What evidence would you accept for human evolution?

[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"

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.

It seems to me that by "Evolutionism" you mean saltation, or some other version of macromutation. I would agree with you that the evidence for such an hypothesis is extremely flimsy, but that is not the theory of evolution by natural selection. According to that theory, you and I, in common with every living being, are mutants, no two of us having identical genes. Some of us will have more children than others for all sorts of socio-political, cultural and economic reasons; somewhere in the mix, genetics also plays a role and even slight advantages will tend to prosper better. Examples of this include skin colour which has a strong correlation to latitude, and adaptations to the cardiovascular system to cope with altitude. As far as we know, any sexually healthy human being can reproduce with any other, but in theory, a population that is isolated long enough may accumulate enough genetic drift to make reproduction with an outsider unviable, thereby becoming a distinct species.

[Alexiev]

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.

It seems to me that by "Evolutionism" you mean saltation, or some other version of macromutation. I would agree with you that the evidence for such an hypothesis is extremely flimsy, but that is not the theory of evolution by natural selection. According to that theory, you and I, in common with every living being, are mutants, no two of us having identical genes. Some of us will have more children than others for all sorts of socio-political, cultural and economic reasons; somewhere in the mix, genetics also plays a role and even slight advantages will tend to prosper better. Examples of this include skin colour which has a strong correlation to latitude, and adaptations to the cardiovascular system to cope with altitude. As far as we know, any sexually healthy human being can reproduce with any other, but in theory, a population that is isolated long enough may accumulate enough genetic drift to make reproduction with an outsider unviable, thereby becoming a distinct species.

Polar bears and grizzly bears may be able to have fertile offspring (the defining characteristic of a species). No mutations would be necessary for the divergence in color, paw size, etc.to occur. Sexual reproduction creates genetic diversity which can favor certain traits, depending on environmental factors. Of course this is not true for asexual reproduction.

[Will Bouwman]

Polar bears and grizzly bears may be able to have fertile offspring (the defining characteristic of a species). No mutations would be necessary for the divergence in color, paw size, etc.to occur. Sexual reproduction creates genetic diversity which can favor certain traits, depending on environmental factors. Of course this is not true for asexual reproduction.

Well, yeah, there is also 1 to 4% Neanderthal dna in non African humans. The breeding criterion for defining species seems pretty arbitrary.

[Immanuel Can]

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.

It seems to me that by "Evolutionism" you mean saltation, or some other version of macromutation.

No, I am using it as shorthand for "human evolution" of all kinds, ince no other kind of belief in evolution has much consequence so far as the present issues are concerned. I mean interspecies "evolution," or the idea that the nature, biological or psychological of human beings is in any significant way different from the dawn of history to the present. In other words, a denial of the whole Biological Progressivist narrative.

I would agree with you that the evidence for such an hypothesis is extremely flimsy, but that is not the theory of evolution by natural selection. According to that theory, you and I, in common with every living being, are mutants, no two of us having identical genes.

That's not a pertinent observation, though.

The fact that we don't have exactly the same genetic pattern accounts for us being individuals. But the same is also true of women and men -- their genetic makeup is slightly different, but it does not indicate that they fail to be of the same species, or that either is "evolving" into the other. They are simply two sexes of exactly the same species, regardless of superficial differences such as the amount of melanin in the skin, the shape of the eyes, the texture and colour of the hair...etc. Genetic differences of this superficial sort do not indicate that between you and me or between men and women we have crossed a species boundary or some sort of evolutionary rubicon between one form of humanity and another. So these are uninteresting genetic variations, for the purpose of any defense of Evolutionism.

Some of us will have more children than others for all sorts of socio-political, cultural and economic reasons; somewhere in the mix, genetics also plays a role and even slight advantages will tend to prosper better. Examples of this include skin colour which has a strong correlation to latitude, and adaptations to the cardiovascular system to cope with altitude. As far as we know, any sexually healthy human being can reproduce with any other,

So far, you and I are in agreement. And all these differences are of the superficial sort I mentioned above, none of them remotely implying evolution. At the very most, we might use them for evidence of intra-species (i.e. within a single species) modification, but never for inter-species (i.e. between two different species) transformation. Evolutionism clearly tries to advocate the latter.

...but in theory, a population that is isolated long enough may accumulate enough genetic drift to make reproduction with an outsider unviable, thereby becoming a distinct species.

Were this true, then, say Fiji islanders could plausibly have become a different species from Canadians or Englishmen. Isolated for many generations from the general genetic pool, they would not merely have experience intra-species variations, such as darker skin and eyes, but some inter-species transformation that would have resulted in an end to interfertility and the arising of a new species. No such thing has happened: reproduction between a Fiji islander and an Englishman still resulted in a little human being -- mixed in superficial features, but in no way less human, or species-different, from his/her forebears, and barring genetic injury, interfertile with every other human being on the planet.

So that "theory" is nothing but speculation on the Evolutionist's part. The old excuse, of course, is "Well, not enough time has gone by for us to know." And this becomes the excuse for believing in a theory for which no sufficient data exists at all, and for which every case of real-world testing has resulted to a reversion to common, modern humanity. In other words, not just a theory that's too old to be tested, too old for us to have obtained any data, but one contrary to every bit of data to which we DO have access.

And they say that belief in God takes faith...

[Immanuel Can]

The breeding criterion for defining species seems pretty arbitrary.

Not really. Interfertility is a pretty all-or-nothing proposition. Either two individuals can reproduce, or they can't.

[Alexiev]

The breeding criterion for defining species seems pretty arbitrary.

Not really. Interfertility is a pretty all-or-nothing proposition. Either two individuals can reproduce, or they can't.

That's incorrect. Horses can produce mules by mating with donkeys. But mules are infertile. So the reproduction is a dead end. That doesn't seem "all or nothing" to me.

[Immanuel Can]

The breeding criterion for defining species seems pretty arbitrary.

Not really. Interfertility is a pretty all-or-nothing proposition. Either two individuals can reproduce, or they can't.

That's incorrect. Horses can produce mules by mating with donkeys. But mules are infertile. So the reproduction is a dead end. That doesn't seem "all or nothing" to me.

It's nothing once the mule is created. That is, as you point out, a "dead end." Evolutionism requires there to be millions of generations of interfertility. So mules will not save the case.

[Will Bouwman]

...a denial of the whole Biological Progressivist narrative.

Evolution seems to me to explain the absence of any fossils of 'modern' humans older than about three hundred thousand years, and the existence of a fossil record, incomplete though it is, which nonetheless includes what look uncannily like protohumans. That is one fact any alternative to evolution has to account for.

...these are uninteresting genetic variations, for the purpose of any defense of Evolutionism.

The point is there is no evidence for an immutable set of genes that defines humanity.

[Immanuel Can]

...a denial of the whole Biological Progressivist narrative.

Evolution seems to me to explain the absence of any fossils of 'modern' humans older than about three hundred thousand years, and the existence of a fossil record, incomplete though it is, which nonetheless includes what look uncannily like protohumans. That is one fact any alternative to evolution has to account for.

Not hard, with so many frauds, so many bit fossils (composed of a fragment of bone or a bit of tooth, plus wishful thinking) and so much speculation in the fossil records. But it's not just what's IN the fossil record that's the biggest card...it's what's MISSING. It's those millions of years, and millions of cases of "false start" fossils that should exist -- and not only for humans, but for every single species the theory of evolution is supposed to explain.

How does randomness plus time fail to produce a long record of these 'failed' fossils? The theory absolutely requires those forms to have existed.

...these are uninteresting genetic variations, for the purpose of any defense of Evolutionism.

The point is there is no evidence for an immutable set of genes that defines humanity.

Actually there is. We have only one genuine humanity, and all interfertile. What we're lacking is any evidence of mutability in basic human constitution as a species. Yet again, the theory of evolution absolutely demands that we believe in that for which we have no evidence at all.

[Age]

Do you believe there is some guidance in "genetic variation," or that there is none? Is it a teleological process, or does it operate, so to speak, "without a particular goal in mind"?

Is "reproductive success" a guided process, or is it unguided? Is "success" somehow pre-established, and reproduction drawn toward that definite goal or teleology, or is "reproductive success" simply a matter of "whatever keeps living wins"?

In both cases, I don't know. I don't see that it would necessarily make a difference one way or the other. My inclination, in the absence of what I consider compelling evidence for teleology, is to assume there is none.

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.

1. Just because that one person has a view, or a belief, here, that in and of itself does NOT make, nor mean, that 'that view', or belief, is true and/or right.

2. If, and how many, there are so-called 'false starts', then you and others, here, would obviously NEVER KNOW. For the VERY SIMPLE Fact that ANY and EVERY fossilized record could ONLY ever be of a so-called 'true start' and NOT of a 'false start'.

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

By definition what you are saying, here, is oxymoron, and self-contradictory.

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"?

Just JUMPING FROM if there is NO evidence for one IDIOTIC CLAIM, TO, then 'the process' IS, and must be, 'guided' is just showing how Truly ILLOGICAL your thinking, and BELIEVING, is, here, "immanuel can".

Because you can be SO EASILY and SO SIMPLY MISLED and DECEIVED will NEVER mean that others ARE, AS WELL, "immanuel can".

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?

ONLY you, and a VERY RELATIVE FEW, ONLY, are WANTING, and 'expecting', these Truly IRRATIONALLY named 'false starts'.

And, ONLY you, and a FEW ONLY, are CLAIMING if you do NOT find ANY, then this MUST BE 'evidence' that 'life' is NOT 'random', there MUST BE 'guidance', and therefore God MUST exist.

Which, when one LOOKS AT 'this' FROM AN OUTSIDE perspective is MORE WEIRDER and ILLOGICAL than AT FIRST GLANCE.

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.

BECAUSE, by definition, A 'false start', literally, MEANS 'it' could NOT HAVE EVEN BEGUN. Therefore, VERY SIMPLY there would be NO ACTUAL record, fossilized or not, of 'it'.

Now, what can be VERY EASILY and VERY SIMPLY ARGUED, AS WELL, is the ACTUAL fossilized records of the very things, which are NOT in Existence 'today', when this is being written, IS the VERY PROOF that 'mutations', or EVOLUTION, HAS BEEN, and STILL IS, TAKING PLACE, and HAPPENING and OCCURRING.

How MUCH MORE SIMPLER and EASIER can this get?

Now, if one WANTS TO ACCEPT and/or BELIEVE that things ARE CREATED, through EVOLUTION, IS BY 'random chance', OR, BY so-called 'God's guidance', then 'this' is a WHOLE OTHER ISSUE. Which, the ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE Truth of, is ALSO JUST AS SIMPLE and JUST AS EASY TO ASCERTAIN, and KNOW, FOR SURE.

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-called 'evolutionism' does NOT WANT TO 'explain' ANY thing.

ONLY you human beings WANT TO 'explain' things. And, you adult human beings have and HOLD views AND BELIEFS, which then effect what you WANT TO EXPRESS, and thus EXPLAIN.

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?"

LOL
LOL
LOL

'readmitting'

you REALLY ARE BEING ABSOLUTELY CLOSED, and thus BEING ABSOLUTELY BLIND, DEAF, and STUPID, here, "immanuel can".

STARTING WITH A BELIEF, and THEN 'TRYING TO' ARGUE and FIGHT FOR your BELIEF, and 'TRYING TO' ARGUE and FIGHT AGAINST ANY and EVERY OPPOSING BELIEF, has NEVER HELPED you human beings EVER.

[Age]

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.

This so-called 'argument' is UNSOUND and INVALID, and that is what is Wrong with it.

The CLAIM that there would be so-called 'false starts' and many or millions of them is just some thing that has been MADE UP, ONLY.

Do NOT BE MISLED, and DECEIVED, BY this False CLAIM.

First, there probably are fossils that represent "false starts". I don't know. What about Neanderthals?

EVERY variation of the 'human species', which does NOT 'now' exist, IS NOT just 'evidence' BUT IS PROOF OF 'evolution', itself.

And, EVERY variation, like "neanderthals" which does NOT STILL exist IS NOT just 'evidence' BUT IS PROOF OF these so-called and so-named 'false starts'.

OBVIOUSLY, ANY CLAIM that there WOULD BE millions, or even ANY, 'mutation', which did NOT ACTUALLY START, and MORE LAUGHINGLY STILL, that there WOULD BE 'evidence' for these 'false or non starts' is BEYOND ABSOLUTE ABSURDITY.

There REALLY WAS some people who COULD BE and WERE VERY EASILY and VERY SIMPLY FOOLED and DECEIVED, back in the 'olden days' when this was being written.

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.

Do NOT BE FOOLED, and DECEIVED, like "immanuel can" HAS BEEN.

The IMAGINED NON EXISTING so-called 'false starts', and/or that there would be MILLIONS OF them, is just A MADE UP CLAM TO 'TRY TO' 'justify' one's OWN ALREADY HELD ONTO BELIEVED CONCLUSION.

AGAIN, this is just ANOTHER PRIME example of HOW and WHEN 'these people', back then would LOOK FOR, and 'TRY TO' USE, words, which they HOPED would HELP in backing up, supporting, and/or 'justifying' their 'current' BELIEF/S.

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

Good CLARIFYING QUESTION, but do NOT expect to get a CLARIFYING ANSWER FROM "immanuel can", here.

IF by definition EVERY thing existing is 'success', then EVERY fossil would be of A 'successful thing', and therefore there could NEVER EVER BE A fossil of some made up term 'false start', where the term 'false start' is referring to so-called 'non successful things'.

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

It does NOT matter how many 'we' have/find. If there are two, or more, then there IS 'mutation', and/or 'evolution'.

Isn't it likely that the maladaptive traits that fail to persist simply have not been found?

Now, what does the word 'trait', here, even referring to, EXACTLY?

Can 'traits' be found and/or seen in 'fossilized records'?

AGAIN, ABSOLUTELY EVERY fossilized found thing of some thing that does NOT, STILL, EXIST IS, literal, PROOF of so-called 'maladaptive traits'.

Also, your notion that we don't have a complete record of human evolution is correct but misleading. Of course we don't have remains of every hominid. But the record is quite complete; there are no "missing links".

[Flannel Jesus]

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

This is correct. Not about neanderthals necessarily specifically (actually humans have a bit of neanderthal in em) but in general, yes, there are absolutely dead ends of various evolutionary branches. It branches off, there's a new species or set of species there, and then that entire branch later goes extinct. Happens often enough.

Of course, that would require research and genuine intellectual interest for the person you're replying to to know that.

[Immanuel Can]

The point is there is no evidence for an immutable set of genes that defines humanity.

https://www.genome.gov/human-genome-project

[Will Bouwman]

...with so many frauds, so many bit fossils (composed of a fragment of bone or a bit of tooth, plus wishful thinking) and so much speculation in the fossil records.

Well, it's not hard to find fraudulence in evolutionary claims, nor is it hard to find examples of speculation based on small samples. The hard part is to demonstrate that therefore, evolution is false.

How does randomness plus time fail to produce a long record of these 'failed' fossils? The theory absolutely requires those forms to have existed.

Why?

[Immanuel Can]

...with so many frauds, so many bit fossils (composed of a fragment of bone or a bit of tooth, plus wishful thinking) and so much speculation in the fossil records.

Well, it's not hard to find fraudulence in evolutionary claims, nor is it hard to find examples of speculation based on small samples. The hard part is to demonstrate that therefore, evolution is false.

The burden runs the other way. The default belief of all human societies has been in a God or gods. Evolution is the new kid on the block. It's up to Evolution to prove it's true -- not on others to prove it's false.

How does randomness plus time fail to produce a long record of these 'failed' fossils? The theory absolutely requires those forms to have existed.

Why?

Because in every case of time-plus-randomess we have in the real world, there are vast quantities more "disordered" results than orderly ones. And that's very, very easy to demonstrate.

Take, for example, a roulette wheel. (Now, it only has 37 numbers on it, so it's horribly skewed in favour of you getting any desired result: say a "00." A better model would be a roulette wheel with billions of numbers on it; but let's give you every advantage.) If you spin it, what are the chances you get the desired result? 1-36, of course. There are 36 "failed" results for every one "successful" result. Randomness makes that necessary.

But there should be vastly more failed results in evolutionary mutations -- billions of them -- for every "survival adaptive" result that gets to persist. And the variations within a single species should get more and more vast with the passage of time and the successive "spinnings of the wheel," so variations within the human species should become wilder and wilder.

Is that what we see? No. So why not? It's up to Evolutionists to explain that, if they think we have reason to believe that time-plus-random-chance is all that is powering evolution.