What evidence would you accept for human evolution?

[Alexiev]

We can play out both.

If the processes are random, then it should be quite obvious we should expect a lot of "false starts" in the genetic process. After all there's no "guidance" in the system that's limiting the kinds of mutations to those that will eventually be more likely to be survival-enhancing, and it's sheer luck when one such thing appears, and happens to survive because the particular mutation "works" well. This is Dennett's "wasteful process": for every successful mutation, there have to be millions of unsuccessful ones.

But then...where are the fossils to justify our belief in this "wastefulness"?

On the other hand, if the process is "guided," then the problem becomes, "what Force or Law" is at work compelling the evolutionary process toward what we conceive of as "success"? How were the kinds and numbers of mutations constrained so as to produce a neat sequence of pre-humans, and not to produce the many false starts we should otherwise expect?

So the first one gives us the expectation of a very vast record of fossils of 'unsuccessful" subspecies, particularly pre-humans, since we are, by any fair estimate, a very sophisticated kind of animal, supposedly constructed over vast amounts of time and though innumerable, subtle mutational shifts. And we don't have that record.

The second one immediately injects design, intentionality, constraint and teleology into the evolutionary program, so very naturally brings back in the God hypothesis...which is the very hypothesis that Evolutionism most wants to explain away.

So it's a case of "Which way would the theory of human evolution like to fail -- by the deficiencies of the fossil record, or by readmitting intelligent design?"

There are several problems with this argument. First, there probably are fossils that represent "false starts". I don't know.

The first problem is that you "don't know" whether or not there is an adequate number of such fossils? Well, you can easily cure that. There isn't. Not even remotely close. Not within millions or even billions, given the time-spans for which Evolutionists argue.

Second, if mutations (or simply variation due to sexual reproduction) are maladaptive, then they will end up being rare in the population. Those individuals with these traits are likely to die, or fail to pass on the traits. Therefore, the traits will be scarce in the fossil record.

The opposite is true. If many unsuccessful mutations are happening, and all die, that makes it more, not less likely, that they'd be in our fossil record. You're not going to have an abundance of successful cases to get fossilized, but rather an vastly larger abundance of specimens weeded out by survival-of-the-fittest.

If by far the majority of humans and proto-humans represent genetic "success", why would we "expect" to find many false starts?

Because the alleged mechanism is "randomness," and "randomness" is unbelievably wasteful. For every success randomness produces, it has to produce multitudinous failures, precisely because it is random, and doesn't calculate in favour of any particular outcome at all.

The human body is composed of billions of cells, each one capable of sustaining a genetic injury, or mutation. What are the chances of any random mutation turning out to produce a survival advantage? So if randomness is what's doing it, there should be billions of false starts for every successful production.

We don't have remains of every hominid. On the contrary, we have only a very small percentage.

That's precisely the problem. How would we get so lucky that the only remains we would find would be all the success stories, and every last one of the billions of possible false starts mysteriously never got fossilized?

...the record is quite complete; there are no "missing links".

You'd better do some research before you make a claim like that. It's all too easy to disprove.

In fact, the American Scientist notes that "Ironically, even as one link is found, two new missing links are "created"—one the immediate ancestor and one the immediate descendent of the newly found creature." You'll find that not only are there missing links, but new missing links constantly being produced by every alleged finding of a possible progenitor, as well.

And I'm sure you're quite oblivious to the numerous frauds that have been associated with the "human development tree," such as the old monkey-to-man chart, which used to be depicted in magazines, diorama-ed in museum displays, and taught in schools as complete orthodoxy, and is still believed to be "scientific" by many in the credulous masses today, but which is totally debunked scientifically, in favour of a "common ancestor" theory, that holds that the last possible connection would have been 6-7 million years ago, at the genetic level (Smithsonian). Even that theory would require us to believe that a relative level of genetic similarity or correspondence was proof of causality...which is, of course, a logical fallacy.

There's a lot of hocus pocus going on around the theory of human evolution -- that much is very clear. There are a lot of people who are quite desperate to convince themselves and everybody else that human beings evolved, and that evolution is random. But you can see the problems, I'm sure.

You don't understand evolution. If adaptive traits are "successful" they are passed on and become common in the population. The fact that most mutations are maladaptive is irrelevant to the claim that they will be common in the fossil record. If 100 maladaptive traits lead to early death, and a successful mutation leads to tens of thousands of descendants, which is more likely to be represented in the fossil record?

The "hocus-pocus" is in Creationism.

[Immanuel Can]

You don't understand evolution.

Umm...a minute ago, contrary to all the scientific publications, you were insisting there were "no missing links." So....that allegation really fails to impress, I must say. Perhaps somebody doesn't...but it might not be me.

If 100 maladaptive traits lead to early death, and a successful mutation leads to tens of thousands of descendants, which is more likely to be represented in the fossil record?

It depends on how the maladaptive mutations are manifested, of course. A few would be so severe that plausibly they would result in instant death, and we might imagine that the infants/foetuses thust maladapted might have long ago disappeared into dust. But doubtless, many, many mutations would be of the sort that would manifest only on the macro level, such as a difference in spread of eyes or positioning of limbs, or curvature of the spine, or extent of the jaw, and so on. And those are the maladaptations that would persist, and which would doubtless end up in the fossil record, all things being equal. And there should be billions. We should be up to our necks in such fossils, if random variation is the right explanation.

But things were not, apparently and according to the Evolutionists, "equal" in that sense. At least, that's what they have to say in order to account for the overwhelming lack of "false starts" in the fossil record. And that would then make us have to suppose some sort of "guidance" in the evolutionary process, and we're right back to intelligent design before we know it.

[Alexiev]

You don't understand evolution.

Umm...a minute ago, contrary to all the scientific publications, you were insisting there were "no missing links." So....that allegation really fails to impress, I must say. Perhaps somebody doesn't...but it might not be me.

If 100 maladaptive traits lead to early death, and a successful mutation leads to tens of thousands of descendants, which is more likely to be represented in the fossil record?

It depends on how the maladaptive mutations are manifested, of course. A few would be so severe that plausibly they would result in instant death, and we might imagine that the infants/foetuses thust maladapted might have long ago disappeared into dust. But doubtless, many, many mutations would be of the sort that would manifest only on the macro level, such as a difference in spread of eyes or positioning of limbs, or curvature of the spine, or extent of the jaw, and so on. And those are the maladaptations that would persist, and which would doubtless end up in the fossil record, all things being equal. And there should be billions. We should be up to our necks in such fossils, if random variation is the right explanation.

But things were not, apparently and according to the Evolutionists, "equal" in that sense. At least, that's what they have to say in order to account for the overwhelming lack of "false starts" in the fossil record. And that would then make us have to suppose some sort of "guidance" in the evolutionary process, and we're right back to intelligent design before we know it.

Incorrect again. By definition, maladaptations would by less prevalent than successful adaptations. How could it be otherwise?

[Flannel Jesus]

Also, it's not like it's straight forward to tell from a fossil that it does or doesn't have a maladapted mutation anyway. Can you tell the difference between a dinosaur fossil with and without downs syndrome? I can't

[Immanuel Can]

You don't understand evolution.

Umm...a minute ago, contrary to all the scientific publications, you were insisting there were "no missing links." So....that allegation really fails to impress, I must say. Perhaps somebody doesn't...but it might not be me.

If 100 maladaptive traits lead to early death, and a successful mutation leads to tens of thousands of descendants, which is more likely to be represented in the fossil record?

It depends on how the maladaptive mutations are manifested, of course. A few would be so severe that plausibly they would result in instant death, and we might imagine that the infants/foetuses thust maladapted might have long ago disappeared into dust. But doubtless, many, many mutations would be of the sort that would manifest only on the macro level, such as a difference in spread of eyes or positioning of limbs, or curvature of the spine, or extent of the jaw, and so on. And those are the maladaptations that would persist, and which would doubtless end up in the fossil record, all things being equal. And there should be billions. We should be up to our necks in such fossils, if random variation is the right explanation.

But things were not, apparently and according to the Evolutionists, "equal" in that sense. At least, that's what they have to say in order to account for the overwhelming lack of "false starts" in the fossil record. And that would then make us have to suppose some sort of "guidance" in the evolutionary process, and we're right back to intelligent design before we know it.

Incorrect again. By definition, maladaptations would by less prevalent than successful adaptations. How could it be otherwise?

Randomness, of course. Successful adaptations are exceedingly rare -- so rare we cannot recreate them in labs at all -- and, as the story goes, it takes many recursions to have a single successful one. They happen accidentally, to no plan, and almost always unsuccessfully -- just the way all the mutations we now know of do. But the payoff of the story is supposed to be, "But now and then, on very rare occasions, a random mutation produces a survival advantage."

That's the whole credibility point of Evolutionism: given enough time, and enough recursions, things that never happen in real life will actually turn out to have happened...like fish turning into dogs, and chimps turning into human beings. If you don't believe that, then evolution's not the story for you.

[Immanuel Can]

Can you tell the difference between a dinosaur fossil with and without downs syndrome? I can't

That's just one genetic change, and one that can't aid survival at all, so according to the evolutionary story, they could not be selected-for.

What about those that are supposed to be remotely capable of producing a survival advantage? They would, necessarily, have to be at the macro level -- the sort of thing that would be visible, such as an extra eye, a bigger set of teeth, stronger limbs, bigger brains, and so on. And for every one of these, there would have to be billions of alternatives that didn't work out, for one reason or another. And they should all have ended up in the fossil record.

[Alexiev]

Randomness, of course. Successful adaptations are exceedingly rare -- so rare we cannot recreate them in labs at all -- and, as the story goes, it takes many recursions to have a single successful one. They happen accidentally, to no plan, and almost always unsuccessfully -- just the way all the mutations we now know of do. But the payoff of the story is supposed to be, "But now and then, on very rare occasions, a random mutation produces a survival advantage."

That's the whole credibility point of Evolutionism: given enough time, and enough recursions, things that never happen in real life will actually turn out to have happened...like fish turning into dogs, and chimps turning into human beings. If you don't believe that, then evolution's not the story for you.

So what? Once a successful adaptation occurs, it is repeated over and over again. Unsuccessful adaptations disappear.

In addition, evolution need not occur through mutation. The genetic advantage of sexual reproduction is that it creates genetic diversity even without mutation.

If you don't believe chimps can turn into humans -- how about a woman being created from the rib of a man? Hmmm. Which strains our credulity more?

[Immanuel Can]

Randomness, of course. Successful adaptations are exceedingly rare -- so rare we cannot recreate them in labs at all -- and, as the story goes, it takes many recursions to have a single successful one. They happen accidentally, to no plan, and almost always unsuccessfully -- just the way all the mutations we now know of do. But the payoff of the story is supposed to be, "But now and then, on very rare occasions, a random mutation produces a survival advantage."

That's the whole credibility point of Evolutionism: given enough time, and enough recursions, things that never happen in real life will actually turn out to have happened...like fish turning into dogs, and chimps turning into human beings. If you don't believe that, then evolution's not the story for you.

So what? Once a successful adaptation occurs, it is repeated over and over again. Unsuccessful adaptations disappear.

And become fossils...many, many more fossils than the few "successful" adaptations that get fossilized.

In addition, evolution need not occur through mutation.

That's an interesting claim. Maybe you'd better explain.

This must be a new kind of Darwinism Darwin never even suspected.

[Flannel Jesus]

--accidental post--

[Flannel Jesus]

Can you tell the difference between a dinosaur fossil with and without downs syndrome? I can't

That's just one genetic change, and one that can't aid survival at all, so according to the evolutionary story, they could not be selected-for.

What about those that are supposed to be remotely capable of producing a survival advantage? They would, necessarily, have to be at the macro level -- the sort of thing that would be visible, such as an extra eye, a bigger set of teeth, stronger limbs, bigger brains, and so on. And for every one of these, there would have to be billions of alternatives that didn't work out, for one reason or another. And they should all have ended up in the fossil record.

Sorry that wasn't addressed to you, I can't deal with all the willful ignorance from you, my previous post was directed at the guy above me, Alexiev.

[Will Bouwman]

If the processes are random, then it should be quite obvious we should expect a lot of "false starts" in the genetic process.

What do you mean by "false starts"

After all there's no "guidance" in the system that's limiting the kinds of mutations to those that will eventually be more likely to be survival-enhancing, and it's sheer luck when one such thing appears, and happens to survive because the particular mutation "works" well.

As I understand evolution, the vast majority of mutations have little impact on the survival of an individual. After all, no two humans have identical genes (true even of identical twins apparently). So every one of us is a mutant evolutionary experiment, nearly all of which are functional reproductive beings.

This is Dennett's "wasteful process": for every successful mutation, there have to be millions of unsuccessful ones.

Well, you called Dennett stupid. I don't agree with that, but he wasn't an evolutionary biologist. He clearly had an interpretation of evolution, but as I have said on many occasions, any interpretation that is consistent with the facts might be true. Dennett will have been as at home with underdetermination as I am, but for reasons best known to himself, decided to take argue for a particular stance.

But then...where are the fossils to justify our belief in this "wastefulness"?

Neither of us believe "in this "wastefulness"", so it seems superfluous to justify it.

On the other hand, if the process is "guided," then the problem becomes, "what Force or Law" is at work compelling the evolutionary process toward what we conceive of as "success"?

It is entirely possible that the hand of some god is on the steering wheel, but while I remain confident I could defend it, that is your case to make.

[Immanuel Can]

If the processes are random, then it should be quite obvious we should expect a lot of "false starts" in the genetic process.

What do you mean by "false starts"

Mutations not conducive to a survival advantage.

As I understand evolution, the vast majority of mutations have little impact on the survival of an individual.

That is true of mutations generally, but not of Evolutionism. The mutations we observe are genetic injuries, not miraculous improvements. But the theory requires that the mutation in question musts have a survival advantage.

This is Dennett's "wasteful process": for every successful mutation, there have to be millions of unsuccessful ones.

Well, you called Dennett stupid.

I call the whole theory that.

But then...where are the fossils to justify our belief in this "wastefulness"?

Neither of us believe "in this "wastefulness"", so it seems superfluous to justify it.

Yet Evolutionism requires it. And such a belief cannot be justified by the evidence.

On the other hand, if the process is "guided," then the problem becomes, "what Force or Law" is at work compelling the evolutionary process toward what we conceive of as "success"?

It is entirely possible that the hand of some god is on the steering wheel, but while I remain confident I could defend it, that is your case to make.

I don't make any case for human evolution at all, so there's no case to be made there. It would be somebody who believes in a) evolution, and yet b) some account of it involving guided mutations. That's not me.

So we end up with the "unguided" kind of random mutations, in which case there's no fossil evidence sufficient to justify anything close to the wastefulness required, or "guided" mutations, which might seem to solve the lack of "false starts" but requires belief in "guidance" behind evolution.

Or, better still, we stop trying to justify a story that just doesn't work.

[Alexiev]

So what? Once a successful adaptation occurs, it is repeated over and over again. Unsuccessful adaptations disappear.

And become fossils...many, many more fossils than the few "successful" adaptations that get fossilized.

In addition, evolution need not occur through mutation.

That's an interesting claim. Maybe you'd better explain.

This must be a new kind of Darwinism Darwin never even suspected.

You math and logic are faulty. If 50 maladaptive adaptations occur, they may lead to 50 (or 100 or 200) skeletons. If one successful adaptations occurs, it could multiply exponentially, and be revealed in many thousands of skeletal remains.

Genetic selection and Darwinian evolution occur when there is sexual reproduction with or without mutations. Genes are passed on randomly: 50% from father and mother. Those that promote their own reproduction (generally through descendants, but sometimes through altruistic behavior toward relatives) will tend to become more common. This is obvious and irrefutable. It is true a priori. So sexual reproduction promotes evolution with or without mutation.

[Immanuel Can]

So what? Once a successful adaptation occurs, it is repeated over and over again. Unsuccessful adaptations disappear.

And become fossils...many, many more fossils than the few "successful" adaptations that get fossilized.

In addition, evolution need not occur through mutation.

That's an interesting claim. Maybe you'd better explain.

This must be a new kind of Darwinism Darwin never even suspected.

You math and logic are faulty. If 50 maladaptive adaptations occur, they may lead to 50 (or 100 or 200) skeletons. If one successful adaptations occurs, it could multiply exponentially, and be revealed in many thousands of skeletal remains.

No, it's fine. If it takes a thousand or a million non-beneficial, random mutations to produce one accidentally-successful mutation, then there should be thousands or millions of unsuccessful-mutation fossils for every single successful-mutation fossil.

That's pretty rudimentary mathematics, actually.

Genetic selection and Darwinian evolution occur when there is sexual reproduction with or without mutations.

This is not according to Darwinism. If there is no mutation, there is nothing for survival-of-the-fittest to favour and thus to select-for. So the creature in question wouldn't evolve at all, but rather, reproduction would merely continuously produce the same level of development in each successive generation...a Neanderthal would stay a Neanderthal. The only way that would change, according to the evolutionary myth, is if the Neanderthal was born that had a survival-enhancing mutation no Neanderthal had ever had before...and then managed to reproduce in such a way that the new mutation was not recessive, and so wasn't simply counteracted by genetic dominance in the next generation, but was passed from one generation to the next. Mutations are necessary. Without them, there's no evolution at all.

So we disagree on mutation and basic Evolutionism. And all I have on my side is basic maths and Charles Darwin. Well, and logic.

[Flannel Jesus]

You math and logic are faulty. If 50 maladaptive adaptations occur, they may lead to 50 (or 100 or 200) skeletons. If one successful adaptations occurs, it could multiply exponentially, and be revealed in many thousands of skeletal remains.

No, it's fine. If it takes a thousand or a million non-beneficial, random mutations to produce one accidentally-successful mutation, then there should be thousands or millions of unsuccessful-mutation fossils for every single successful-mutation fossil.

That's pretty rudimentary mathematics, actually.

Alexi, you cannot convince someone of something if they just actively try not to understand. Even I as a child could understand the logic that a mutation that was good for survival would replicate more through the generations than one that was bad for survival. This person is playing stupid at this point. "Rudimentary mathematics".

You have nothing to gain from this Alex, you can't play chess with a pigeon. The pigeon just knocks all the pieces over, shits all over the board, then struts around like it won.