Evidence for Evolution

[OldSchool2]

 

 

 

 

ETA: Oh, and just as a reminder to keep everyone on track, evolution is the change in allele frequency in a population over time ...

 

How convenient that you are redefining Darwinian evolution because you can't prove Darwinian evolution, thereby loading the dice of this discussion before it even begins.

 

Besides the fact that evolution has evolved, pun intended, far past Darwin (read up on the modern synthesis), the accepted scientific definition of evolution since the days of Darwin has been change in allele frequencies in a population ...

 

 

My 2006 Merriam-Webster states otherwise.

 

Evolution: "a theory that the various kinds of plants and animals are decended from other kinds that lived in earlier times and that the differences are due to inherited changes that occured over many generations".

 

To say that evolution is simply a change in allele frequencies is to redefine the concept so as to prove it to your own satisfaction; not only do I find this self-serving, IMO, it's also intellectualy dishonest.

 

Merriam-Webster isn't a scientific dictionary. Go to scientists if you wish to know about and argue against science. Everything else will inevitably be a strawman.

 

 

Did you think that Merriam-Webster "created" its own definition of evolution without even consulting with scientists?

 

Or are all the definitions from "non-scientific" dictionaries invalid for your purposes here?

[alphaparticle]

 

 

 

 

 

There are apes and there are humans, everything in between the 2 no longer exists. Why?

 

 

If the apes were able to survive, why are there no examples of these other transitional forms still walking around? The ones that branched off from the apes. Evolution is a slow gradual process of change, which means these transitional forms had to be in existence for millions of years. If the apes survived, why not their evolutionary offspring? Why were humans and apes the only species that escaped extinction?

I can't answer that question because humans are by taxonomic definition apes. Are you asking why there are no, say, Neanderthals or more ancient humans still around? If so, it's because they went extinct like more than 99% of all species that have ever existed have. And they went extinct because they could not adapt to their environment enough to reproduce more of their species than were dying generally speaking. If I haven't addressed any of your questions, it is because I am not sure how to parse them. If you feel I have not addressed one or more of them, please try to rephrase and I will try to answer them next time.

How is it the common ape has survived, and a human being has survived, but something in between could not adapt?  That makes no logical sense to me.

What about it doesn't make sense? I don't know how to answer that question because I see no connection between a species being between two existing species and its survival or extinction. Why are more than 99% of all species that have ever existed extinct? I'm not sure what you are expecting.

 

 

Since the ape survived, and the human beings survived, you would think some of the in between beings would have survived.  Why wouldn't they have been able to adapt?  They would be smarter than the ape.  BTW, how do you know that more than 99% of all species that have ever existed are extinct?  What proof do you offer for that claim? 

 

Your explaination for why animals were able to mix at one time is interesting, but like the rest of the theory of evolution, there is no serious evidence for it. 

 

[alphaparticle]

 

 

 

 

 

ETA: Oh, and just as a reminder to keep everyone on track, evolution is the change in allele frequency in a population over time ...

 

How convenient that you are redefining Darwinian evolution because you can't prove Darwinian evolution, thereby loading the dice of this discussion before it even begins.

 

Besides the fact that evolution has evolved, pun intended, far past Darwin (read up on the modern synthesis), the accepted scientific definition of evolution since the days of Darwin has been change in allele frequencies in a population ...

 

 

My 2006 Merriam-Webster states otherwise.

 

Evolution: "a theory that the various kinds of plants and animals are decended from other kinds that lived in earlier times and that the differences are due to inherited changes that occured over many generations".

 

To say that evolution is simply a change in allele frequencies is to redefine the concept so as to prove it to your own satisfaction; not only do I find this self-serving, IMO, it's also intellectualy dishonest.

 

Merriam-Webster isn't a scientific dictionary. Go to scientists if you wish to know about and argue against science. Everything else will inevitably be a strawman.

 

 

Did you think that Merriam-Webster "created" its own definition of evolution without even consulting with scientists?

 

Or are all the definitions from "non-scientific" dictionaries invalid for your purposes here?

 

The dictionary offers common usages for words. It's not a scientific textbook. Turning to it for technical definitions is a bad idea.

[OldSchool2]

 

 

 

 

 

 

ETA: Oh, and just as a reminder to keep everyone on track, evolution is the change in allele frequency in a population over time ...

 

How convenient that you are redefining Darwinian evolution because you can't prove Darwinian evolution, thereby loading the dice of this discussion before it even begins.

 

Besides the fact that evolution has evolved, pun intended, far past Darwin (read up on the modern synthesis), the accepted scientific definition of evolution since the days of Darwin has been change in allele frequencies in a population ...

 

 

My 2006 Merriam-Webster states otherwise.

 

Evolution: "a theory that the various kinds of plants and animals are decended from other kinds that lived in earlier times and that the differences are due to inherited changes that occured over many generations".

 

To say that evolution is simply a change in allele frequencies is to redefine the concept so as to prove it to your own satisfaction; not only do I find this self-serving, IMO, it's also intellectualy dishonest.

 

Merriam-Webster isn't a scientific dictionary. Go to scientists if you wish to know about and argue against science. Everything else will inevitably be a strawman.

 

 

Did you think that Merriam-Webster "created" its own definition of evolution without even consulting with scientists?

 

Or are all the definitions from "non-scientific" dictionaries invalid for your purposes here?

 

The dictionary offers common usages for words. It's not a scientific textbook. Turning to it for technical definitions is a bad idea.

 

 

I turn to dictionaries for unbiased definitions in English, the language I usually use to express all my "common" notions on these forums.

 

And I wish others would do the same, or should George create an exclusive "geek" forum for those who only want to "speak shop"?

[alphaparticle]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ETA: Oh, and just as a reminder to keep everyone on track, evolution is the change in allele frequency in a population over time ...

 

How convenient that you are redefining Darwinian evolution because you can't prove Darwinian evolution, thereby loading the dice of this discussion before it even begins.

 

Besides the fact that evolution has evolved, pun intended, far past Darwin (read up on the modern synthesis), the accepted scientific definition of evolution since the days of Darwin has been change in allele frequencies in a population ...

 

 

My 2006 Merriam-Webster states otherwise.

 

Evolution: "a theory that the various kinds of plants and animals are decended from other kinds that lived in earlier times and that the differences are due to inherited changes that occured over many generations".

 

To say that evolution is simply a change in allele frequencies is to redefine the concept so as to prove it to your own satisfaction; not only do I find this self-serving, IMO, it's also intellectualy dishonest.

 

Merriam-Webster isn't a scientific dictionary. Go to scientists if you wish to know about and argue against science. Everything else will inevitably be a strawman.

 

 

Did you think that Merriam-Webster "created" its own definition of evolution without even consulting with scientists?

 

Or are all the definitions from "non-scientific" dictionaries invalid for your purposes here?

 

The dictionary offers common usages for words. It's not a scientific textbook. Turning to it for technical definitions is a bad idea.

 

 

I turn to dictionaries for unbiased definitions in English, the language I usually use to express all my "common" notions on these forums.

 

And I wish others would do the same, or should George create an exclusive "geek" forum for those who only want to "speak shop"?

 

If we are going to talk about biological evolution we should specify what that is. If you don't want to do that, if you don't want to 'talk shop', then I am not sure why'd you'd engage in discussions about it in the first place.

[Guest Butero]

 

 

 

 

 

 

There are apes and there are humans, everything in between the 2 no longer exists. Why?

 

 

If the apes were able to survive, why are there no examples of these other transitional forms still walking around? The ones that branched off from the apes. Evolution is a slow gradual process of change, which means these transitional forms had to be in existence for millions of years. If the apes survived, why not their evolutionary offspring? Why were humans and apes the only species that escaped extinction?

I can't answer that question because humans are by taxonomic definition apes. Are you asking why there are no, say, Neanderthals or more ancient humans still around? If so, it's because they went extinct like more than 99% of all species that have ever existed have. And they went extinct because they could not adapt to their environment enough to reproduce more of their species than were dying generally speaking. If I haven't addressed any of your questions, it is because I am not sure how to parse them. If you feel I have not addressed one or more of them, please try to rephrase and I will try to answer them next time.

How is it the common ape has survived, and a human being has survived, but something in between could not adapt?  That makes no logical sense to me.

What about it doesn't make sense? I don't know how to answer that question because I see no connection between a species being between two existing species and its survival or extinction. Why are more than 99% of all species that have ever existed extinct? I'm not sure what you are expecting.

 

 

Since the ape survived, and the human beings survived, you would think some of the in between beings would have survived.  Why wouldn't they have been able to adapt?  They would be smarter than the ape.  BTW, how do you know that more than 99% of all species that have ever existed are extinct?  What proof do you offer for that claim? 

 

Your explaination for why animals were able to mix at one time is interesting, but like the rest of the theory of evolution, there is no serious evidence for it. 

 

 

The vast majority of species that have been around no longer exist, a fact that could be established from looking at the fossil record, so that 'transitional forms' between apes and humans no longer exist is not terribly surprising. Suppose one existed, call it x, now you can ask why the transitional form between modern humans and x no longer exists, ad infinitum. The thing here is that between fish and humans on the tree of life are plenty of species that come from 'inbetween' species. The point here has to be emphasized again that all species are equally modern, equally 'evolved'. Humans are not actually considered 'higher' on some ladder than fish are, both fish and humans that are around today 'come from' many other ancestors.

 

 

 

[HumbleThinker]

There are apes and there are humans, everything in between the 2 no longer exists. Why?

 

 

If the apes were able to survive, why are there no examples of these other transitional forms still walking around? The ones that branched off from the apes. Evolution is a slow gradual process of change, which means these transitional forms had to be in existence for millions of years. If the apes survived, why not their evolutionary offspring? Why were humans and apes the only species that escaped extinction?

I can't answer that question because humans are by taxonomic definition apes. Are you asking why there are no, say, Neanderthals or more ancient humans still around? If so, it's because they went extinct like more than 99% of all species that have ever existed have. And they went extinct because they could not adapt to their environment enough to reproduce more of their species than were dying generally speaking. If I haven't addressed any of your questions, it is because I am not sure how to parse them. If you feel I have not addressed one or more of them, please try to rephrase and I will try to answer them next time.

How is it the common ape has survived, and a human being has survived, but something in between could not adapt?  That makes no logical sense to me.

What about it doesn't make sense? I don't know how to answer that question because I see no connection between a species being between two existing species and its survival or extinction. Why are more than 99% of all species that have ever existed extinct? I'm not sure what you are expecting.

Since the ape survived, and the human beings survived, you would think some of the in between beings would have survived.  Why wouldn't they have been able to adapt?  They would be smarter than the ape.  BTW, how do you know that more than 99% of all species that have ever existed are extinct?  What proof do you offer for that claim? 

 

Your explaination for why animals were able to mix at one time is interesting, but like the rest of the theory of evolution, there is no serious evidence for it.

[GoldenEagle]

Due to the multiple reports this thread is closed for review.