MC Banhammer Posted:

Please point out to me where I was trolling.

My word! Your entire post! Everyone knows that the good lord does all this stuff.

Ricket Posted:

That’s just dumb. Seriously. That’s like saying because we’ve only observed Pluto’s orbit for 80 years, the idea that it takes 248 years to orbit the sun is just a hypothesis.

It’s a prediction based on recorded evidence and current speed. It’s not a “fact”, it’s a prediction. One with a very, very good chance of being true, if all else remains equal and nothing comes along to interfere with that prediction.

But has the common ancestor between humans and monkeys been discovered in the fossil record? Do we have any direct proof that dinosaurs became birds? I am nowhere near as convinced about these “facts” as I am about Pluto continuing in its orbit.

This is why I try to stay out of these kinds of conversations. Because from my point of view, you all sound as, to use your word, “dumb” as you’re calling me.

MC Banhammer Posted:

Please point out to me where I was trolling.

The part where we have observed speciation events.

Admittedly they hadn’t had enough time to diverge very much (and accordingly still look very similar), but all it takes is for a species to divide into two populations that don’t breed with each other. Add time, generations, and ideally some kind of differential selection, and they’ll become more distinct.

This supports the theory that accords with all the evidence we have from the fossil record of past speciation, and all the evidence we have from molecular biology (we can construct phylogeny based on similar genetics and it matches up with all the other evidence about relationships between species)

It all hangs together so beautifully; the morphology, the genetics, the fossils, the observation of what’s happening in wild populations and petri dishes. You really don’t have any firm ground to seriously argue against it from. So you must, logically, be either woefully uninformed (to the point of wilful ignorance) or you’re aware of all this and your post was flamebait. Idiot or troll, pick one.

man-man Posted:

all it takes is for a species to divide into two populations that don’t breed with each other

And have we seen that happen? Or are we just looking at two different fossils and saying “it LOOKS like this happened”?

MC Banhammer Posted:

I am nowhere near as convinced about these “facts” as I am about Pluto continuing in its orbit.

Well, it looks like this whole conversation is neither about evolution, nor about scientific facts or methods proving it, but rather about your inability or unwillingness to acknowledge those.

This approach is most likely trolling. And I believe this bumumption has very, very good chance of being true.

MC Banhammer Posted:

And have we seen that happen? Or are we just looking at two different fossils and saying “it LOOKS like this happened”?

We’ve seen it happen. The cichlid fishes have strong mating preference based on colouration and markings, the ****ers speciate at the drop of a hat every time a mutation comes up that changes that.

There was also a bird species (some kind of warbler, I forget the name) where a mutant had a red breast, whereas the parent population had all black plumage. Red breasts being essentially neither here nor there when it comes to adaptive value the mutation spreads, then they start breeding within themselves. Not yet entirely, but there’s evidence that all-black males see red-breast males as less of a threat to their territory, suggesting reduced breeding between the groups.

Once that starts happening there’s a number of mechanisms that tend to push from reduced mating to complete genetic isolation, and then you have two species going their separate ways. Takes time for any real difference to build up, but it’s a start.

MC Banhammer Posted:

Here’s one for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories

@Inconnu: We’ve already very well established, in the Survivor game, that what I say and what you hear are two very different things. So I’m not surprised by your conclusion.

It seems that this difference spreads much wider than just your words. Maybe our visual perception works in different way too. For instance I fail to see a evolution theory among the list of obsolete and sometimes medieval theories and beliefs you provided.

COME BACK HERE, I’M NOT EVEN CLOSE TO DONE WITH YOU

The distinction between macro and micro evolution is a false one; the only difference is the application of time. If you agree that small changes can appear in some members of a species within a relatively short span of time, then how can you not also agree that large changes can appear in some members of a species across a large span of time?

MC Banhammer, how can you not believe in evolution? You said you can’t believe it because nobody’s seen it happen, but… how can you say that?

Just look at us humans! We all came from the same ancestor. But look around you! There are black people! And yellow people with narrow eyes, in fact you’re even arguing with one right now!

How can you deny what’s right in front of you?

Please don’t ban me. I intend this with humor and satire. It’s actually thought-provoking, if you think about it. Note: That last sentence was spectacular.

It’s worth noting that, in other non-scientific (but evidence based) fields, we don’t always have the luxury of direct observation but can still come to a well supported account of past events. I don’t know whether you’ve heard the analogy before, but consider a murder trial:

No-one saw the suspect commit the crime, there’s no experiment to directly test whether he did it. But his fingerprints are on the barrel of a gun that matches the one used against the dead man, he can’t provide an alibi and he was seen just after the murder, 2 blocks away, running like hell and splattered with blood. So we have a theory; this suspect committed the murder. It fits the facts as best we know them. The defence could have another theory that fits the evidence just as well (maybe the real murderer held a gun on the suspect, forced him to shoot the victim, then let him run off, although the question then is why the suspect didn’t mention that). If CCTV footage or a new witness turned up they could overturn the “hedunnit” theory. What they can’t do is say “There’s a gap in your evidence, therefore the suspect was at home all night watching TV”.

To deny that evolution is occurring (macro and micro, they’re the same damn thing) is like the second option there; it doesn’t make sense of the evidence that we have, even if that evidence is limited in some respects. The first option, of an alternate scenario that’s quite similar to the original theory (in terms of what evidence we’d expect to see), that’s like the very real open questions in evolutionary biology.

For those questions, like in the murder trial analogy, we’d need more evidence to differentiate between the possible answers. Science is a great timesulative process, doesn’t claim to have all the answers all at once. What it does offer is the best working model we can come up with based on the evidence that we have so far. Personal incredulity in the suggestions of that evidence is not a valid argument unless you’ve got some observations that don’t accord with the theory.