic.

I'm assuming the truth of the TOE from all the evidence that supports it. I don't see you providing anything to refute any of that evidence.

I also didn't realise we were having a logic war here. Please explain to me how such a game works.

The theory should simply supply evidence such that very little debate is required.

For example, we can show branches that died off and those that did not.

When you look at human evolution, we find many ancient hominids that became extinct. Today, we see a number of apes and human beings that are not extinct.

What's your problem with this?

We can claim the idea of outcompeted, but we would need evidence to support this conclusion over a long period of time.

There's plenty of evidence. For example, there are large collections of artifacts from neanderthals and early humans showing their living conditions in different parts of the world.

Humans through whatever means invent better methods for survival that were not there prior.

This is not explained by TOE.

Human inventiveness is a by-product of our large brains, which have evolved in strict accordance with the TOE. There's no problem here.

Modern humans and neanderthals share a common ancestor, if that's what you mean. And yes, they probably did compete.

This has not been proven.

I'm not sure about that. The evidence that I've seen suggests that it is probable. You got anything different?

What's a recursive method?

You have a starting point.
Then for any point in time, you can decide the next event.

That's not the meaning of "recursive" that I've seen elsewhere. So, by "recursive method", you mean simply a theory that makes predictions, do you?

What's a node?

A current end of a branch. All life alive today would be a node on their particular branch.

That's not the meaning of "node" that I've seen elsewhere. So, by "node" you just mean "any animal alive today", do you?

The above is exactly what I mean. Human intervention is required in the theory to make it true.

I don't know what you mean. Please explain.

Further, the theory does not explain creativity and the alterations that occur therefrom.

Creativity goes with a large brain, it seems. Large brains have evolved. Do you dispute this?

 

[Jack_]

Jack_:



I'm assuming the truth of the TOE from all the evidence that supports it. I don't see you providing anything to refute any of that evidence.

I also didn't realise we were having a logic war here. Please explain to me how such a game works.



When you look at human evolution, we find many ancient hominids that became extinct. Today, we see a number of apes and human beings that are not extinct.

What's your problem with this?



There's plenty of evidence. For example, there are large collections of artifacts from neanderthals and early humans showing their living conditions in different parts of the world.



Human inventiveness is a by-product of our large brains, which have evolved in strict accordance with the TOE. There's no problem here.



I'm not sure about that. The evidence that I've seen suggests that it is probable. You got anything different?



That's not the meaning of "recursive" that I've seen elsewhere. So, by "recursive method", you mean simply a theory that makes predictions, do you?



That's not the meaning of "node" that I've seen elsewhere. So, by "node" you just mean "any animal alive today", do you?



I don't know what you mean. Please explain.



Creativity goes with a large brain, it seems. Large brains have evolved. Do you dispute this?

Creativity goes with a large brain, it seems. Large brains have evolved. Do you dispute this

Show me how creativity is caused by a large brain under TOE.

Birds use sticks to poke for bugs in trees, yet they have a bird brain.

Somehow TOE would need to explain this.

So, how does TOE explain the fact that creativity evades the environmental conditions that TOE requires to be true.

If TOE assert that creativity is a result of TOE, then creativity exceeds TOE forcing TOE to be false.

If TOE assert that creativity is false, then TOE contradicts nature.

Take your pick.

 

[Pandaemoni]

So, the branch logic is insufficient to explain survival.

Not all branches survive. Humans and neanderthals split long ago, likely in initially isolated populations (that later came back together when moidern humans started migrating into areas populated by neaderthals). It is likely that neatherthals died out as a species because of climate change that they could not adapt to quickly enough and/or competition from modern humans.

Yes, you may create all kinds of of events that support TOE through human imagination such that one branch is around and another is not.

That is true, and not every conjecture arising from the TOE is treated as if it were fact, but:

(1) The TOE has lots of supporting evidence, from genetic similarities and differences that match what oen would expect if it were true, to copious numbers of transition fossils that show the progression from ancient species to modern ones, with changes quote often coinciding with known changes in environment.

(2) Conjecture based on that TOE framework is used to guide research. Scintists understand that a given hypothesis is not "established", but one can predict from such an hypothesis, for example, the location and expected features of transition fossils. If such transition fossils were then found, that would be evidence in favor of that conjecture. As more and more evidence was collected, the TOE moved out of the realm of speculation and into the realm of scientific fact.

But, how is a theory scientific if it requires human imagination all the time to explain its conclusions?

Human imagination plays a role in formulating hypotheses, that must then be supported by evidence. In the case of the TOE, there are many as yet unsupported conjectures, but there are also many with ample support. It is a fundamental error to pick at the loose ends of the theory and to think that because they are not yet supported that the underlying theory is also unsupported. It would be like saying that because gravity waves have not yet been detected, the whole Theory of Relativity is incorrect.

 

[spidergoat]

Jack, I would try to explain it to you, but your sentences don't even make sense.

The data suggested the ToE, and all further data continue to support it. This isn't making up our minds first and making the data fit.

I tentatively deduce that you are working from an understanding of ToE as the simplified popular notion of "survival of the fittest", and you wonder why would the product of billions of years of evolution, such as Neanderthals, die out at all? ...and if such a fit species died out, then that disproves ToE?

Let's work through this in stages, is this your point of view?

 

[Jack_]

Jack, I would try to explain it to you, but your sentences don't even make sense.

The data suggested the ToE, and all further data continue to support it. This isn't making up our minds first and making the data fit.

I tentatively deduce that you are working from an understanding of ToE as the simplified popular notion of "survival of the fittest", and you wonder why would the product of billions of years of evolution, such as Neanderthals, die out at all? ...and if such a fit species died out, then that disproves ToE?

Let's work through this in stages, is this your point of view?

Let's work through this in stages, is this your point of view?

Sure, let's start with stage one, creativity. It seems you have all this under control and explained.

This way, I cannot use creativity to refute your answers. That is TOE. It is all about the environment. Let's see how it goes since you offered.

 

[spidergoat]

Do you mean abiogenesis (the first life form)? Because the ToE does not address that issue.

 

[James R]

Jack_:

You didn't answer my question (again). You say you're not a creationist, but I take it you don't believe in evolution either. So what exactly is your position? Aliens did it? Or what?

Creativity goes with a large brain, it seems. Large brains have evolved. Do you dispute this

Show me how creativity is caused by a large brain under TOE.

Ok. Let's start at the beginning. Do you accept that larger brains have evolved over time? Yes or no?

Birds use sticks to poke for bugs in trees, yet they have a bird brain.

Their bird brain enables them to survive well in their environmental niche, it seems.

So, how does TOE explain the fact that creativity evades the environmental conditions that TOE requires to be true.

Which conditions does it evade, specifically?

If TOE assert that creativity is a result of TOE, then creativity exceeds TOE forcing TOE to be false.

I don't understand what you're saying. Please explain.

If TOE assert that creativity is false, then TOE contradicts nature.

No worries. There's no conflict between TOE and creativity.

 

[Repo Man]

Is it time to ban Oilismastery again?

 

[spidergoat]

Is it time to ban Oilismastery again?

Oh shit, are you kidding me? Gods damn it.

 

[James R]

Is it time to ban Oilismastery again?

Jack_ isn't OilIsStupidity, I don't think.