Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Dark Photon

Proving Evolution

Recommended Posts

Natural Selection and mutation are observable in the present' date=' but have not been observed to generate a new arrangement of useful data that was not already in the genome.[/quote'] not true at all......ever hear of antibiotic resisatant bacteria?

 

For this reason, some scientists doubt the ability of Natural Selection and mutation to have operated in the past as the mechanism of evolution.
how many in the field of biology?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bjaminwood.

You say evolution has only been observed within species?

You clearly did not read my post. There have now been many examples of changes observed that lead to new species. My African cichlid example is one of the best.

 

You claim no intermediate fossils.

Sorry' date=' there are literally thousands of examples of intermediate fossils. For example, we now know that birds evolved from dinosaurs. The first intermediate fossil was Archaeopteryx. This was clearly a dinosaur, but had feathers, including flight feathers very similar to those found on today's birds. Until recently, there was a big gap in the fossil record after Archaeopteryx. However, the opening up of China to the world led to studies of fossil beds there, and the discovery of a wealth of intermediate fossils, such as Confuciousornis, which had lost more dinosaur features and gained more bird. There are now at least 10 intermediate fossils between dinosaurs and birds, which show a clear path of evolution. This was all written up in a very nice Scientific American article a couple of years ago.

 

The dinosaur to bird pathway is just one example. Intermediate fossils have been found for whales, horses, apes etc.[/quote']

 

As you have never seen one of these intermediate creatures alive you can not prove without doubt that what you see in the fossil records is not one of the creatures either side of an intermediate creature. E.g. dinosaur to bird. The fossil in my view is either likely to be one or the other and not an intermediate state. I would have more chance believing that a fossil was an intermediate creature if I had once seen a live version. As science is mainly based on things that can be tested in the here and now, I am happy to believe that birds existed years ago at the same time as other animals that exist today like monkeys and elephants.

 

Can you please explain to me why we as humans do not evolve into something else and why don't monkeys evolve into humans today?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i've seen hundereds and thousands of transitional species. every single organism on the planet is a transitional species.

 

We are evolving into other things, and why would monkeys evolve into another human species. they are cousins to us. your implying that they are "less evolved" than us. but they aren't. they are equally evolved. they just went down a different path.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As you have never seen one of these intermediate creatures alive
but he has. so have i. every life form is either transitional or terminal.

 

you can not prove without doubt that what you see in the fossil records is not one of the creatures either side of an intermediate creature.
in other words, the intermediate form isn't an intermediate form, it is just between two intermediate forms?

 

 

Can you please explain to me why we as humans do not evolve into something else and why don't monkeys evolve into humans today?

go learn about what evolution actually says as opposed to the creationist strawman of evolution you are propogating.

 

btw, humans ARE evolving. one example is we are a lot taller on average than we were even just a few thousand years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bjaminwood

Your argument is a perfect example of the general principle, that if someone is a "True Believer", then they are immune to reason and logic. Any facts in conflict with their belief are simply ignored.

 

As you have never seen one of these intermediate creatures alive you can not prove without doubt that what you see in the fossil records is not one of the creatures either side of an intermediate creature. E.g. dinosaur to bird. The fossil in my view is either likely to be one or the other and not an intermediate state. I would have more chance believing that a fossil was an intermediate creature if I had once seen a live version. As science is mainly based on things that can be tested in the here and now, I am happy to believe that birds existed years ago at the same time as other animals that exist today like monkeys and elephants.

 

Can you please explain to me why we as humans do not evolve into something else and why don't monkeys evolve into humans today?

 

No-one has seen these particular intermediate creatures alive for the simple reason they existed many millions of years ago. Yet their fossil skeletons, and fossil feathers are there, often in excruciatingly beautiful detail. Are you going to suggest that is someone's imagination?

 

Your statement about 'either side of an intermediate creature' is hard to understand. You may have to repeat, using less ambiguous words. Are you suggesting that the fossils represent creatures not quite on the line of direct descent? In other words, side branches of the family tree?

 

If so, it does not matter. These side branches could not exist without evolution.

 

Modern day human and monkey evolution. Experiments with fruit flies suggest that at least 200 generations are needed to achieve a (very small) measurable evolutionary change. This, in human terms is 5000 years. Genetic studies have revealed a few genes that seem to have entered the human population within the last 10,000 years, so this is consistent. If we are to observe human and monkey evolution directly, we need to hang around for another 5,000 to 10,000 years.

 

However, fast reproducing species that can go through 200 + generations within a few years can be experimented upon in the laboratory to see what evolutiony changes occur. This has been done with Drosophila among others, and the results are exactly what theory predicts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As you have never seen one of these intermediate creatures alive you can not prove without doubt that what you see in the fossil records is not one of the creatures either side of an intermediate creature. E.g. dinosaur to bird. The fossil in my view is either likely to be one or the other and not an intermediate state. I would have more chance believing that a fossil was an intermediate creature if I had once seen a live version. As science is mainly based on things that can be tested in the here and now' date=' I am happy to believe that birds existed years ago at the same time as other animals that exist today like monkeys and elephants.

 

Can you please explain to me why we as humans do not evolve into something else and why don't monkeys evolve into humans today?[/quote']

Hmmm..... Kind of like God or Jesus? Be careful how you debate. I'm not saying that's a good offense, but you can't use that when you believe the bible without seeing its founders or God or Jesus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As you have never seen one of these intermediate creatures alive you can not prove without doubt that what you see in the fossil records is not one of the creatures either side of an intermediate creature. E.g. dinosaur to bird.
Seeing them alive or dead makes no diffference on what something was. Say you find a dead giraffe out on the plains; is it any less a giraffe than the live ones? Just because a dead critter doesn't have living examples doesn't mean we don't know what it was. If all giraffes were dead, they'd still be giraffes!

 

The fossil in my view is either likely to be one or the other and not an intermediate state.
That simply isn't a choice in regards to the many species that simply aren't one or the other. There are no clear-cut lines in taxonomy, and to pretend it were, you'd have to erase all evidence of the existences of countless species to get those lines, and their would STILL be blurred similarities between the existing species that would show how wrong you are.

 

I would have more chance believing that a fossil was an intermediate creature if I had once seen a live version.
Excuse me for asking this, but what the hell is the difference in believing what it is based on whther or not you saw it moving once? The livng example and the fossil would be the same, there'd be absolutely no difference. SO why, just... just... why? It doesn't make any damned sense, and I mean even compared to countless other idiot statements, this one takes the cake.

 

As science is mainly based on things that can be tested in the here and now, I am happy to believe that birds existed years ago at the same time as other animals that exist today like monkeys and elephants.
Their bodies are here and now. They just got a little hard and don't move anymore.

 

Can you please explain to me why we as humans do not evolve into something else and why don't monkeys evolve into humans today?
Go read a sentence or two about evolution. If you have as much brains as a bar of soap, you'll figure out why that question shows your absolute lack of any understanding for evolution whatsoever.

 

Humans ARE evolving, but you'd never notice it until thousands of years had passed, with detailed records comparing details for every generation!

 

Monkeys don't evolve into humans because we weren't programmed to become human int eh first place. Random mutations combined with environmental pressures molded us up from what it had at the time! Monkeys could evolve into anything you can imagine! Gliding predators, amphibious grazers, a type of armor-backed creature that clings to the side of trees sucking out the sap! And get this, they might just evolve into *gasp* different monkeys!!! Humans didn't even evolve from a type of monkey in the first place!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How come, for instance an intermediate state creature has NEVER been found in the fossil records?

If I remember correctly a quite a few years ago they found one of these intermediate forms that was still alive (the spieces that is not the individual :D ). It is called the Coelacanth. Recently another transitional form animals was found with bony fins that resembled the bone structure of a tetrapod (four legged land animal).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Experiments with fruit flies suggest that at least 200 generations are needed to achieve a (very small) measurable evolutionary change. This' date=' in human terms is 5000 years. [/quote']

 

What were they before? Fruit flies. What were they during reproduction? Fruit flies. What did they become after 200 generations? Fruit flies. Is that evolution? No, it just fruit flies.

 

Genetic studies have revealed a few genes that seem to have entered the human population within the last 10,000 years, so this is consistent.

 

You have comitted a logical fallacy called a priori reasoning (circular reasoning) by assuming what needs to be proved. You need to first show how you arrived at the 10,000 year old date.

 

 

If we are to observe human and monkey evolution directly, we need to hang around for another 5,000 to 10,000 years.

 

If molecules-to-man evolution is happening today, we would have been able to observe small scale evolution in the present. Yet no evolution happens of the kind to enable fish to change to philosophers.

 

However, fast reproducing species that can go through 200 + generations within a few years can be experimented upon in the laboratory to see what evolutiony changes occur.

 

And all these experiments have yielded results that contradict Darwinian Evolution, and support the creation model. See http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i2/genetics.asp

 

This has been done with Drosophila among others, and the results are exactly what theory predicts.

 

It is disturbing to see willful rejection of scientific findings of this kind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If I remember correctly a quite a few years ago they found one of these intermediate forms that was still alive (the spieces that is not the individual :D ). It is called the Coelacanth. Recently another transitional form animals was found with bony fins that resembled the bone structure of a tetrapod (four legged land animal).

 

The Coelacanth is not an intermediate form. It is a fish. It always has been a fish as far back as we can trace it in the fossil record. Evolutionists date Coelacanth fossils to 340 millions old. Yet living ones have been discovered! Think of it, they say it has not changed in 340 millions years! Other examples of 'living fossils' include the Gingko trees (fossil gingko trees are believed by evolutionists to be 125 million years), crocodiles (140 million years), horseshoe crabs (200 million years), the Lingula lamp shell (450 million years), Neopilina molluscs (500 million years), and the tuatara lizard (200 million years). Why have these life-forms stayed the same for all that time?

 

Could it be maybe....just maybe....that they are not millions of years old?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Coelacanth is not an intermediate form. It is a fish. It always has been a fish as far back as we can trace it in the fossil record. Evolutionists date Coelacanth fossils to 340 millions old. Yet living ones have been discovered! Think of it' date=' they say it has not changed in 340 millions years! Other examples of 'living fossils' include the Gingko trees (fossil gingko trees are believed by evolutionists to be 125 million years), crocodiles (140 million years), horseshoe crabs (200 million years), the Lingula lamp shell (450 million years), Neopilina molluscs (500 million years), and the tuatara lizard (200 million years). Why have these life-forms stayed the same for all that time?

 

Could it be maybe....just maybe....that they are not millions of years old?[/quote'] The colecanth known today is not the same as known form the fossil record. The GENUS was found to be alive, the two types living today are brand new species. And they quite perfectly represent a family of fish that represent a link betwen those of completely marine nature and those that would later go on to colonize land. So shut the hell up and look up the facts before you spout off your trap.

 

Anyway, on a side note that I hadn't thought I'd ever have to point out to someone again, a species can evolve into another species without the parent species or close kin of that parent going extinct! You know nothing about evolution, and even a so-called creation-scientist could tell you that!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
not true at all......ever hear of antibiotic resisatant bacteria?

 

Antibiotic resistance is good evidence against molecules-to-man evolution. See an excellent article by Carl Wieland on this here http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i1/superbugs.asp

 

how many in the field of biology?

 

tens of thousands, including all the founders of biological science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Citing a creationist site that has been debunked many times is not the brightest idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What were they before? Fruit flies. What were they during reproduction? Fruit flies. What did they become after 200 generations? Fruit flies. Is that evolution? No, it just fruit flies.

You are thick. SkepticLance specifically said "very SMALL change".

 

If molecules-to-man evolution is happening today, we would have been able to observe small scale evolution in the present. Yet no evolution happens of the kind to enable fish to change to philosophers.

That's because we haven't known of evolution for nearly long enough. If we had started a genetic study in 2000 BC and measured all changes since then, perhaps we'd notice some larger changes.

 

 

And all these experiments have yielded results that contradict Darwinian Evolution, and support the creation model. See [url']http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i2/genetics.asp[/url]

Try using a reputable source.

 

It is disturbing to see willful rejection of scientific findings of this kind.

Et tu.

 

The Coelacanth is not an intermediate form. It is a fish. It always has been a fish as far back as we can trace it in the fossil record.

You don't understand the meaning of the term "intermediate form."

 

Evolutionists date Coelacanth fossils to 340 millions old. Yet living ones have been discovered! Think of it, they say it has not changed in 340 millions years! Other examples of 'living fossils' include the Gingko trees (fossil gingko trees are believed by evolutionists to be 125 million years), crocodiles (140 million years), horseshoe crabs (200 million years), the Lingula lamp shell (450 million years), Neopilina molluscs (500 million years), and the tuatara lizard (200 million years). Why have these life-forms stayed the same for all that time?

Perhaps they're already well adapted to their environment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The colecanth known today is not the same as known form the fossil record. The GENUS was found to be alive, the two types living today are brand new species.

 

It is a amusing to read you deflecting the point at hand. The coelacanth is a problem to evolutionists, which they admit, but which you try to ignore. Dicks, L., writing in 'The creatures time forgot', New Scientist, (164(2209):36–39, 1999) says many creatures, including the coelacanth, 'have stayed the same' for millions of years.

 

And they quite perfectly represent a family of fish that represent a link betwen those of completely marine nature and those that would later go on to colonize land.

 

Story telling should be kept appart from science.

 

 

So shut the hell up and look up the facts before you spout off your trap.

 

Let me amuse you with one interesting fact on the matter. In 1938 Marjorie Courtenay-Latimer alerted the scientific world to the fact that the coelacanth fish was alive and well. Before that time, it had been thought extinct, having died out about ‘the time of the dinosaurs’. The species was named Latimeria chalumnae in her honour.

 

 

Anyway, on a side note that I hadn't thought I'd ever have to point out to someone again, a species can evolve into another species without the parent species or close kin of that parent going extinct! You know nothing about evolution, and even a so-called creation-scientist could tell you that!

 

You are guilty of Ad Hominem (against the man)....attacking the opponent instead of the argument. Anyway, the fact that living things can speciate is called 'speciation'. In your case read 'evolution'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Citing a creationist site that has been debunked many times is not the brightest idea.

 

Empty statement. Lets see you debunk it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is a amusing to read you deflecting the point at hand. The coelacanth is a problem to evolutionists, which they admit, but which you try to ignore. Dicks, L., writing in 'The creatures time forgot', New Scientist, (164(2209):36–39, 1999) says many creatures, including the coelacanth, 'have stayed the same' for millions of years.

That's not a problem. They're well adapted and they don't really need to evolve any more.

 

 

 

Story telling should be kept appart from science.

Please see the Bible.

 

 

You are guilty of Ad Hominem (against the man)....attacking the opponent instead of the argument. Anyway, the fact that living things can speciate is called 'speciation'. In your case read 'evolution'.

You don't need to act like she's stupid.

 

Nahomadis, you are using the strawman fallacy to a ludicrous extent in your posts. If you continue, I'll have to give you warning points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps they're already well adapted to their environment.

 

Perhaps they didn't evolve from pond scum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Nahomadis' date=' you are using the strawman fallacy to a ludicrous extent in your posts. If you continue, I'll have to give you warning points.[/quote']

 

Or is it too close to the truth....and touching a raw nerve?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because a source decides to stand by verifiable fact rather than imaginary bull**** an infant could see through doesn't mean it's not reputable.

 

And your source for coelocanth facts is quite innacurate, they have stayed RELATIVELY the same in all that time. But they have changed enough so that they aren't even the same genus!

 

If I attacked you it's because YOU are the one denying the facts and hiding between a shield of stoner delusions. YOU and all of your ilk are the issue here, not the theory

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Try using a reputable source.

Would you care to disprove talk orgins or are you going to be a hypocrite?

 

Remember you said:

Empty statement. Lets see you debunk it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.