In evolutionary terms, 'fitness' is the ability to transfer genetic information to the next generation under varying environmental conditions. An organism that can replicate its genes through a long series of adverse conditions over others that fall by the wayside is described as 'fit'. The environment modulates the frequency of alleles (single features) by the prevalence of hostile and favourable environmental inputs selecting which alleles persist by allowing the transfer of genetic information. The environment is effectively the 'designer' of all life. That's evolution.

27 minutes ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

The incompleteness of the fossil record is acknowledged in every paleontology textbook. That is why scientists use many methods to cross-check the fossils. These include stratigraphy, radiometric dating, molecular clocks, and comparative anatomy. None of these stand alone, and none of them rely on belief or assumption. They are grounded in physics, chemistry, and biology and are all testable and falsifiable. You do not get to hand-wave them away by pretending they are just "interpretations."

Radiometric dating, which you seem to distrust, is one of the most rigorously tested tools in geology and paleontology. The decay rates of isotopes like uranium two thirty eight and potassium forty are not estimated. They are measured and have been repeatedly confirmed in the lab. These decay rates are unaffected by temperature, pressure, chemical environment, or anything else that would make them unreliable. They act as atomic clocks and are trusted by physicists, chemists, and geologists alike.

When scientists date rocks, they do not just look at one isotope. They check several systems that decay at different rates. When they all converge on the same date, you have confidence. This is called concordia dating, and it works. We can date moon rocks, meteorites, Earth rocks, and volcanic ash layers with this method. And it works the same everywhere. The reliability is not up for debate. It is experimental fact.

Now let us look at faunal succession, which you called a biased assumption. Actually, it is an observed regularity in the stratigraphic column. We find trilobites below dinosaurs, and we find dinosaurs below mammals. Always. Everywhere. You can look across continents, and the pattern holds. This is not something scientists invented because it fits a theory. The theory arose because the pattern was observed. It is inductive reasoning.

You bring up Darwin and habitat diversity. Yes, Darwin noted that islands and continents with similar climates had different species. But that is not an argument against evolution or the fossil record. It is a key insight that helped him understand descent with modification. The Galapagos finches are not examples of separate creation. They are textbook cases of adaptive radiation, where a common ancestor diversified into multiple species to fill different ecological niches.

The same logic applies when comparing ancient fossils. A Triassic archosaur and a Jurassic theropod are not simply animals from two different habitats. They are clearly related in form, limb structure, pelvis shape, and dentition. They follow a progression through time that is backed up by both the fossil record and molecular data. There is no case in the fossil record where modern elephants are found in Cambrian rocks or where whales are found with Permian amphibians. If the fossil record were just habitat-based differences, we would expect complete chaos. But we do not find chaos. We find order.

Let us talk about speciation. You claim there is no evidence for the origin of species through evolution. That is simply incorrect. Speciation has been observed directly, both in the lab and in the field. Cichlid fish in African lakes have split into dozens of species in a few thousand years. Fruit flies have formed new reproductively isolated populations in laboratory settings. Even in vertebrates, like the apple maggot fly, we have seen populations diverging into distinct forms that no longer interbreed. This is speciation.

But yes, macroevolution takes time. You cannot expect to see an elephant evolve from a shrew in one lifetime. That is not how gradual accumulation of change works. Evolution is not about instant transformations. It is about small genetic changes accumulating over millions of years. The fossil record gives us snapshots of these stages. For example, we have step-by-step transitions from early horses to modern ones, from jawed fish to tetrapods, from early whales to modern cetaceans.

On the topic of the asteroid, it is not just a guess that a meteor ended the Cretaceous. We have a global layer of iridium, which is rare on Earth but common in asteroids. We have a spike in shocked quartz, glassy spherules, and soot that matches a global firestorm. And we have the Chicxulub crater in Mexico, a one hundred eighty kilometer wide impact structure that dates precisely to sixty six million years ago. The data do not suggest an asteroid hit. The data scream it.

The extinction pattern fits the impact hypothesis too. Marine plankton, non avian dinosaurs, flying reptiles, and ammonites disappear right at that boundary. Mammals, birds, and some reptiles survive. This selective extinction is what you would expect from a sudden catastrophic event. And it is not just about dinosaurs. About seventy five percent of species went extinct worldwide. It left a mark in every ecosystem and in every geological record.

You also bring up organisms like cockroaches, coelacanths, and mosquitoes and ask why they are still around if evolution is real. That is a strange question. Evolution is not a ladder. It does not imply that all organisms must change dramatically or go extinct. If a form works well, it can remain stable. Coelacanths live deep in oceans and have few predators and little environmental change. They did not have strong selective pressures to change. They are not unchanged, by the way. Their genes show change. But their basic body plan remains because it still works.

On dominance, your skepticism is misplaced. Dinosaurs dominated terrestrial ecosystems for over one hundred fifty million years. That is not a theory. That is what the fossil record shows. Their bones appear in nearly every Mesozoic terrestrial deposit, in vast numbers and diversity. From the dog-sized Compsognathus to the towering Argentinosaurus, they filled herbivore and carnivore niches. They were not isolated anomalies. They were the core of the ecosystem.

Compare that with today. Mammals dominate land ecosystems. That is not controversial. You would not say mammals are a myth because echidnas and crocodiles still exist. Dominance does not mean every single animal fits the pattern. It means the majority of biomass and ecological roles are filled by that group. Dinosaurs did that in their time.

You suggest that scientists interpret fossils to fit their ideas. That is backward. Scientific interpretations change as new data appear. Archaeopteryx was discovered after Darwin proposed evolution. It had feathers and teeth and a long bony tail. It changed the understanding of birds. Tiktaalik was predicted to exist in a specific rock layer, and was found exactly there. It is a transitional form between fish and tetrapods. These are not retrofitted interpretations. These are testable predictions fulfilled by evidence.

Also, you say evolution is not directly observed. That is simply false. We observe bacterial evolution all the time. Resistance to antibiotics evolves in real time. We see influenza evolve so rapidly that we need new vaccines every year. Evolution is not stuck in the past. It is happening now. It is observed in genetics, in morphology, and in ecological studies. It is one of the most testable and confirmed theories in all of science.

The claim that we only "retreat to the fossil record" is a gross misrepresentation. Evolutionary biology rests on multiple lines of evidence. Paleontology is just one of them. Others include embryology, comparative anatomy, biogeography, and molecular genetics. The patterns are consistent across all these fields. For example, the gene sequences of humans and chimpanzees are over ninety eight percent identical. Our chromosomes match nearly one for one, including the fused chromosome two.

The origin of species has not only been inferred. It has been documented in ring species, in laboratory studies, in natural experiments, and in comparative genomics. It is not a last resort. It is the main course. If you want to believe otherwise, you are free to do so. But you are not challenging a few weak guesses. You are taking a swing at one hundred sixty years of cumulative research supported by hundreds of thousands of peer-reviewed studies.

Science is not built on suspicion. It is built on evidence. You can be skeptical all you want, but if you want to reject radiometric dating, the fossil record, biogeography, genetics, and observed speciation, then you are not just disagreeing with evolution. You are disagreeing with physics, chemistry, biology, and geology. That is a tall hill to climb.

You do not have to believe the Earth is ancient or that life evolved. But if you are going to reject all that, you better have a system that can explain everything science already explains, and more. Because evolution explains why your arms and a bird’s wings share the same bones. It explains why embryos of mammals, reptiles, and birds all start off with pharyngeal arches and tails. It explains why marsupials dominate in Australia but not in Africa or Eurasia. It explains patterns in nature that are otherwise inexplicable.

So yes, I can tell you which species dominated after the dinosaurs. Mammals did. Especially placental mammals. They radiated into new niches, leading to ungulates, primates, bats, whales, and eventually humans. That is not a wild guess. That is observable in the fossil record, in the molecular clock, and in comparative anatomy.

The burden is not on scientists to stop using evidence. The burden is on critics to present better explanations. So far, I have seen a lot of doubt but not a single alternative model that explains the same phenomena with greater accuracy or predictive power. That is the real difference between science and suspicion. Science works. Doubt just stalls.

It isn’t “some meteorite” like the smaller ones that often crash into the earths atmosphere, it was 6 damn miles long. There is a ton of evidence to confirm this including the impact site itself in the Chixclub impact site. Also, during the Cretaceous biological diversity was extremely high, within the fossil record it is seen as ending abruptly. Biodiversity as a whole was not under threat as seen during the Permian or Triassic, it ending spontaneously suddenly by external factors is a way more probable explanation that it being gradually. Instead of attacking paleontologists with no evidence, gather some form of evidence to stimulate discussion.

We know that Carbon-14 needs to be adjusted because in "real time" they have observed how nuclear testing has influenced it. To assume that the semi-decay processes of older radioactive isotopes have been constant is still just that: an assumption.

On the other hand, reproductive preferences, as in the case of the fruit fly, are not evidence of speciation. Individuals remain the same fly and can successfully reproduce with each other, if they so choose. Similarly, it would be like saying that in a predominantly short population, females begin to prefer taller men and stop reproducing with shorter men; this means we're dealing with a different, non-human species. Lack of reproductive success doesn't exclude you from the species. In China, for example, it seems the population prefers natives, but this doesn't mean the Chinese are a new species.

Finally, comparing bones seems less reliable than a sketch of a criminal suspect. By comparing bones and interpreting their morphological possibilities, you end up with a suspicion, not a solved case, as you'd like the public to believe. To think that homologies are solid evidence is simply to start from a non-critical, but biased position.

P.S. The fossil record doesn't seem at all comparable to what they assume, as the researchers themselves acknowledge that they don't find a large number of specimens, although they do find a considerable variety of species. To think that the planet was full of dinosaurs, when they only have a few fossilized remains in some museums, many of them incomplete, is to overstate the case.

1 hour ago, Wigberto said:

I also question whether, in fact, there was any dominance of dinosaurs (or chickens) on the planet.

Evidence for such suspicions?

1 minute ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

Evidence for such suspicions?

42 minutes ago, exchemist said:

The fossil record provides a series of data points that suggest evolutionary trends. This is no different in principle from the data points you get from a series of measurements in an experiment in chemistry or physics. In both cases you have data points that appear to show a trend and you join the dots.

In the case of evolution, we have confirmation of the principle at wrk in real time, when we observe the development of drug resistance in bacteria or cancers.

So we most certainly do have evidence for evolution in response to environmental pressures

Blood, the spine, and the skull—elements present in different species—could also be considered reference points that suggest evolutionary trends. However, similarly, the fact that metals present in the periodic table of chemistry are similar does not constitute sufficient evidence to claim that they come from a common ancestor, for example, an ancient elixir or an ancient stone that gave rise to them.

Therefore, similarities do not constitute evidence of kinship.Whether these elements can be broken down into a common element, or whether living organisms (different species) can be traced back to a common ancestor, would be another matter. However, there is no evidence of "first replicators" in genes, so, according to an evolutionist, the common ancestor, at the genetic level, simply disappeared from the genes of the species.

15 minutes ago, Wigberto said:

We know that Carbon-14 needs to be adjusted because in "real time" they have observed how nuclear testing has influenced it. To assume that the semi-decay processes of older radioactive isotopes have been constant is still just that: an assumption.

On the other hand, reproductive preferences, as in the case of the fruit fly, are not evidence of speciation. Individuals remain the same fly and can successfully reproduce with each other, if they so choose. Similarly, it would be like saying that in a predominantly short population, females begin to prefer taller men and stop reproducing with shorter men; this means we're dealing with a different, non-human species. Lack of reproductive success doesn't exclude you from the species. In China, for example, it seems the population prefers natives, but this doesn't mean the Chinese are a new species.

Finally, comparing bones seems less reliable than a sketch of a criminal suspect. By comparing bones and interpreting their morphological possibilities, you end up with a suspicion, not a solved case, as you'd like the public to believe. To think that homologies are solid evidence is simply to start from a non-critical, but biased position.

P.S. The fossil record doesn't seem at all comparable to what they assume, as the researchers themselves acknowledge that they don't find a large number of specimens, although they do find a considerable variety of species. To think that the planet was full of dinosaurs, when they only have a few fossilized remains in some museums, many of them incomplete, is to overstate the case.

First, your concern about Carbon 14 dating is a common confusion. Yes, scientists do adjust radiocarbon dating for variations in atmospheric Carbon 14 levels. This is not a flaw in the method. It is evidence of how precise and self-correcting the method is. We have calibration curves based on dendrochronology, which uses tree rings to give us exact annual carbon data going back more than ten thousand years. That means we do not just guess about the Carbon 14 content of the atmosphere. We measure it. And yes, nuclear testing increased Carbon 14 in the atmosphere. We noticed. We accounted for it. That is what science does.

More importantly, your argument takes an issue relevant only to Carbon 14 and wrongly applies it to other radiometric systems. The decay of uranium to lead or potassium to argon is unaffected by atmospheric conditions, magnetic fields, or nuclear tests. These systems are not calibrated by assumptions. They are governed by nuclear physics. The half-life of uranium 238 is four point four seven billion years. This is not a guess. It has been measured by laboratory experiments and confirmed by cross-dating methods again and again and again. No credible evidence has ever shown these rates to change under any natural conditions.

Now let us tackle your comments on fruit flies and reproductive isolation. You are underplaying the definition of speciation. Speciation does not require that two organisms be utterly incapable of ever reproducing under artificial or forced conditions. What matters is reproductive isolation under natural conditions. If two populations evolve different mating behaviors, times, or preferences, and stop exchanging genes, that is speciation in progress. Biologists do not define species purely by can it mate if we force them to. They use gene flow in nature as the criterion. When gene flow stops, evolution goes in different directions, and species diverge.

Your analogy to short people and tall people misses the point entirely. Preferences within a population do not lead to speciation unless they create isolated breeding pools that no longer intermix. In fruit flies, for instance, we have observed lineages that develop such preferences, alongside chromosomal changes and behavioral barriers. They do not just prefer different mates. They actually stop mating, and in some cases, even produce sterile offspring. That is textbook reproductive isolation, not just a popularity contest.

Your China example is anthropological, not biological. Humans are a single species with global gene flow. Racial or ethnic mating preferences are cultural, not genetic barriers. Human populations across the globe can interbreed and do so frequently. That is not at all analogous to what we observe in diverging fly populations that, over generations, lose the ability or tendency to interbreed naturally.

Next, you take a swing at comparative anatomy, claiming that comparing bones is like sketching a criminal suspect. But that analogy is backwards. A sketch of a suspect is based on vague recollection. Comparative anatomy is based on detailed, quantifiable data. The homologies we see between species are not superficial guesses. They involve the exact same structures arranged in the same order, developing from the same embryological origins. For example, every tetrapod has a humerus, radius, and ulna in the forelimb, regardless of whether it is used for flying, grasping, or swimming. That is not coincidence. That is inherited architecture.

Homology is not just looks kind of similar. It is deeply embedded in development, gene expression, and structural position. When we look at bird wings and bat wings, we see convergent function but different structures. When we look at a whale flipper and a human arm, we see divergent function but shared structure, pointing to common descent. These comparisons are not suspicion. They are data-rich evidence that supports evolutionary relationships.

You say homologies are not solid evidence because you think they are based on biased assumptions. But that is exactly the kind of claim that collapses under cross-disciplinary confirmation. Genetic data confirms homologies predicted by comparative anatomy. Fossils show stepwise transitions that link structures across time. For example, the inner ear bones in mammals evolved from jaw bones in early synapsids. We see this transformation in the fossil record, we observe the migration of the bones in embryology, and we confirm the genetic pathways that regulate it. This is not a hunch. It is a convergence of multiple scientific methods.

Now let us address the final claim about the fossil record and dinosaur dominance. First, yes, the fossil record is incomplete. No scientist denies this. Fossilization is rare. It requires specific conditions such as rapid burial, low oxygen, and mineral-rich water. That is why we do not have fossils for every animal that ever lived. But that does not make the record meaningless. Despite its gaps, it shows consistent patterns in space and time. Dinosaurs appear suddenly in the Triassic, diversify in the Jurassic, and dominate through the Cretaceous. Then they vanish except for birds right at the Cretaceous Paleogene boundary.

You say museums only have a few specimens. That is an exaggeration. There are tens of thousands of dinosaur fossils catalogued in institutions around the world. We are not talking about five bones in a glass case. We have full skeletons, fossilized nests, trackways, and even preserved skin impressions and feathers. Entire ecosystems have been reconstructed from fossil deposits like those in the Hell Creek Formation or the Liaoning beds in China. The data are vast and growing.

You say they find variety, not abundance, but this is inaccurate. In many fossil beds, dinosaur bones are the dominant vertebrate fossils. Hadrosaurs in North America are found in large bone beds, suggesting herding behavior and population density. Theropods like Allosaurus are found with healed injuries, signs of scavenging, and even in combat poses. We do not just have bits and pieces. We have ecosystem snapshots, complete with plants, insects, invertebrates, fish, reptiles, mammals, and yes, dinosaurs.

Moreover, dinosaur dominance is not based solely on bone count. It is based on their ecological roles, size distribution, geographic spread, and morphological variety. Dinosaurs filled nearly every terrestrial role, from small omnivores like Troodon to massive herbivores like Diplodocus to apex predators like Tyrannosaurus. This is not speculative. It is drawn from data across hundreds of sites worldwide.

And just to clarify another point you imply, yes, some fossils are incomplete. That is expected. But paleontologists are trained to identify fragmentary remains with high accuracy, and new technologies like CT scanning and isotopic analysis help reconstruct missing parts with incredible precision. The field is not based on guesswork. It is based on a century and a half of rigorous work, peer review, and technological improvement.

So to summarize, your critique rests on several misconceptions. Radiometric dating is not an assumption. It is a cross-validated physical measurement. Speciation is not a matter of preference. It is about gene flow and isolation. Comparative anatomy is not a sketch. It is a structural blueprint observed across deep time and species. And the fossil record is not a handful of bones. It is a global database of biological history confirmed by multiple sciences working in harmony.

Skepticism is healthy. But when it disregards overwhelming evidence across disciplines, it is not critical thinking anymore.

Just now, Wigberto said:

Blood, the spine, and the skull—elements present in different species—could also be considered reference points that suggest evolutionary trends. However, similarly, the fact that metals present in the periodic table of chemistry are similar does not constitute sufficient evidence to claim that they come from a common ancestor, for example, an ancient elixir or an ancient stone that gave rise to them.

Therefore, similarities do not constitute evidence of kinship.Whether these elements can be broken down into a common element, or whether living organisms (different species) can be traced back to a common ancestor, would be another matter. However, there is no evidence of "first replicators" in genes, so, according to an evolutionist, the common ancestor, at the genetic level, simply disappeared from the genes of the species.

How does this answer my question at all? What makes YOU think the dinosaurs never rose to dominance.

My friend, as interesting as you may think you sound, it’s getting painful. Trying to deny the entire Mesozoic era is a little nuts

26 minutes ago, Wigberto said:

Blood, the spine, and the skull—elements present in different species—could also be considered reference points that suggest evolutionary trends. However, similarly, the fact that metals present in the periodic table of chemistry are similar does not constitute sufficient evidence to claim that they come from a common ancestor, for example, an ancient elixir or an ancient stone that gave rise to them.

Therefore, similarities do not constitute evidence of kinship.Whether these elements can be broken down into a common element, or whether living organisms (different species) can be traced back to a common ancestor, would be another matter. However, there is no evidence of "first replicators" in genes, so, according to an evolutionist, the common ancestor, at the genetic level, simply disappeared from the genes of the species.

This is too stupid to argue with.

20 minutes ago, exchemist said:

This is too stupid to argue with.

"Not logical, Captain".

26 minutes ago, exchemist said:

This is too stupid to argue with.

They didn’t even answer my question 😭

49 minutes ago, Wigberto said:

Blood, the spine, and the skull—elements present in different species—could also be considered reference points that suggest evolutionary trends. However, similarly, the fact that metals present in the periodic table of chemistry are similar does not constitute sufficient evidence to claim that they come from a common ancestor, for example, an ancient elixir or an ancient stone that gave rise to them.

Therefore, similarities do not constitute evidence of kinship.Whether these elements can be broken down into a common element, or whether living organisms (different species) can be traced back to a common ancestor, would be another matter. However, there is no evidence of "first replicators" in genes, so, according to an evolutionist, the common ancestor, at the genetic level, simply disappeared from the genes of the species.

The common 'ancestor' of all elements in the Periodic Table is hydrogen. The conditions determined where, when and how often these elements appeared. Just like biological evolution.

Edited June 20Jun 20 by StringJunky

56 minutes ago, Wigberto said:

the spine, and the skull—elements present in different species—could also be considered reference points that suggest evolutionary trends.

Bone structures are literally how paleontologists figure out how species are different and such structures show evolution over time. I’m trying to keep a leveled head here but this is just embarrassing

3 hours ago, Wigberto said:

An individual who dies before it can reproduce cannot reproduce; the theory of evolution depends on survival.

This ignores the population aspect I mentioned, along with probabilities. There are others that can survive and reproduce.

3 hours ago, Wigberto said:

I have said that species depend on reproduction, not individual survival. If selfish genes truly prevailed in nature, it would logically follow that there would be no organisms whose existence is focused on reproduction, but rather more like cancer, which tries to survive at all costs.

Not very good logic.

3 hours ago, Wigberto said:

In nature, the healthiest individuals often advance in the group and are the first to die because they are at greater risk. The weak and naturally sick individuals who lag behind, then, have a chance of surviving and reproducing.

Again, your logic escapes me. It’s not even consistent with your earlier statement about the “vulnerable” and “favorite prey” of predators.

Your strawman/caricature of natural selection as proposed by Darwinism is what does not exist. The actual theory is just fine.

We expect arguments here to be made in good faith. Thus far I’m not seeing that. Just tired creationist talking points.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Just tired creationist talking points.

I thought they were purely doubtful of certain aspects in evolution, are you sure they are a creationist?

On 6/19/2025 at 1:13 PM, iNow said:

1983 called. They want their OP back

This is helpful to OP how? Perhaps engage in the discussion more, you likely have some good things to say instead of little snippets of humor.

3 hours ago, StringJunky said:

In evolutionary terms, 'fitness' is the ability to transfer genetic information to the next generation under varying environmental conditions. An organism that can replicate its genes through a long series of adverse conditions over others that fall by the wayside is described as 'fit'. The environment modulates the frequency of alleles (single features) by the prevalence of hostile and favourable environmental inputs selecting which alleles persist by allowing the transfer of genetic information. The environment is effectively the 'designer' of all life. That's evolution.

It seems well known to me that, frequently, when a gene or group of genes becomes established, it does not result in fitter specimens, but rather they often present congenital diseases.While reproduction is a fundamental aspect, and therefore fertility is also crucial, it is worth mentioning again that if an organism is born with congenital pathologies, it will likely not survive long enough to reproduce.The idea of gene consolidation, or genetic competition, is incompatible with real evidence (not suspicion) for the reasons described above, which are empirically observed. Inbreeding, or gene consolidation, is not usually advantageous for the proliferation of species (with some exceptions).A selfish gene, for this and other reasons (such as one mentioned in another post), is not something that dominates in nature; otherwise, species would suffer more frequently from congenital diseases (such as domesticated species due to human selection).

1 minute ago, Wigberto said:

It seems well known to me that, frequently, when a gene or group of genes becomes established, it does not result in fitter specimens, but rather they often present congenital diseases.While reproduction is a fundamental aspect, and therefore fertility is also crucial, it is worth mentioning again that if an organism is born with congenital pathologies, it will likely not survive long enough to reproduce.The idea of gene consolidation, or genetic competition, is incompatible with real evidence (not suspicion) for the reasons described above, which are empirically observed. Inbreeding, or gene consolidation, is not usually advantageous for the proliferation of species (with some exceptions).A selfish gene, for this and other reasons (such as one mentioned in another post), is not something that dominates in nature; otherwise, species would suffer more frequently from congenital diseases (such as domesticated species due to human selection).

When you say genes “become established” and cause congenital diseases, you are confusing deleterious mutations with beneficial or neutral genetic variants. Yes, harmful mutations exist and can cause diseases. That is biology 101. But that is not the entire story of evolution or gene propagation.

Natural selection does not favor harmful mutations. It actively weeds them out. That is why congenital diseases that severely reduce survival or fertility tend to disappear over generations unless they are recessive or maintained by some unusual mechanism like heterozygote advantage. So the mere existence of congenital diseases does not contradict evolution; it confirms it because natural selection is continuously acting on gene variants.

Now about your point on fertility and survival. Exactly. An organism with a congenital defect that prevents survival or reproduction will not pass on those genes effectively. This is the basic mechanism by which harmful mutations fail to accumulate. On the other hand, genes that improve fitness, whether by increasing survival, fertility, or other advantages, tend to become more common. This is what evolutionary biologists mean by genes “competing” or “consolidating” in populations.

You mention inbreeding and “gene consolidation.” Inbreeding is indeed problematic in many cases because it increases the chance of homozygosity for recessive deleterious alleles. That leads to inbreeding depression, which reduces fitness. But this is not the same as the overall evolutionary process that acts on large, outbreeding populations with genetic diversity. Many species avoid inbreeding naturally through behaviors and dispersal.

The concept of the selfish gene does not mean “selfish” in a conscious or negative sense. It is a metaphor coined by Richard Dawkins to describe how genes that promote their own replication increase in frequency. This explains many evolutionary phenomena such as altruism, cooperation, and complex behaviors. The selfish gene theory is backed by extensive genetic, ecological, and behavioral evidence. It is not some baseless assumption.

If selfish genes did not dominate, we would see random gene frequencies and no adaptation at all. Instead, we see very clear patterns of adaptation, convergence, and diversification that can only be explained by genes influencing organismal fitness and reproduction. Domesticated species suffer from congenital diseases because human artificial selection often reduces genetic diversity and inadvertently amplifies harmful alleles. That is not natural evolution failing. That is human-driven breeding with its own goals and constraints.

Finally, real populations have mechanisms to maintain genetic health, such as recombination, mutation repair, selection, and genetic drift. These ensure that species persist and adapt despite the constant background presence of harmful mutations. Evolution is messy and ongoing, but it is far from random or meaningless.

Please stop trying to disapprove evolution 😑

It’s not going to happen my friend and frankly creationism (In the scenario you are one) is a worse explanation quite frankly.

30 minutes ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

Perhaps engage in the discussion more

Been there. Done that. Got the tshirt.

1 minute ago, iNow said:

Been there. Done that. Got the tshirt.

Do it again

3 hours ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

First, your concern about Carbon 14 dating is a common confusion. Yes, scientists do adjust radiocarbon dating for variations in atmospheric Carbon 14 levels. This is not a flaw in the method. It is evidence of how precise and self-correcting the method is. We have calibration curves based on dendrochronology, which uses tree rings to give us exact annual carbon data going back more than ten thousand years. That means we do not just guess about the Carbon 14 content of the atmosphere. We measure it. And yes, nuclear testing increased Carbon 14 in the atmosphere. We noticed. We accounted for it. That is what science does.

More importantly, your argument takes an issue relevant only to Carbon 14 and wrongly applies it to other radiometric systems. The decay of uranium to lead or potassium to argon is unaffected by atmospheric conditions, magnetic fields, or nuclear tests. These systems are not calibrated by assumptions. They are governed by nuclear physics. The half-life of uranium 238 is four point four seven billion years. This is not a guess. It has been measured by laboratory experiments and confirmed by cross-dating methods again and again and again. No credible evidence has ever shown these rates to change under any natural conditions.

Now let us tackle your comments on fruit flies and reproductive isolation. You are underplaying the definition of speciation. Speciation does not require that two organisms be utterly incapable of ever reproducing under artificial or forced conditions. What matters is reproductive isolation under natural conditions. If two populations evolve different mating behaviors, times, or preferences, and stop exchanging genes, that is speciation in progress. Biologists do not define species purely by can it mate if we force them to. They use gene flow in nature as the criterion. When gene flow stops, evolution goes in different directions, and species diverge.

Your analogy to short people and tall people misses the point entirely. Preferences within a population do not lead to speciation unless they create isolated breeding pools that no longer intermix. In fruit flies, for instance, we have observed lineages that develop such preferences, alongside chromosomal changes and behavioral barriers. They do not just prefer different mates. They actually stop mating, and in some cases, even produce sterile offspring. That is textbook reproductive isolation, not just a popularity contest.

Your China example is anthropological, not biological. Humans are a single species with global gene flow. Racial or ethnic mating preferences are cultural, not genetic barriers. Human populations across the globe can interbreed and do so frequently. That is not at all analogous to what we observe in diverging fly populations that, over generations, lose the ability or tendency to interbreed naturally.

Next, you take a swing at comparative anatomy, claiming that comparing bones is like sketching a criminal suspect. But that analogy is backwards. A sketch of a suspect is based on vague recollection. Comparative anatomy is based on detailed, quantifiable data. The homologies we see between species are not superficial guesses. They involve the exact same structures arranged in the same order, developing from the same embryological origins. For example, every tetrapod has a humerus, radius, and ulna in the forelimb, regardless of whether it is used for flying, grasping, or swimming. That is not coincidence. That is inherited architecture.

Homology is not just looks kind of similar. It is deeply embedded in development, gene expression, and structural position. When we look at bird wings and bat wings, we see convergent function but different structures. When we look at a whale flipper and a human arm, we see divergent function but shared structure, pointing to common descent. These comparisons are not suspicion. They are data-rich evidence that supports evolutionary relationships.

You say homologies are not solid evidence because you think they are based on biased assumptions. But that is exactly the kind of claim that collapses under cross-disciplinary confirmation. Genetic data confirms homologies predicted by comparative anatomy. Fossils show stepwise transitions that link structures across time. For example, the inner ear bones in mammals evolved from jaw bones in early synapsids. We see this transformation in the fossil record, we observe the migration of the bones in embryology, and we confirm the genetic pathways that regulate it. This is not a hunch. It is a convergence of multiple scientific methods.

Now let us address the final claim about the fossil record and dinosaur dominance. First, yes, the fossil record is incomplete. No scientist denies this. Fossilization is rare. It requires specific conditions such as rapid burial, low oxygen, and mineral-rich water. That is why we do not have fossils for every animal that ever lived. But that does not make the record meaningless. Despite its gaps, it shows consistent patterns in space and time. Dinosaurs appear suddenly in the Triassic, diversify in the Jurassic, and dominate through the Cretaceous. Then they vanish except for birds right at the Cretaceous Paleogene boundary.

You say museums only have a few specimens. That is an exaggeration. There are tens of thousands of dinosaur fossils catalogued in institutions around the world. We are not talking about five bones in a glass case. We have full skeletons, fossilized nests, trackways, and even preserved skin impressions and feathers. Entire ecosystems have been reconstructed from fossil deposits like those in the Hell Creek Formation or the Liaoning beds in China. The data are vast and growing.

You say they find variety, not abundance, but this is inaccurate. In many fossil beds, dinosaur bones are the dominant vertebrate fossils. Hadrosaurs in North America are found in large bone beds, suggesting herding behavior and population density. Theropods like Allosaurus are found with healed injuries, signs of scavenging, and even in combat poses. We do not just have bits and pieces. We have ecosystem snapshots, complete with plants, insects, invertebrates, fish, reptiles, mammals, and yes, dinosaurs.

Moreover, dinosaur dominance is not based solely on bone count. It is based on their ecological roles, size distribution, geographic spread, and morphological variety. Dinosaurs filled nearly every terrestrial role, from small omnivores like Troodon to massive herbivores like Diplodocus to apex predators like Tyrannosaurus. This is not speculative. It is drawn from data across hundreds of sites worldwide.

And just to clarify another point you imply, yes, some fossils are incomplete. That is expected. But paleontologists are trained to identify fragmentary remains with high accuracy, and new technologies like CT scanning and isotopic analysis help reconstruct missing parts with incredible precision. The field is not based on guesswork. It is based on a century and a half of rigorous work, peer review, and technological improvement.

So to summarize, your critique rests on several misconceptions. Radiometric dating is not an assumption. It is a cross-validated physical measurement. Speciation is not a matter of preference. It is about gene flow and isolation. Comparative anatomy is not a sketch. It is a structural blueprint observed across deep time and species. And the fossil record is not a handful of bones. It is a global database of biological history confirmed by multiple sciences working in harmony.

Skepticism is healthy. But when it disregards overwhelming evidence across disciplines, it is not critical thinking anymore.

How does this answer my question at all? What makes YOU think the dinosaurs never rose to dominance.

My friend, as interesting as you may think you sound, it’s getting painful. Trying to deny the entire Mesozoic era is a little nuts

First, the point I was trying to make about C-14 wasn't its accuracy, but rather that it requires adjustments to be accurate, and that these are applied to previously known factors (obviously, it can't be adjusted based on unknown variables). Therefore, it's not a foolproof system because, just as they recognize (known) variables that stimulate variation in their results, they can't ignore the existence of undetected (unknown) variables that continue to influence the results. The known variable is nuclear testing. For other radioactive isotopes, there are no major known variables, to my knowledge, that influence their accuracy and would warrant calibration. However, they can't guarantee that none exist; they merely guarantee that they haven't detected any. To assume otherwise is to assume they know everything, and that is patently false.

It seems to me that part of the basic definition of a species is that its individuals can produce fertile offspring.

While you want to approach it, first, geographically, I have to clarify that it's more a matter of genetics than geography or reproductive preferences. As long as genes allow reproduction and the generation of offspring that can also reproduce with individuals of the species, they are the same species.

Finally, the fossil record doesn't always follow an expected pattern (although it is very frequently found in the expected order). Specialists often offer explanations for what they call inverted layers, when layers that are supposed to be at the bottom are actually at the top. In these cases, they assume it's due to geological rather than chronological factors. However, they never seem to consider that the order of the layers is always due to geological factors.

2 hours ago, StringJunky said:

The common 'ancestor' of all elements in the Periodic Table is hydrogen. The conditions determined where, when and how often these elements appeared. Just like biological evolution.

Hydrogen is number 1 on the periodic table, but the idea that hydrogen can be used to produce gold would be interesting. I had no idea. Where does it say hydrogen transmutes into gold?

24 minutes ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

When you say genes “become established” and cause congenital diseases, you are confusing deleterious mutations with beneficial or neutral genetic variants. Yes, harmful mutations exist and can cause diseases. That is biology 101. But that is not the entire story of evolution or gene propagation.

Natural selection does not favor harmful mutations. It actively weeds them out. That is why congenital diseases that severely reduce survival or fertility tend to disappear over generations unless they are recessive or maintained by some unusual mechanism like heterozygote advantage. So the mere existence of congenital diseases does not contradict evolution; it confirms it because natural selection is continuously acting on gene variants.

Now about your point on fertility and survival. Exactly. An organism with a congenital defect that prevents survival or reproduction will not pass on those genes effectively. This is the basic mechanism by which harmful mutations fail to accumulate. On the other hand, genes that improve fitness, whether by increasing survival, fertility, or other advantages, tend to become more common. This is what evolutionary biologists mean by genes “competing” or “consolidating” in populations.

You mention inbreeding and “gene consolidation.” Inbreeding is indeed problematic in many cases because it increases the chance of homozygosity for recessive deleterious alleles. That leads to inbreeding depression, which reduces fitness. But this is not the same as the overall evolutionary process that acts on large, outbreeding populations with genetic diversity. Many species avoid inbreeding naturally through behaviors and dispersal.

The concept of the selfish gene does not mean “selfish” in a conscious or negative sense. It is a metaphor coined by Richard Dawkins to describe how genes that promote their own replication increase in frequency. This explains many evolutionary phenomena such as altruism, cooperation, and complex behaviors. The selfish gene theory is backed by extensive genetic, ecological, and behavioral evidence. It is not some baseless assumption.

If selfish genes did not dominate, we would see random gene frequencies and no adaptation at all. Instead, we see very clear patterns of adaptation, convergence, and diversification that can only be explained by genes influencing organismal fitness and reproduction. Domesticated species suffer from congenital diseases because human artificial selection often reduces genetic diversity and inadvertently amplifies harmful alleles. That is not natural evolution failing. That is human-driven breeding with its own goals and constraints.

Finally, real populations have mechanisms to maintain genetic health, such as recombination, mutation repair, selection, and genetic drift. These ensure that species persist and adapt despite the constant background presence of harmful mutations. Evolution is messy and ongoing, but it is far from random or meaningless.

Please stop trying to disapprove evolution 😑

It’s not going to happen my friend and frankly creationism (In the scenario you are one) is a worse explanation quite frankly.

I'll just say that cancer is one of the best examples of selfish mutations.

Well, I'll also say that most mutations don't seem to be truly advantageous, but rather irrelevant to survival. However, many are defects or diseases (like a cancer cell, for example).

18 minutes ago, Wigberto said:

First, the point I was trying to make about C-14 wasn't its accuracy, but rather that it requires adjustments to be accurate, and that these are applied to previously known factors (obviously, it can't be adjusted based on unknown variables). Therefore, it's not a foolproof system because, just as they recognize (known) variables that stimulate variation in their results, they can't ignore the existence of undetected (unknown) variables that continue to influence the results. The known variable is nuclear testing. For other radioactive isotopes, there are no major known variables, to my knowledge, that influence their accuracy and would warrant calibration. However, they can't guarantee that none exist; they merely guarantee that they haven't detected any. To assume otherwise is to assume they know everything, and that is patently false.

It seems to me that part of the basic definition of a species is that its individuals can produce fertile offspring.

While you want to approach it, first, geographically, I have to clarify that it's more a matter of genetics than geography or reproductive preferences. As long as genes allow reproduction and the generation of offspring that can also reproduce with individuals of the species, they are the same species.

Finally, the fossil record doesn't always follow an expected pattern (although it is very frequently found in the expected order). Specialists often offer explanations for what they call inverted layers, when layers that are supposed to be at the bottom are actually at the top. In these cases, they assume it's due to geological rather than chronological factors. However, they never seem to consider that the order of the layers is always due to geological factors.

I get that you’re saying radiocarbon dating isn’t perfect because it needs adjustments, and yeah, science is always refining its tools. But here’s the thing — that is exactly how science works. We don’t just throw out methods because they’re not flawless. We test, calibrate, and improve constantly. The fact that scientists know nuclear testing affects Carbon 14 levels and can correct for it is proof they aren’t blindly trusting numbers.

Saying unknown variables could mess it all up is basically saying “I don’t trust science because maybe something we don’t know exists.” That’s not how progress happens. We work with what we can measure and cross-check everything. Uranium-lead dating, potassium-argon, and others have been tested so many times with samples we know the age of, like moon rocks. They hold up. If decay rates randomly changed, we’d see it everywhere, and we don’t.

On species — yes, fertile offspring is a good rule of thumb, but biology isn’t that simple. Nature laughs at our neat definitions. Some species can interbreed and some can’t, but that doesn’t always fit into tidy boxes. The reality is messy. You say it’s about genes and not geography or preference p, but gene flow depends on those things. When populations don’t mix, they evolve separately. That’s how new species form. It’s not just a matter of genes existing in isolation. You can’t cherry-pick one factor.

Now about fossils and layers being out of order, sure, geologists sometimes find strange layering. But they don’t ignore this. They study it intensely and figure out if tectonic forces flipped or shifted things. Geological processes absolutely explain these oddities. The idea that all layers are only arranged by geological shuffling and not by time is nonsense. That would throw away everything we know about Earth’s history and how sediments build up over millions of years.

It’s not some conspiracy where scientists just assume stuff. They use multiple clues — fossil types, radiometric dates, sediment characteristics — to understand the timeline. When you say “they never consider geological factors,” you’re missing that this is exactly what geologists do every day. It’s their whole job to figure out where and how layers have been altered.

Look, science is not perfect, and it doesn’t pretend to be. But dismissing radiometric dating, species definitions, and stratigraphy because of “unknown unknowns” or exceptions is just throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If you want to seriously doubt these frameworks, you need a better explanation that fits the huge amount of data from all over the world, not just pick apart tiny details and pretend that means the whole system is broken.

2 hours ago, swansont said:

This ignores the population aspect I mentioned, along with probabilities. There are others that can survive and reproduce.

So it's not the fittest who survive. Well, it's not always the fittest who survive, because it's not a natural law that the fittest always survive.

31 minutes ago, Wigberto said:

It seems well known to me that, frequently, when a gene or group of genes becomes established, it does not result in fitter specimens, but rather they often present congenital diseases.

First define "established" then provide an example for this specific scenario.

32 minutes ago, Wigberto said:

While reproduction is a fundamental aspect, and therefore fertility is also crucial, it is worth mentioning again that if an organism is born with congenital pathologies, it will likely not survive long enough to reproduce.

Then think about the genes leading to the disease. What happens with them? Think about how that might relate to your definition of "established".

Fundamentally, when it comes to population, you do not think about individuals, you think about the the population as evolution simply refers to generational change of the gene pool.

@Wigberto for what you are saying on evolution, it is equivalent to me reading a religious textbook, finding one inaccuracy,a den then completely disregarding its value

50 minutes ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

I thought they were purely doubtful of certain aspects in evolution, are you sure they are a creationist?

I didn’t say they were, I said they were offering up the same talking points. Creationist talking points are doubtful of evolution. They can be arrived at independently, of course, but the misunderstanding required almost has to be willful, because it’s not that hard to get good information.

5 minutes ago, Wigberto said:

So it's not the fittest who survive. Well, it's not always the fittest who survive, because it's not a natural law that the fittest always survive.

You’re right. “the fittest always survive” (emphasis added) is your strawman. No part of the actual theory claims this.

12 minutes ago, CharonY said:

First define "established" then provide an example for this specific scenario.

Then think about the genes leading to the disease. What happens with them? Think about how that might relate to your definition of "established".

Fundamentally, when it comes to population, you do not think about individuals, you think about the the population as evolution simply refers to generational change of the gene pool.

Lack of genetic variability often leads (in humans, for example) to inbreeding depression. What I'm saying is in the context of inbreeding.

This is not exactly a natural law, but it is widely observed that inbreeding is often quite negative in various species, such as humans.

Just now, Wigberto said:

Lack of genetic variability often leads (in humans, for example) to inbreeding depression. What I'm saying is in the context of inbreeding.

This is not exactly a natural law, but it is widely observed that inbreeding is often quite negative in various species, such as humans.

What does inbreeding have to do with evolution? What are you basing this off of Adam and Eve?

21 minutes ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

@Wigberto for what you are saying on evolution, it is equivalent to me reading a religious textbook, finding one inaccuracy,a den then completely disregarding its value

I believe that species change within themselves, limited to their own species (we could say they evolve), but I don't believe they originate in this way. There is no real evidence in any scientific text that one species arises from another, nor that stones are transmuted into gold.