So, slappy, I'm just curious where you think dogs came from? How on earth did wolves become Chihuahuas and Saint Bernards without evolution? Which is another tidbit answered in The Greatest Show On Earth.

---

Tuna I am so sorry....I know you started this thread to talk about your beliefs on God...I wish I had PMed you now.

This has gotten off on an incredible tangent.

I still believe in God buddy

Off the top of my head:

Why evolution?

1. Populations have been shown to be able to diverge individual traits over time. This can be directly observed in real time through natural and artificial selection.

2. Isolated populations have genes which do not exist in other populations of the same species. Indicating that these genes were altered or created post seperation/isolation. ie blonde hair, lactose intolerance.

3. Ergo, isolated populations can demonstrably diverge from the original both physically and genetically over time. This is the starting point for the theory of evolution.

4. Fossil records show incremental development of skeletal structure, size etc over the ages. Most species/order have precursors in the fossil record, showing gradual change over time (such as horses). We share dna with our closest relatives, and less with the ones further away, which supports the theory of breaking off, but having a common ancestor, which is also supported in the fossil record for a number of lines.

5. The theory of evolution does not cover biogenesis or the origin of life. You can still have a creator at the beginning if you want, you can have randomness, you can have aliens, at this point it is PURE conjecture and evolution doesn't cover it. There are no conclusive answers at the moment. You are correct. But this does not invalidate evolution.

So, the theory:
Some traits/random mutations perhaps provide an advantage for reproduction, resulting in environmental/natural/sexual selection.
These progressively stack over time. First leading to a population of sub species, then a different species, each successive generation in marginally different from the one before it.
It reaches the point where they are a new species and can no longer breed with the old one (if there are still any around).

Aspects like organ development are more complex, but follow the same fundamental concept. But these happen at FAR earlier ancestral stages.

That's the start of it.

By the way, scientifically a Law is something that can be be demonstrated through equations, and even then it can be still referred to as a theory, relativity for example.

Multiple layers of evidence from different fields all point to evolution, and evolution explains many of the aspects we're uncovering in biology. Unfortunately it cannot be "proven" using an equation, nor can we use it to predict future events. Much in the same way as we know about past civilizations and how we consider the big bang theory.

You're not talking about evolution. Like whatshisname (sorry, I'm too lazy to scroll up) said, you're talking about spontaneous biogenesis. They are two different things. Don't talk about them both at the same time. The Theory of Evolution doesn't have any bearing on that.

So, you believe that species can change over time, but that there exists some arbitrary line that prevents them from changing too much? Isn't that...arbitrary?

http://i2.listal.com/image/3170273/500full.jpg

The theory isn't that a species will suddenly sprout wings that initially give it no advantage.

A species already has forelimbs limbs and walks upright.
A population develops feathers, these either keep it warm/sexually attractive.
Luckily, this combination of feathers, forelimbs and walking upright means it can then glide short distances.
The further it can glide, the more successful it is. Individuals with longer forelimbs/lighter bones can glide further.

---

---

Flightless dinosaurs had feathers. Fossils indicate feather growth on some dinosaurs.

Birds came after dinosaurs. (fossils, fossil dating)

Birds have the same basic skeletal structure of dinosaurs in terms of types, numbers, placement and orientation of bones. (fossils)

---

No worries, this thread isn't solely about me. You guys are free to take it in whatever direction you want.

The only form of proof you'll accept is DNA from an entire evolutionary chain spanning thousands of years from millions of years in the past before you'll accept one descended from the other?

Clearly, I am wasting my time.

At the very least I hope you don't use the "crocodile pond scum", the "2 suddenly appearing" or the "dogs with wings" arguments as evidence that evolution is incorrect from now on.

---

I was pointing out your double standard.
You accuse us of just stating things without proof, and you are clearly doing exactly what you accuse us of. If you were consistent, then you would be an agnostic on evolution, but instead you state, categorically, that evolution is untrue. Hence, my point.

No, you are. You insist on using it as an argument against evolution, but whether or not abiogenesis (life coming from inorganic matter) is true does nothing to disprove evolution (the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations).

Of course we can't prove that abiogenesis is true. Even if we manage to replicate what we assume to be the conditions for it, and manage to create whatever self replicating proteins that were the basis for life on Earth (which, as far as I know, we haven't), it still wouldn't "prove" that that's what happened, at least probably not to your standards. But, unlike the Bible, science doesn't claim to have the answers, it's just a tool that we can use to make hypothesis, test them, and then refine our working knowledge of the way the world works.

And I'm not. What's your point?

Reductio ad aburdum.

Dude, if different species can't mate, then why can horses and donkeys (two different species) mate to create a mule? To be the same species they have to be able to produce offspring that can reproduce. Same thing with lions and tigers. They can mate, they just can't produce offspring that can reproduce. So, different species, reproducing, but not producing offspring capable of reproduction. Thoughts?

As a side not, I would also like to point out that, no matter how thoroughly you debunk evolution, you haven't done a damn thing to prove creationism. So, yeah, creationism...still nonsense. Or whatever pseudo-creationist nonsense you seem to believe in.

3. - moral absolutist systems & their followers are not content with being second best. They continually argue & proselytize to prove they're the best, or adapt when necessary. No one who views themselves as "moral" says, "Oh, I'm following a 3rd rate system of morality but that's ok with me".

If you're willing to adapt, then you recognize your morals aren't absolute.

If people find genuine happiness through their faith, I don't see a problem with it. In fact sometimes I get envious of it. Just as well envy isn't a sin for me I guess.

But then your morals include "willing to adapt". And you think it's best if everyone else would also be willing to adapt, which is your moral stance.

Maybe not, maybe he thinks it's fine if other people don't adapt.

Yeah, that's correct. There's also a lot of gray areas where I feel one way, but can easily see the logic from the other side. If you can recognize where someone's coming from, then I think you don't view your morals as 'the best'. Maybe the best for you, but that's something completely different.

Gun control is one that comes to mind almost instantly. I am for gun control because I live in a low crime area, and am not comfortable owning and carrying gun. But I understand my situation isn't representative of everyone else's, and why someone like a convenience store owner would want to bear arms.

Moral absolutists have adapted their morals constantly - every major religions done it. They may not refer to it as adapting, but it's what occurs.

Ok? I acknowledged that my ethics adapt and change with insight. this whole time you've been making sweeping generalizations that don't really apply to me, so maybe human behavior is more complex than you give it credit for.

Groups within species can genetically diverge from eachother and follow different evolutionary paths. Many mechanisms that lead to this have been studied and are being studied and many of them are quite complex. The simplest to understand is when a population of a species becomes geographically isolated from others of its kind. They end up in a different environment, with different mutations and evolution puts them on a different path which causes them to diverge. The Galapagos finches is a famous example of isolated, diverging populations of finches on different islands and is one of the observations that really put Darwin on the trail of evolution.

Species can also differentiate without geographical isolation and many such examples exist as well, but they are often more difficult to understand because they typically require more about knowledge about evolution and other aspects of biology. One relatively simple example of such "sympatric" speciation could be if two different strategies (which are coded for genetically) evolve in a population. Merely to illustrate, let's say you have a species of birds where some birds specialize at eating seeds from pine cones while another eats nuts. Both birds are the same species and can mate, but they still have slightly different beaks, one which has evolved to be more effective at picking pine seeds and another which is good for eating nuts. Now, if two such birds breed, they will have an offspring which is a sort of hybrid between the two strategies. This hybrid will have a sort of intermediate beak which is worse for eating either of the two foods, pine seeds and nuts. So hybrid intermediates fare worse than purists of the two strategies. For this reason, birds from either strategy maximize their fitness by mating only with other purists. They learn to recognize their own kind and try to prevent breeding with members of the other strategy.

Across the ages, the two populations become more distinct from eachother, both genetically, behaviourally, morphologically, and one day they can't produce sexually reproductive offspring. Then, even you would find it hard not to admit that they've evolved into new species. ;)

Yes, he thinks it's fine if other people don't adapt, because he follows his (best) morals of being willing to adapt.

So ideally for tuna it's best if they would be willing to adapt, (even if they don't). In which case, he adapts to them not adapting. So he sticks to his morals.

Because being open to adapting is the perceived best moral stance for Tuna, which is why he thinks it. If he didn't think it was the best moral stance, then he wouldn't consider it to be his.

Speaking of which, a tiger/lion hybrid mated with a lion and resulted in offspring recently. It can be pretty smudgy at times.

BBC News - Siberian zoo breeds the world's first Liliger

Are you speaking for me now?

What's best for me is adapting my beliefs with time. What's best for someone else I am in no position to say, but it seems that most people are best suited taking up morals and beliefs that provide them the most comfort in life, or ones that they find the most logical. Seeing as how none of our minds work the same, it'd be awfully egotistical of me to think I know what's best for everyone. That's not a moral belief of mine by the way, that's an observation. I think people strive to be happy in life, so they would ideally find a belief and set of morals that match the goal.

Not you, everyone.

You are sticking to your moral of being willing to adapt, so your moral includes being accepting of others morals, which for you personally is the best while simultaneously prevents you from thinking everyone should be made to think that.

My point is everyone follows their "best" moral code even if it includes, being selfish, ignoring others, going with the flow, or completely ignoring what others think. They're doing that because it's the best way for them to live their life, which is essentially what morals are.

I can agree in that sense. But my thinking my morals are the best for me is in no way a reflection on the morals of others, and my superiority over theirs. As a creature of nature, I didn't choose these morals (or anything seeing as free will is illusory) so taking pride in something I had no decision in is pretty illogical

Your morals do describe how you react to other's morals too.

But yeah, I was/am being a bit pedantic there for the sake of it.

But does that intrinsically make me think my morals are superior to others?

I would say no, but that seems to be what hhbh is telling me.

In my opinion the simple fact that you picked them as your morals shows that on some level you think they are superior to other morals, while simultaneously preventing you from thinking yourself to be superior to people who have different morals.

Doesn't make sense to me. If you recognize morals are not above humanity (no holistic morals), and that your morals are determined only by your life experiences and genetics, you will not feel that they are superior. Only that they are the best at looking out for your self-interests

If that is the case then your life experience and genetics have caused you to determine that those are the best morals, even if you recognise that they could be different.

But we're getting a bit cyclical here.

At the end of the day, I think your morals can't show anything other than what you think is best at that point in time, (even if they include not judging other morals). Maybe you think otherwise, which I'm fine with. ;)

Yes, it is definitely smudgy. To complicate matters more, not all species are defined as species based on the idea of reproductive isolation. I actually think relatively few species are actually based on sexual isolation. After all, you can't really do extensive mating experiments with everything you come across. Instead, species were based on morphological differences. Nowadays, so many species are based on DNA comparisons.

When you get down to bacteria and the like who are capable of horizontal gene transfer and can even be capable of basically picking up DNA from the environment, the reproductive isolation idea becomes even more tricky.

I actually doubt that there is one species definition that will be practical across all of life.

edit :

In order to properly reply to the topic, I can add that I agree with you, Tuna. The idea that I am only temporary is comforting to me. I'm not looking forward to how my life will end, but at least there's nothing worrying about the conscious "me" not existing any more. In such a scenario, it's not like I'll miss or want or regret anything anyways. ;)

I will pass on chromosomes to my kids if I have some and so part of me can live on that way and that's good enough for me.

Usually I'm completely fine with ceasing to exist.

However there are occasions when I can't sleep and that realisation can hit me like a truck.

If I could snap my fingers and believe (know) I would continue on, I would.

I take comfort in the fact that I am still alive, and that I don't really understand what is going on around me, it gives me the obligation to accept the chaos of life on this planet and that is all I need to know. I don't associate myself with atheism or religion.

You sound just like the person on your avatar would, I imagine :)

Sound Kiiid!

I will take that as a plimentcom!

Sorry, I didn't get any of that. I'm not Irish and even not a native English speaker :)

Oh, I get plimentcom :)