Scepticism towards science

[Grizzly Willy]

finally someone actually taking the time to answer the question. Thank you
Because I don't consider a "that's not how it works" an intelligent answer.
Intelligent people answer with "that's not how it works, this is how it works" Much appreciated Adam.

But here's still what I don't understand, and maybe I'm being thick, but if evolution is still happening (which is what has been stated as fact in this thread via micro-evolution), why aren't there more species like homo erectus still around, and by saying that' I'm not limiting that to primates and humans, but mammal/avians, etc.... It still seems to me that for evolution, which is an ongoing continuous process, there would be more links between species that would fill in the gaps, and they would alive and able to be studied and not just fossils. Or maybe I'm just not as accepting of the "they died out." It seems to me that regardless, all forms would still be able to exist in the world today.

They don't still exist because they were out performed. Species die out when others are able to fulfill the same niche more effectively. It's important to note that it doesn't mean that they were killed by the competing species directly, but that they weren't able to compete for food as effectively. For example, Homo Neanderthalis died out not because of violent competition, but because Homo Sapiens expanded more quickly.

[Grimbold21]

finally someone actually taking the time to answer the question. Thank you
Because I don't consider a "that's not how it works" an intelligent answer.
Intelligent people answer with "that's not how it works, this is how it works" Much appreciated Adam.

But here's still what I don't understand, and maybe I'm being thick, but if evolution is still happening (which is what has been stated as fact in this thread via micro-evolution), why aren't there more species like homo erectus still around, and by saying that' I'm not limiting that to primates and humans, but mammal/avians, etc.... It still seems to me that for evolution, which is an ongoing continuous process, there would be more links between species that would fill in the gaps, and they would alive and able to be studied and not just fossils. Or maybe I'm just not as accepting of the "they died out." It seems to me that regardless, all forms would still be able to exist in the world today.

You're not accepting that they died out.

Simple thing is, to me, it seems you'd like to see these species around. Well, you're to late. Homo sapiens came out of Africa like 200.000 years ago and one of the last subspecies, Neanderthal, was around Europe and Asia and that subspecies went extinct like, what was it, 30 to 50,000 years ago?

From there on, there's only theories and conjectures as to the possibility of Sapiens and Neanderthal getting in touch with each other.

[Syenite]

Erm what? Is that little piece of circular logic supposed to be a counter argument to there being contradictions in the bible?

Its quite simple, isnt it?

Seems like the OP is confused about his videogame not reflecting the world he wants, and not providing him with the shear evidence required for him to brag about new discoveries at school...

[Frozen Death Knight]

But here's still what I don't understand, and maybe I'm being thick, but if evolution is still happening (which is what has been stated as fact in this thread via micro-evolution), why aren't there more species like homo erectus still around, and by saying that' I'm not limiting that to primates and humans, but mammal/avians, etc.... It still seems to me that for evolution, which is an ongoing continuous process, there would be more links between species that would fill in the gaps, and they would alive and able to be studied and not just fossils. Or maybe I'm just not as accepting of the "they died out." It seems to me that regardless, all forms would still be able to exist in the world today.

Well, the answer to that question can honestly depend on what species you're talking about, since not all living creatures have lived under the same circumstances.

Take the woolen mammoth, for example. This species died out because of humans' extensive hunting as well as because of the radical climate changes that was happening in Europe after the last ice age started to pass. Other extinct species could have died of diseases, natural disasters, or whatever other hardships they faced at their time. If they did not die out, they simply adapted and managed to fit the environment that they were living in.

Because of varying circumstances for each species, the amount of variations of certain ones also vary from few to many. As for primates, there is quite a lot of variation, ranging from orangutans and gorillas to chimpanzees and humans, all of which have been once the same species until nature and evolution separated them to form new species.

So, what does all this have to do in regards to say, homo erectus not being around anymore? Well, technically, they are, since we are them, in a way. Though, because of evolution where nature has put pressure on having homo erectus adapt to its environment, their offspring started looking and behaving more and more like us because those were the genes that managed to pass on to future generations, which in the end lead to you and me on this day. Homo erectus like they existed long ago could have existed today if the circumstances were right to keep them as they were, but since they are not, it means that they both died out and adapted to a point when they no longer can be defined as homo erectus, but homo sapiens, in this case.

We are in a way mutants, but the genetic change took several, several generations of our ancestors to reach the point where modern humans are today.

[Spectral]

You won't sway any argument. You won't win any debates.

This isn't a debate. I'm telling you, flat out, you don't know enough to debate or argue the topic. You're just making yourself look silly. When you're going to pull the "just asking questions!" routine, you need to at least grasp the most basic parts of a theory. You don't.

[zorkuus]

adam just got done saying that homo-erectus isn't around, they died out. So that's still my question, why aren't other species and "transitional abundant in the world today

Some species aren't around because they're gone, extinct. Some species aren't around because they have evolved into something else. And all species alive today are transitional species and thefore transitional species are abundant in the world today. They're evolving into something else and more noticeable differences won't be seen until thousands or millions of years from now.

It seems to me that regardless, all forms would still be able to exist in the world today.

Too bad for you the world doesn't work like you want it to. You do realize that now you're also arguing that extinction should be impossible? The problem with going around in circles with arguments like this is that everytime you repeat them they become more ridiculous than the previous time. It seems you've hit a new low.

[Chirri]

Or maybe I'm just not as accepting of the "they died out." It seems to me that regardless, all forms would still be able to exist in the world today.

"They died out" doesn't mean they just started dropping like flies for no reason, which is sort of what it sounds like you're imagining. I definitely don't have any significant education when it comes to the specifics of evolution, but I do understand that small changes often lead to unexpected results. Just paying attention to the changes humans have brought to certain areas (say, killing off all wolves in a given territory because they're causing ranchers problems) can give a very small, limited glimpse into the way things can disappear. It may not be permanent (reintroducing wolves after some decades) if the local species were relatively common and could be replenished, but not all species ARE common. Some are extremely specialized, and when what they need to survive is gone, well, then those extremely rare and specialized species can't return and flourish. Their absence leaves room for something that can tolerate the new conditions.

Perhaps that has nothing to do with what's confusing you, or what you disagree with. Perhaps I'm just misunderstanding what I've learned and read about (or misinterpreting, or flat out mis-informed). I really should go back to school - our knowledge and assumptions can change so quickly!

[smelltheglove]

I sometimes wonder if people even know what autism actually is, since it almost sounds contagious by hearing them talk about it when it is actually not.

i got autism from a truck stop toilet seat once. never again

[Spectral]

i got autism from a truck stop toilet seat once. never again

Calls for some Monty Python.

[Grizzly Willy]

This isn't a debate. I'm telling you, flat out, you don't know enough to debate or argue the topic. You're just making yourself look silly. When you're going to pull the "just asking questions!" routine, you need to at least grasp the most basic parts of a theory. You don't.

Yeah, god forbid they ask about something they have no knowledge of.

At least have the decency to direct them in the right direction. Being a dick about it serves no purpose. You would be better off not participating in the conversation.

[Spectral]

Yeah, god forbid they ask about something they have no knowledge of.

At least have the decency to direct them in the right direction. Being a dick about it serves no purpose. You would be better off not participating in the conversation.

When people ask high school level questions, get answers, and then insist no one answered them, they deserve condescension. I already suggested that if he's genuinely interested, he should read Jerry Coyne's book on evolution; here's a link for people that are actually interested.

More to the point, the whole "just asking questions" routine is fucking dishonest. It's not someone that's asking questions about something they're curious about, it's someone that's deliberately ignorant of a topic, wants to remain so, but wants to announce their opinion to the room in the form of a question.

[Chrysia]

Ok, others have touched on this, but I'm going to try to give the quick, simple version of evolutionary dominance.

You have two groups of a certain species living in different environments, so they're similar, but with some different adaptations.

Then, one of two things happens. Either an outlier from one of the subsets introduces their adaptations into the other subspecies, or the environment changes to the point that one species is better adapted to it.

In case 1, this new hybrid subspecies would be able to spread in both environments, giving it an edge over the restricted lines. Since they are competing for food, mates, and the like, the most adaptable subspecies survive and the others are either marginalized or starve.

In case 2, the subspecies with the greater tolerance for the new spreading environment would be able to thrive, while the other would be forced to adapt to resemble that subspecies, or die off. Either case is possible.

So no, every race that ever existed wouldn't survive to the present. There simply aren't enough resources in a given environment. The best adapted live, the rest die or are bred out as the desirable mutations become the dominant traits.

[darkwarrior42]

adam just got done saying that homo-erectus isn't around, they died out. So that's still my question, why aren't other species and "transitional abundant in the world today

Natural selection doesn't involve cross-breeding; it involves certain traits being favored over an incredibly long period of time. There are plenty of transitional species in the world.... but they're not species partway through a transition into the modern forms already present. It's just that modern species themselves are a transitional form on their way to something else, just as older forms were a transitional period between then and now.

Keep in mind, also, that the reason that natural selection occurs is because the less desirable traits aren't as well suited to survive, and that nothing will change unless there's a need. That means, all things being equal, once a group becomes more likely to survive, the other groups aren't likely to survive... because if there's a selection of this sort going on, then there's some threat that is endangering the species. Those who don't adapt will die off.

That means that the only situations where you could see the transition in process is a situation where is an active threat to a species, AND there is some kind of genetic mutation or quirk that is proving to be more effective at dealing with that threat, AND the threat in question is recent enough that the original group has not died off.


Luckily, we have just such a modern example: African Elephants. At one time, the number of male elephants born without tusks was only 2-5% of the total population. now, that number ranges as high as 38%, and even averages are trending toward the 15-20% range. Why? Because while tusks were great for foraging and self-defense, humans value them for the ivory.... and so elephants without tusks are more likely to survive because they don't get poached. These tuskless elephants are exactly like other elephants in every other way; the fact that they were born without tusks at all is probably a genetic mutation. But it's a mutation that is allowing them to survive circumstances that their brethren do not... and so they're procreating, and their numbers are increasing. There's no other obvious change, and if we didn't know what they looked like beforehand we'd never know that the lack of tusks was anything significant. But it's an evolution in progress. So the tusked male elephant is a transitional species, a step before the more evolved elephant that doesn't have tusks, and thus isn't a target for predation.

Evolution doesn't mean "stronger" or "faster" or anything of the sort. You can argue all you want about tusks being useful, or that the danger posed to elephants with tusks comes solely as a result of human intervention, but the simple fact is that elephants with tusks are more likely to die than elephants without tusks... so the number of elephants born without tusks is increasing. That's exactly how evolution and natural selection works. '

Also keep in mind that many humans have a rather large problem with species going extinct, and if we see a species that is threatened we're likely to step in an help... which gets in the way of the natural selection process, and thus makes it less likely to see other examples. For instance, elephants with tusks are more likely to be hunted for the ivory, but human laws and zoos have served to keep many of those elephants alive... thus helping them to pass on their genes, despite not being as well suited to survive.

*shrug* If you want to see a half homo-erectus/half homo-sapien, you won't. The change was very slow, one trait at a time, until there was a complete change. That's the point of the color-changing sentence analogy; if you look around near the end of the sentence, you won't see anything that looks a lot like the original color or even the half point... but you might see some words that are very very close to the final color, just a little bit off. It'd be something small... like an animal that had tusks no longer having tusks. It looks so much like the original that you wouldn't even think of it as being different.

[Acquiesce of Telara]

But here's still what I don't understand, and maybe I'm being thick, but if evolution is still happening (which is what has been stated as fact in this thread via micro-evolution), why aren't there more species like homo erectus still around, and by saying that' I'm not limiting that to primates and humans, but mammal/avians, etc.... It still seems to me that for evolution, which is an ongoing continuous process, there would be more links between species that would fill in the gaps, and they would alive and able to be studied and not just fossils. Or maybe I'm just not as accepting of the "they died out." It seems to me that regardless, all forms would still be able to exist in the world today.

It's easy to think of evolution as a numbers line: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6... when in actuality, it's closer to 1.00000001, 1.00000002, 1.00000003, 1.00000004... That's why there is no "Crockoduck" (thanks Kirk Cameron!) and why finding definitive links is difficult. At what point is 1.00000043 still related to 4.79852377? Variations are easy and difficult to accept, because there's a billion simple variations that allow for us to recognize a common theme in a species, but enough major differences to question the dividing line between species A's 1.0 and 2.0 iterations.

This post is over-simplified, but I hope you catch my meaning.

[Centauri]

I think it's because science has proven itself time and time again to be reliable. It's not "faith" if it's been proven trustworthy several times before.

When you get up to go to work every morning, you don't say: "Hmm, I should exhibit skepticism towards my car! I have no conclusive proof that it will start! I shall do a full mechanical inspection of the vehicle before I can definitively say the keys will work!" You know the car will start because it starts every single morning. If it doesn't, might I recommend a mechanic.

[anyaka21]

This isn't a debate. I'm telling you, flat out, you don't know enough to debate or argue the topic. You're just making yourself look silly. When you're going to pull the "just asking questions!" routine, you need to at least grasp the most basic parts of a theory. You don't.

The point is see the posts by Frozen Death Knight.
See the post by DarkWarrior42.

Those are the intelligent well thought out responses I was looking for and actually answered the question I posed.

You, on the other hand, still haven't said anything of value or brought anything to this thread.

[Dezerte]

The point is see the posts by Frozen Death Knight.
See the post by DarkWarrior42.

Those are the intelligent well thought out responses I was looking for and actually answered the question I posed.

You, on the other hand, still haven't said anything of value or brought anything to this thread.

It's good that you are asking questions, as long as you're interested in hearing the answers. I can understand the frustration some have when they have tried their best to explain something, but the opposition just doesn't understand.

I think it's best if you look at some easy to understand 101's on evolution, such as;

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/

[Vulcanasm]

The problem I have with Science, is that within the Education System, it is taken as gospel and there is little opportunity to criticise it as a student. You're told that the Teacher / Studies / Scientists / Evidence is completely true, and that people far smarter then you have proven it.

This is what I mean when I say that "when the data doesn't fit the theory, religion discards the data". You play word games and raise straw men, refute arguments and theories that no scientist has ever made, then repeat yourself as if repetition grants fallacious arguments some measure of validity.

For example, this oft-repeated claim:

We've got similar characteristics, but no-where have we ever found physical, tangible proof that we transitions from Primates into Humans. Now, I'm not religious, and I don't believe that ~2,000 years ago we just appeared,

...is utter garbage, which fact you would have discovered with just a moment browsing Wikipedia. The physical proof lies in the fossil and archaeological record, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution . And these:

[+] What, if the theory of evolution is true, did we evolve from?
[+] Where are the remains & remnants of these transitional species?

...are answered there, too. The answers are "early homo sapiens", and "throughout the fossil record".

The real definition of a transitional species is one that evolves into another species. A non-transitional species necessarily either survives or goes extinct. Passenger pigeons are a non-transitional species. So are mako sharks. One's extinct, the other's been around since the mid-Cretaceous.

The fake definition used in the word games of religious people is something like 'the front half of a bird welded to the back half of a dinosaur', which word game creates a definition that cannot possibly exist. Reductio ad absurdum at its finest.

An alternate example of reductio ad absurdum will be presented the first time a dogmatic creationist reads my comments and says "well...well...there are GAPS! What came between species Herp and species Derp? See? It's CHEESUS!". ...of course there are gaps. Not every organism fossilizes. The vast majority of fossilized material is destroyed long before it's accessible to us, and neither archeology nor vertebrate paleontology have seen a dime of increased funding in our lifetimes. That is to say, there's no guarantee every species is fossilized and there's no money available for we scientists to go out looking.

I'm not against Science, but Science as a general field of study has become a Government funded institution, and as such they need to continue to make findings, post new updates and release new notes to keep their budgets. Science is a field of ongoing learning, developing and changing, yet over the last few years, we've seen the rhetoric of the science community change more to; "I've got a PhD in Herp-a-Derp! I'm clearly very intelligent and my theory is flawless, despite me having no evidence".

Science, has sadly become the new religious cult. People are ready to believe whatever is said, because Mr PhD said it.

You're *extremely* anti-science. You make statements with no grounding in reality. You think ignorance is as good as knowledge, yet you can't even bother to read a summary of the existing knowledge you rail against. How are you "not against Science", unless you mean "not against burning scientists at the stake (like we did the other heathens)"?

---------- Post added 2013-04-14 at 12:45 AM ----------

If micro-evolution is true, and as thus macro by todays definition, then there should be those transitional, tweener species extremely abundant in present day.

I think it's an honest question. not a "that's not how this works"

If you so completely reject micro-evolution, I have an experiment that you can do yourself: Spend 4 weeks among Calcutta's poor. Volunteer at a clinic for HIV positive people there. When you come back, get a TB skin test. When it shows induration, take a standard course of Rifampin and Isoniazid, and tell me if it does anything for your TB infection.

When the Doc Holiday impression begins, I want you to ask yourself a follow-up question: "how is it possible that my TB suddenly resisted these two drugs, which were shown to treat it from the 1960s, if nothing changed about the TB virus"?

[Unalorian]

The other challenge you get from micro-evolution is the fact that the further you get from your species, you can't pro-create with others of your species. Thus, you have to add in that both a male and a female have to, in essence, have the same mutation in the same generation, in the same place.

You clearly have no clue of what you are talking since you probably never heard about how allelic dominance works.

[Frozen Death Knight]

The point is see the posts by Frozen Death Knight.
See the post by DarkWarrior42.

Those are the intelligent well thought out responses I was looking for and actually answered the question I posed.

You, on the other hand, still haven't said anything of value or brought anything to this thread.

Aw, you're making me blush. XD