Do you believe in evolution?

[God]

Well do you?


PRICELESS: http://movies.crooksandliars.com/GOPDebate-Evolution.mov

[Dave]

I believe in evolution to an extent. There are still a lot of holes in it. I think it is beyond coincidence that all mammals with the exception of hooved animals have the same bones in their hands, but there are a ton of "missing links" out there. It is well known that there is a big gap in human history where evolution took a huge jump that hasn't really been explained. What most people forget is that this gap is present in a lot of the animals we see today. Evolution has yet to show any process that changed the arms of a bat into wings. We have the skeletons of primative rodents, and then we have bats. Nothing in between. The same could be said for giraffes, there are normal size necks, and then there are very long necks without any long term growth process in the species. Like I said, I do believe that evolution has done a lot to shape the developement of species, but there are some questions it has yet to come close to answering.

[palerider]

Microevolution, yes. There is ample evidence of it and we can actually see it at work today. Macroevolution, however, not a chance. In a hundred and fifty years of fossil collection and analysis, we haven't seen a single fossil that evidences one species evolving into another.

[9sublime]

Microevolution, yes. There is ample evidence of it and we can actually see it at work today. Macroevolution, however, not a chance. In a hundred and fifty years of fossil collection and analysis, we haven't seen a single fossil that evidences one species evolving into another.

I knew you wouldn't be able to accept you evolved from a monkey.

[palerider]

I knew you wouldn't be able to accept you evolved from a monkey.

Show me some evidence. There have been no transitional fossils found of the ancient hominids that suggest that we came from them. They are distinct species. There are not even any transitional fossils to suggest that they came from each other. Each appears to be distinct. A creature that was there, lived for a while and died out.

[9sublime]

How can you accept microevolution but not macroevolution? If a species develops and develops, soon it will bear no resemblance to what it was originally.

[Coyote]

Show me some evidence. There have been no transitional fossils found of the ancient hominids that suggest that we came from them. They are distinct species. There are not even any transitional fossils to suggest that they came from each other. Each appears to be distinct. A creature that was there, lived for a while and died out.

That is incorrect.

First off - homosapiens did not evolve from "monkeys' - we, and they evolved from a common apelike ancester. There are many transitional fossils - each a seperate species - that shows the development from these ancestral forms to modern homosapiens. You can clearly see gradations of change from one to the other.

The other method of measuring relatedness to species is through DNA research and mapping. I'm afraid the records are pretty clear there.

[Coyote]

I should add - evolution is pretty much accepted scientific fact. Where there is uncertainty or dissention is in the exact mechanims.

[vyo476]

I should add - evolution is pretty much accepted scientific fact. Where there is uncertainty or dissention is in the exact mechanims.

No, it is still a theory. A widely-accepted and highly probable theory, but a theory, because it is not fully provable as "fact."

[Dave]

That is incorrect.

First off - homosapiens did not evolve from "monkeys' - we, and they evolved from a common apelike ancester. There are many transitional fossils - each a seperate species - that shows the development from these ancestral forms to modern homosapiens. You can clearly see gradations of change from one to the other.

The other method of measuring relatedness to species is through DNA research and mapping. I'm afraid the records are pretty clear there.

As I mentioned earlier, the transitional fossils are there for some evolutionary moves, but abscent from others. A lot of species on the earth today have some sort of missing link where there was a huge unexplained jump in the evolutionary process.

[Coyote]

As I mentioned earlier, the transitional fossils are there for some evolutionary moves, but abscent from others. A lot of species on the earth today have some sort of missing link where there was a huge unexplained jump in the evolutionary process.

Do you realize how very few creatures ever become fossils though? In terms of numbers - it's a very very rare process.

Here is an article that might shed some light on the issue of transitional fossils: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

"There are no transitional fossils."

A transitional fossil is one that looks like it's from an organism intermediate between two lineages, meaning it has some characteristics of lineage A, some characteristics of lineage B, and probably some characteristics part way between the two. Transitional fossils can occur between groups of any taxonomic level, such as between species, between orders, etc. Ideally, the transitional fossil should be found stratigraphically between the first occurrence of the ancestral lineage and the first occurrence of the descendent lineage, but evolution also predicts the occurrence of some fossils with transitional morphology that occur after both lineages. There's nothing in the theory of evolution which says an intermediate form (or any organism, for that matter) can have only one line of descendents, or that the intermediate form itself has to go extinct when a line of descendents evolves.

To say there are no transitional fossils is simply false. Paleontology has progressed a bit since Origin of Species was published, uncovering thousands of transitional fossils, by both the temporally restrictive and the less restrictive definitions. The fossil record is still spotty and always will be; erosion and the rarity of conditions favorable to fossilization make that inevitable. Also, transitions may occur in a small population, in a small area, and/or in a relatively short amount of time; when any of these conditions hold, the chances of finding the transitional fossils goes down. Still, there are still many instances where excellent sequences of transitional fossils exist. Some notable examples are the transitions from reptile to mammal, from land animal to early whale, and from early ape to human. For many more examples, see the transitional fossils FAQ in the talk.origins archive, and see http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/talk_origins.html for sample images for some invertebrate groups.

The misconception about the lack of transitional fossils is perpetuated in part by a common way of thinking about categories. When people think about a category like "dog" or "ant," they often subconsciously believe that there is a well-defined boundary around the category, or that there is some eternal ideal form (for philosophers, the Platonic idea) which defines the category. This kind of thinking leads people to declare that Archaeopteryx is "100% bird," when it is clearly a mix of bird and reptile features (with more reptile than bird features, in fact). In truth, categories are man-made and artificial. Nature is not constrained to follow them, and it doesn't.

Some Creationists claim that the hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium was proposed (by Eldredge and Gould) to explain gaps in the fossil record. Actually, it was proposed to explain the relative rarity of transitional forms, not their total absence, and to explain why speciation appears to happen relatively quickly in some cases, gradually in others, and not at all during some periods for some species. In no way does it deny that transitional sequences exist. In fact, both Gould and Eldredge are outspoken opponents of Creationism.

"But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life's physical genealogy." - Stephen Jay Gould, Natural History, May 1994

[Coyote]

No, it is still a theory. A widely-accepted and highly probable theory, but a theory, because it is not fully provable as "fact."

I think you misunderstand what a scientific theory is - it is not Just a "theory".


from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

"Evolution is only a theory; it hasn't been proved."

First, we should clarify what "evolution" means. Like so many other words, it has more than one meaning. Its strict biological definition is "a change in allele frequencies over time." By that definition, evolution is an indisputable fact. Most people seem to associate the word "evolution" mainly with common descent, the theory that all life arose from one common ancestor. Many people believe that there is enough evidence to call this a fact, too. However, common descent is still not the theory of evolution, but just a fraction of it (and a part of several quite different theories as well). The theory of evolution not only says that life evolved, it also includes mechanisms, like mutations, natural selection, and genetic drift, which go a long way towards explaining how life evolved.

Calling the theory of evolution "only a theory" is, strictly speaking, true, but the idea it tries to convey is completely wrong. The argument rests on a confusion between what "theory" means in informal usage and in a scientific context. A theory, in the scientific sense, is "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" [Random House American College Dictionary]. The term does not imply tentativeness or lack of certainty. Generally speaking, scientific theories differ from scientific laws only in that laws can be expressed more tersely. Being a theory implies self-consistency, agreement with observations, and usefulness. (Creationism fails to be a theory mainly because of the last point; it makes few or no specific claims about what we would expect to find, so it can't be used for anything. When it does make falsifiable predictions, they prove to be false.)

Lack of proof isn't a weakness, either. On the contrary, claiming infallibility for one's conclusions is a sign of hubris. Nothing in the real world has ever been rigorously proved, or ever will be. Proof, in the mathematical sense, is possible only if you have the luxury of defining the universe you're operating in. In the real world, we must deal with levels of certainty based on observed evidence. The more and better evidence we have for something, the more certainty we assign to it; when there is enough evidence, we label the something a fact, even though it still isn't 100% certain.

What evolution has is what any good scientific claim has--evidence, and lots of it. Evolution is supported by a wide range of observations throughout the fields of genetics, anatomy, ecology, animal behavior, paleontology, and others. If you wish to challenge the theory of evolution, you must address that evidence. You must show that the evidence is either wrong or irrelevant or that it fits another theory better. Of course, to do this, you must know both the theory and the evidence.

[Dave]

There was a huge jump from homo erectus to homo sapien in an extremely short time. In fact, many scientists are now claiming that they lived at the same time along side each other. The only way that can happen is if they are different species that shared a common ancestor, which would throw out a lot of what we think we know about human evolution. It would also mean that the evolutionary jump that created homo sapiens would be even bigger. Evolution is based on the theory that changes occur over extremely long periods of time, but archeology is showing that while this is the case most of the time, there are times when really big changes take place over a very short period of time.

[9sublime]

Evolution has a lot of very good evidence for it, creationism only has the gaps in evolution as its ground to stand on, and that is not evidence. Until someone comes up with something conclusive about creationism rather than picking holes in evolution, it has no evidence.

[palerider]

How can you accept microevolution but not macroevolution? If a species develops and develops, soon it will bear no resemblance to what it was originally.

'Maybe I didn't make myself clear enough. I have already posted this on another thread and rather than type it all out again, I am going to just bring it here if you don't mind.

"Evolution, that is macro evolution, is hardly a provable science. In fact, Sir Arthur Keith, he man who wrote the foreward for the 100th edition of Origin of the Species said: "Evolution is unproved and unprovable."

Those who make the claim that evolution is a fact are speaking from a terribly misinformed position. If you believe that you can prove evolution to be a fact, I can direct you to several places that have prizes upto a quarter of a million dollars available to anyone who can prove the theory of evolution to be fact.

In the broadest sense, evolution simply means change. The and animals that we see around us didn't always exist and some that used to exist no longer exist. In that sense, evolution is true and I can't think of any religious person who would disagree. That is not the sort of evolution that is the topic of this discussion though, is it?

A second, and more narrow meaning of evolution would be the idea that all living things decended over a long period of time from one, or a very few common ancestors. Any "evidence" for common ancestry is much more debatable than evidence for simple change. Even this more narrow meaning of evolution does not create an insurmountable problem for most religious people as intelligent design fits very nicely within these boundries.

Evolution with a capital "E" however, the evolution that some demand be taught in school as if it were a fact is the notion that species evolve over time through random variations and natural selection. Darwin cited domestic breeding as an example of evolution. Modifications in domestic crops or livestock can be produced by appropriately selecting small variations. Since about 1859 scientists have observed a similar process in the wild. For example, when mosquitoes are exposed to insecticides, subsequent generations become more resistant to the insecticide as the more susceptible organisms die off, when moths are exposed to predatory birds, subsequent generations tend to be better camouflaged as the more visible ones are eaten. There is a considerable body of evidence that supports the idea that change occurs through the natural selection of random variations.

But how much change? In Darwin's examples no new species appear and no new features appear within the species that are changing. Domestic breeding can't turn a sheep into a goat, much less a lizzard or a fish. And bird predation does not change moths into butterflies. Biologists have long recognized a distinction between relatively minor changes within a species, which is defined as "microevolution," and the much larger changes necessary to produce significant new features or entirely new species which they call "macroevolution." It is entirely possible and even probable that evolution in its third sense (change through random variations and natural selection) is true when it is applied to microevolution, but completely untrue when it is applied to macroevolution.

So evolution in the broadest sense, that being, change over time is a fact. We can see it if we look around the world. Evolution in the second sense, that being, decendency from common ancestors is thoroughly debatable and evolution in the third sense, that being change due to random variations and natural selection is a fact when applied to microevolution, but what about macro evolution which lies at the heart of this debate?

As molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote in 1985, "However attractive the extrapolation, it does not follow that, because a certain degree of evolution has been shown to occur, therefore any degree of evolution is possible."

In fact, not one single empirical discovery or scientific advance since 1859 has validated the idea of macro evolution. In other words, of the several different meanings of "evolution," Darwinian macroevolution is the least supported by the evidence.

Those who adhere to the theory of evolution say very passionately that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming and it is, if by evolution, you mean change over time. But if you mean macro evolution via natural selection and random variation, then the body of evidence that you have to present is underwhelming at best.

Fossils establish beyond a reasonable doubt that change has happened over time, but the fossil record is an embarrassment to anyone who is attempting to use it to support the Darwinian theory of macroevolution. It is possilble to directly observe microevolution through random variations and natural selection but that observation shows that such change occurs rather gradually and there are no radical discontinuities from one generation to the next. Darwin acknowledged that if his theory were true, then one would expect to find any number of transitional forms of any animal in the fossil record. Such is not the case.

Over a century and a half of fossil-collecting has happened since Darwin, and it has become painfully clear that fossil species tend to appear suddenly and exist essentially unchanged for long periods of time before they go extinct. These sudden appearances and disappearances, separated by absence of change, have been termed "punctuated equilibria" Punctuated equilibria are most evident where the fossil record is the most complete. Marine invertebrates for example. The most striking example of punctuated equilibria is the geological period known as the Cambrian. It is conspicuously marked by the rather sudden appearance of all the basic forms of animals now in existence. There are no transitional forms between them, and no new basic forms have appeared since then.

The fossil record of sudden appearances supports the idea of intelligent design far better than the painfully underwhelming evidence for macro evolution. Even the few examples of transitional fossils don't support Darwinian macro evolution because it simply can't be demonstrated that the transitions were the result of random variation and natural selection.

The fields of molecular biology and biochemistry are producing scientists that say simply that Darwin's mechanism is simply incapable of producing the mechanisms by which organisms would use energy, move around, detect light, heal wounds, etc. The theory of macro evolution becomes less supportable the more we learn about the "biomechanical machinery" of living cells. "

Apologies for any information that doesn't apply to this discussion.

[Truth-Bringer]

No, it is still a theory. A widely-accepted and highly probable theory, but a theory, because it is not fully provable as "fact."

^^ that is correct. But I wouldn't say highly probable. The way they've got things set up, it was almost miraculous how humans allegedly evolved from apes. Thousands of years in the future, if we find that extraterrestrial life in the form of humans is widespread in the universe, that will pretty much disprove evolution.

[Truth-Bringer]

Evolution has a lot of very good evidence for it, creationism only has the gaps in evolution as its ground to stand on, and that is not evidence. Until someone comes up with something conclusive about creationism rather than picking holes in evolution, it has no evidence.

Bible-based Creationism certainly has no evidence to support it due to all the clear falsehoods in the Bible. But I think evolution is highly flawed also, and I don't accept it.

When someone asks me "How do you think we got here?" - I simply say "I don't know." That, to me, is the only rational answer at this point.

As for hard evidence against evolution, from a non-Christian source, consider the following archeological finds:

http://www.forbiddenarcheology.com/

[r0beph]

Creationism = argumentum ad ignorantiam. There is no evidence whatsoever for it EXCEPT that it cannot be disproved. Thus it is only "valid" because you can't prove it wrong. That post is so chock full of logical fallacies it's laughable.

In fact, Sir Arthur Keith, he man who wrote the foreward for the 100th edition of Origin of the Species said: "Evolution is unproved and unprovable."

Just because He says something, doesn't make it true. I don't think they had DNA testing and all the goodies we have today back when he was alive. That is invalidated of any usefulness to the argument.

In the broadest sense, evolution simply means change. The and animals that we see around us didn't always exist and some that used to exist no longer exist. In that sense, evolution is true and I can't think of any religious person who would disagree. That is not the sort of evolution that is the topic of this discussion though, is it?

uhm.. yes it is what we're talking about, the animals around us that didn't always exist NOW DO. That's the meat of it, and those animals came from previous forms or diverged as subspecies.

But how much change? In Darwin's examples no new species appear and no new features appear within the species that are changing. Domestic breeding can't turn a sheep into a goat, much less a lizzard or a fish. And bird predation does not change moths into butterflies. Biologists have long recognized a distinction between relatively minor changes within a species, which is defined as "microevolution," and the much larger changes necessary to produce significant new features or entirely new species which they call "macroevolution." It is entirely possible and even probable that evolution in its third sense (change through random variations and natural selection) is true when it is applied to microevolution, but completely untrue when it is applied to macroevolution.

http://www.iaw.on.ca/~ppchurch/strawman.gif
You know who that is? Strawman! No one said that sheep could become a goat, or a butterfly into a lizard. That's so far off any of the evolutionary arguments. But while you're on that point, inter-specific hybridization occurs all the time, Ligers (Lion[f] / Tiger[m]) and Tigon (Lion[m] / Tiger[f]), these are NOT sterile. If a liger were to reproduce with a tiger, it would be called a ti-liger, and if it were to reproduce with a lion, it would be called a li-liger. The fertility of hybrid big cat females is well-documented across a number of different hybrids. This is all fact. Now in the long term I'm sure this type of hybridization has a lot to do with macro-evolution and natural selection played a role in domination of superior hybrids over previous incarnations. Natural hybridization has been noted quite recently with lonicera fly, it's a completely viable natural hybrid between R. zephyria and R. mendax. Then another viable natural hybrid is the Pomarine Skua or the Great Skua, which genetically could go either way, with a Greater Skua mating with a lesser skua, hybridizing to the Pomarine, or where the pomarine and one of the southern hemisphere skuas hybridized to the Greater Skua. Either way it's pretty evident that the new specification occurred, just kinda hard to tell which way it went. Then you have a manner showing how natural selection removes those hybridized specied not viable in the long run, but stable else wise, with the mariana mallard, which was a cross between the Australian black duck and mallard. The Mariana mallard is not an officially recognized proper species. However, as the population constituted a distinct, established and independent evolutionary unit (although not yet phenotypically homogenized), it was at least an incipient species. If considered specifically distinct, it was one of the most short-lived vertebrate species known to science, existing for a few 10.000 years at most from the fist hybridization event to its extinction. And so we have natural selection, it didn't die out due to reproductive errors as you see in many semi-compatible hybrids. (which can be shown as a contemporary form of "fossils" showing a failed transitional species.)

The fields of molecular biology and biochemistry are producing scientists that say simply that Darwin's mechanism is simply incapable of producing the mechanisms by which organisms would use energy, move around, detect light, heal wounds, etc. The theory of macro evolution becomes less supportable the more we learn about the "biomechanical machinery" of living cells. "

So? It's also producing plenty who say it is quite capable of doing that very thing. Again this is inviable as an argumentative....The assumption that since new scientists come forward with the theory that macro evolution is a malfeasance, that it also means that the more we learn the less supportive things become. In fact all this proves is that there is still, as always, partisanship in science. Look at quantum-physics, there's 100 different theories out there and the more we learn the more theories pop up. Science is moving forward on the back of a bullet, until we catch up with it, the theories will continue to come in drove. This includes theories that support and don't support any given ideal.

Lastly let me add; I'm not contending that Darwin was correct. But I am asserting that creationism is, well, rather unlikely. That being said, I do believe darwin was on the right track. Usually theories need some heavy revisions before they are full realized and concreted.

robf

[r0beph]

Bible-based Creationism certainly has no evidence to support it due to all the clear falsehoods in the Bible. But I think evolution is highly flawed also, and I don't accept it.

When someone asks me "How do you think we got here?" - I simply say "I don't know." That, to me, is the only rational answer at this point.

As for hard evidence against evolution, from a non-Christian source, consider the following archeological finds:

http://www.forbiddenarcheology.com/


it's an interesting bit there. but if it's legitimate, their is also the likelihood of perhaps intelligent beings predating humans, that would still allow for evolutionary movement. It niether supports darwinian theory or creationism, but rather brings more mystery. Maybe I can find it in PDF somewhere on the net and I'll get back to you on that.

[9sublime]

So palerider, how do you believe species that have been around for only a million odd years got here if they didn't evolve from another ancestor? Dropped from the sky by God?

[palerider]

So palerider, how do you believe species that have been around for only a million odd years got here if they didn't evolve from another ancestor? Dropped from the sky by God?

I couldn't say how they got here but that doesn't mean that I need to accept a theory as shaky and as poorly supported by the fossil record as macroevolution evolution in order to explain it to myself to achieve some sense of well being. There are things that we know, and things that we don't know and until we know, I will content myself with not knowing.

[Truth-Bringer]

it's an interesting bit there. but if it's legitimate, their is also the likelihood of perhaps intelligent beings predating humans, that would still allow for evolutionary movement. It niether supports darwinian theory or creationism, but rather brings more mystery. Maybe I can find it in PDF somewhere on the net and I'll get back to you on that.

Also, check out the book "The Mystery of Physical Life" by E.L. Grant Wilson for an interesting read.

[r0beph]

I couldn't say how they got here but that doesn't mean that I need to accept a theory as shaky as evolution in order to explain it to myself. There are things that we know, and things that we don't know.

no response to my post?

[palerider]

Creationism = argumentum ad ignorantiam.

First, I am not arguing creationism. You must first realize what sort of argument is being presented before you can effectively argue against it.

Just because He says something, doesn't make it true. I don't think they had DNA testing and all the goodies we have today back when he was alive. That is invalidated of any usefulness to the argument.

Actually, DNA is creating a problem for evolutionists. For example, it hasnt been very long ago that DNA testing threw a wrench in the works with regard to neanderthals. Evolutionary theory suggested that they should be more closely related to europeans than groups in other areas of the world. DNA testing, however, showed that neanderthal is more closely related to chimps than to any homo sapien sapien.

uhm.. yes it is what we're talking about, the animals around us that didn't always exist NOW DO. That's the meat of it, and those animals came from previous forms or diverged as subspecies.

You are describing microevolution, not macroevolution. Girraffes decending from a more short necked ancestor is one thing. Mammals coming from reptiles is another.

But while you're on that point, inter-specific hybridization occurs all the time, Ligers (Lion[f] / Tiger[m]) and Tigon (Lion[m] / Tiger[f]), these are NOT sterile. [/quote]

Lions - Felidae Felinae Panthera Leo. Tigers - Felidae Felinae Panthera Tigiris. These are members of the same family, sub family and genus. It is a much longer leap with no supporting evidence to explain a transition from class reptilia to class mammalia which the theory of macroevolution requires.

Lastly let me add; I'm not contending that Darwin was correct. But I am asserting that creationism is, well, rather unlikely. That being said, I do believe darwin was on the right track. Usually theories need some heavy revisions before they are full realized and concreted.

robf[/b]

I am not asserting creationism and never have.

[Coyote]

There was a huge jump from homo erectus to homo sapien in an extremely short time. In fact, many scientists are now claiming that they lived at the same time along side each other. The only way that can happen is if they are different species that shared a common ancestor, which would throw out a lot of what we think we know about human evolution. It would also mean that the evolutionary jump that created homo sapiens would be even bigger. Evolution is based on the theory that changes occur over extremely long periods of time, but archeology is showing that while this is the case most of the time, there are times when really big changes take place over a very short period of time.

The issue here is not whether evolution occurs or not but exactly how. Sudden, big jumps or incremental changes or a mixture of both. Evolution is not necessarily based on on the theory that life evolved from simple to complex over a long period of time and even though there are periods of rapid change interspersed within long slow periods - that does not mean evolution is wrong - it just means we are still trying to understand the mechanics of it. Evolution itself is a fact - it is present and observable even in the modern time.

What we know about evolution is constantly changing - the thing is, unlike say Creationism, evolution is not static - it is constantly re-evaluating itself in the light of new evidence. This does not mean that evolution itself is in question.

Here's another article that talks about transitional fossils and might answer some of the confusion: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html#gaps

[9sublime]

I couldn't say how they got here but that doesn't mean that I need to accept a theory as shaky as evolution in order to explain it to myself. There are things that we know, and things that we don't know.

But you are quite happy to accept anything that doesn't make sense or is unexplained in the world in respect to Christianity as 'Gods great plan' and that you have to have 'faith' to be a real Christian. Its funny how Christianity and a rejection of evolution so often go hand in hand.

[Coyote]

I couldn't say how they got here but that doesn't mean that I need to accept a theory as shaky and as poorly supported by the fossil record as macroevolution evolution in order to explain it to myself to achieve some sense of well being. There are things that we know, and things that we don't know and until we know, I will content myself with not knowing.

The fossil record is not the only support. What about DNA which shows relationships between unrelated species?

[r0beph]

The issue here is not whether evolution occurs or not but exactly how. Sudden, big jumps or incremental changes or a mixture of both. Evolution is not necessarily based on on the theory that life evolved from simple to complex over a long period of time and even though there are periods of rapid change interspersed within long slow periods - that does not mean evolution is wrong - it just means we are still trying to understand the mechanics of it. Evolution itself is a fact - it is present and observable even in the modern time.

What we know about evolution is constantly changing - the thing is, unlike say Creationism, evolution is not static - it is constantly re-evaluating itself in the light of new evidence. This does not mean that evolution itself is in question.

Here's another article that talks about transitional fossils and might answer some of the confusion: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html#gaps

I agree, I'm always annoyed by people who confuse "darwinism" with evolution, sure he was the biggest contributor with his name tossed around blatantly, however evolution != darwinism. Darwinism is just A theory of evolution, according to darwin. Often you see people disavow evolution because "darwin is wrong yada yada." The thing is however if you don't agree with some of his ideas on evolution, then come up with something better. It seems you rarely get that. You get a binary position on evolution with the naysayers, they don't agree with one aspect, so none can be true. What sense does this make. Ok so maybe darwin doesn't account for the rapid deployment of diverse specification. Well As with the Marinara Mallard I think that is exemplary as an example of evolution in action and failing. Where as the other two I mentioned in my previous posts were the successes. If you can have slight hybridizations and then those new hybrids can possibly mate outside the hybrid's parent genus due to the new chromosomal make up, and then you can have even more subspecifications and so on. That's what I assume occurred, there's science backing it, and I like it.

to palerider:

Please read my post on the other page, I'd like your response.
Also I'd like to know what do YOU believe. You spend your time telling us why our views are shaky and likely incorrect, I've yet to hear your alternative. Since you are arguing against evolution, that means you have something you believe trumps it in likelihood. So please. What is this, also please explain why it is more likely than evolution. Just the facts please, leave the logical fallacies at the door.

[Coyote]

For example - all life forms on Earth use DNA and RNA as genetic material. DNA and RNA have a code that admits of only very rare and insignificant alterations, which is what one would expect had all life evolved from a common ancestor. There is, furthermore, a high degree of correspondence between molecular phylogenies and evolutionary expectations, even for nonfunctional changes in DNA. Why would these evolutionary expectations be borne out in the case of similar species living in similar climates on different continents: creationists for example, should expect the DNA of such creatures to closely match, if DNA was designed for functionality. However, we find instead that these species often have DNA more closely resembling that of different species in adjacent environments than that of the similar species in distant locales. The appearance of the similar species is the result of convergent evolution: the species have managed to adapt in similar ways to their environments, but they remain genetically closer to the different species near them, with whom they share a more recent common ancestor. The manner in which such genetic correlations match evolutionary expectations is independent confirmation of evolution that would serve absolutely no purpose but deception in a world in which all life was created directly by a God.

[Dave]

Actually R0beph, palerider isn't attacking a strawman at all. Evolution does suggest in many cases that some animals become something completely different over time. Evolution accounts for mammal marine life such as dolphins and whales by saying they evolved from prehistoric creatures that looked like wolves. This is just one of the many cases of macroevolution that science has yet to offer any proof of.

It seems to be Truth-Bringer, 9sublime, and yourself that are beating the strawman here. I don't think palerider is trying to argue that creationism is the answer, and I am certainly not making that argument in this thread. I am simply stating that there are a lot of holes in the evolutionary theory when you start talking about big changes. I'm not claiming that I have the answer, but I am claiming that you don't either.

[Coyote]

Actually R0beph, palerider isn't attacking a strawman at all. Evolution does suggest in many cases that some animals become something completely different over time. Evolution accounts for mammal marine life such as dolphins and whales by saying they evolved from prehistoric creatures that looked like wolves. This is just one of the many cases of macroevolution that science has yet to offer any proof of.

Actually there is a lot of fossil evidence supporting that particular example...

[TruthAboveAll]

Actually there is a lot of fossil evidence supporting that particular example...
Truth be told, there is continuing significant debate, even among scientists who believe that evolution (in SOME form) is supported by fossil records. The special and specific conditions required for fossils to form, the lack of multiple stratas in various global locations, the lack of complete skeletal structures are all some of the areas upon which the traditional hypothesis of evolution is formed are all lacking.

Across the board of pro-evolutionists and pro-creationists, the argument is very strong for a creationist argument, combined with a micro-evolution (or macro-adaptation) answer. If you choose to reject the biblical creation story, that is your choice, just as if you choose to embrace it.

In many areas the scientific community is nearly unanimous in the final suppositions gained from research. Evolution is one of the areas where it is widely divided. Both for creationism and for evolution, there is a lack of rock-solid, empirical evidence for either case. The "smoking gun", if you will, is yet to be found. Most likely in our life as we know it, it never will be.

[r0beph]

Actually R0beph, palerider isn't attacking a strawman at all. Evolution does suggest in many cases that some animals become something completely different over time. Evolution accounts for mammal marine life such as dolphins and whales by saying they evolved from prehistoric creatures that looked like wolves. This is just one of the many cases of macroevolution that science has yet to offer any proof of.

It seems to be Truth-Bringer, 9sublime, and yourself that are beating the strawman here. I don't think palerider is trying to argue that creationism is the answer, and I am certainly not making that argument in this thread. I am simply stating that there are a lot of holes in the evolutionary theory when you start talking about big changes. I'm not claiming that I have the answer, but I am claiming that you don't either.

He most certainly is. He's stating that evolution supports large rift species conversion, the evolutionary argument absolutely does not assert this point, thus for him to use the "Sheeps cannot bear goat's as offspring" is a strawman.

The holes in the evolutionary EVIDENCE are not holes in the theory. The lack of fossil record (not all things buried become fossils, in fact it's a very very very and I reiterate very minute amount of life from the past that became fossilized. You're asserting that the lack of evidence creates a hole in the theory, where the theory itself accounts for this lack by asserting (hypothesizing if you will) that the reason the evidence does not exist is DUE to the very nature of fossilization, it requires very certain conditions. This is somewhat of another logical fallacy, called denying the antecedent. If A then B, thus if not B, A must be false. A is Evolution, B is fossil record showing complete transitional phases. This argument cannot work since it's admitted that the fossil record does not exist because the conditions for a complete transitional epoch record to be fossilized would require the conditions that induced fossilization to remain static for the entire transitional period of hundreds of thousands of years. The whole point is this is not a sufficient nay say against the possibility of evolution. It is however a valid point against the assertion that evolution is FACT as it is written. It very well could be different from darwin's writ, however evidence still points towards some form of evolutionary subspeciefication and diversion.

Your argument that "evolution" states that dolphins and whales came from wolf like prehistoric creatures is an over-broad definition of the "evolution" in encompassing that specific hypothesis, and "evolution" as a theory does not necessarily require this assertion to be valid. I have no knowledge of who made that statement nor what data they were going on, so that is an invalid argument. Evolution cannot be used in any statement like that unless it's an integral part of the theory on whole you are attacking. That is akin to me saying that Eric Rudolph was christian, he blew up an abortion clinic, therefor all christians believe that was the right thing to do. Just because someone made some speculation and was speaking in terms of evolution does not concrete that as a premise of evolution as a theory. To do so is a highly invalid argument. You are effectively saying that Joe Smith says that dolphins came from prehistoric wolf like creatures, so evolution must be invalid, since (even though it may be true) it is invalid. Can't accept that, sorry.

And what I would like is an alternative. If in fact evolution is incorrect, what is correct. I mean everything came from somewhere, you continually attack evolution yet proffer no data, but rather attempt to pigeonhole various evidences and hypotheses on an individual and esoteric manner. Give me an alternative please.

[Dave]

He most certainly is. He's stating that evolution supports large rift species conversion, the evolutionary argument absolutely does not assert this point, thus for him to use the "Sheeps cannot bear goat's as offspring" is a strawman.

The holes in the evolutionary EVIDENCE are not holes in the theory. The lack of fossil record (not all things buried become fossils, in fact it's a very very very and I reiterate very minute amount of life from the past that became fossilized. You're asserting that the lack of evidence creates a hole in the theory, where the theory itself accounts for this lack by asserting (hypothesizing if you will) that the reason the evidence does not exist is DUE to the very nature of fossilization, it requires very certain conditions. This is somewhat of another logical fallacy, called denying the antecedent. If A then B, thus if not B, A must be false. A is Evolution, B is fossil record showing complete transitional phases. This argument cannot work since it's admitted that the fossil record does not exist because the conditions for a complete transitional epoch record to be fossilized would require the conditions that induced fossilization to remain static for the entire transitional period of hundreds of thousands of years. The whole point is this is not a sufficient nay say against the possibility of evolution. It is however a valid point against the assertion that evolution is FACT as it is written. It very well could be different from darwin's writ, however evidence still points towards some form of evolutionary subspeciefication and diversion.

Your argument that "evolution" states that dolphins and whales came from wolf like prehistoric creatures is an over-broad definition of the "evolution" in encompassing that specific hypothesis, and "evolution" as a theory does not necessarily require this assertion to be valid. I have no knowledge of who made that statement nor what data they were going on, so that is an invalid argument. Evolution cannot be used in any statement like that unless it's an integral part of the theory on whole you are attacking. That is akin to me saying that Eric Rudolph was christian, he blew up an abortion clinic, therefor all christians believe that was the right thing to do. Just because someone made some speculation and was speaking in terms of evolution does not concrete that as a premise of evolution as a theory. To do so is a highly invalid argument. You are effectively saying that Joe Smith says that dolphins came from prehistoric wolf like creatures, so evolution must be invalid, since (even though it may be true) it is invalid. Can't accept that, sorry.

And what I would like is an alternative. If in fact evolution is incorrect, what is correct. I mean everything came from somewhere, you continually attack evolution yet proffer no data, but rather attempt to pigeonhole various evidences and hypotheses on an individual and esoteric manner. Give me an alternative please.

I took his comment to mean that one species cannot become another species over time, and many evolutionary scientists claim this to be true with little evidence to back it up.

Holes in evidence ARE holes in the theory. If you don't have the evidence to back up a theory, then it deserves no credibility. There is not enough evidence to back up macroevolution, therefore it deserves no credibility. I'm not arguing that evolution is definitely falst, I'm just saying you don't have the evidence to say that it is correct. The theory of evolution states that changes occur over long periods of time, but the wealth of information in the fossil record shows that sometimes, these changes take huge leaps over short periods of time. I'm not saying that evolution doesn't explain the small changes or is invalid. I'm just saying it doesn't account for the big leaps. Therefore, I conclude that something else must be at work here.

I don't have to provide alternatives to show that your statements are incorrect. Like I said, I'm not claiming to have the answers, I'm just saying that you don't have them either.

[r0beph]

I took his comment to mean that one species cannot become another species over time, and many evolutionary scientists claim this to be true with little evidence to back it up.
That was not what his comment said. If that is what he means, then that's what he should have said.

Holes in evidence ARE holes in the theory. If you don't have the evidence to back up a theory, then it deserves no credibility. There is not enough evidence to back up macroevolution, therefore it deserves no credibility. I'm not arguing that evolution is definitely falst, I'm just saying you don't have the evidence to say that it is correct. The theory of evolution states that changes occur over long periods of time, but the wealth of information in the fossil record shows that sometimes, these changes take huge leaps over short periods of time. I'm not saying that evolution doesn't explain the small changes or is invalid. I'm just saying it doesn't account for the big leaps. Therefore, I conclude that something else must be at work here.
Of course I don't have the evidence to say it's correct. If I did we'd not call it theory. Lack of evidence does NOT disprove a theory. Contrary evidence does. There are obvious discrepancies during transitional time lines that contain almost NO fossil records. This isn't so much that there is a severe jump from one species to another, but rather that there is a period for which there is no fossil record during a transitional phase from one point to the next. Let me illustrate to be more clear.

Let's say species A ~> B and there are 5 stages expected in the transition where -> = 500-1million years or any arbitrary number for the example.

A -> T1 -> T2 -> missing fossil record -> missing fossil record -> T5 -> B.

were the case A->T1->T2->T5 -> B then yes, it would put some major cloud to the evolutionary theory. But the time can be accounted for, just the fossil records are missing.


I don't have to provide alternatives to show that your statements are incorrect. Like I said, I'm not claiming to have the answers, I'm just saying that you don't have them either.

Well to so fervently attack the theory one would assume you have an alternate assumption as to how we came to be. Evolution cannot be proven at this point, but nor can it be disproved without contrary evidence. A LACK of evidence does not disprove anything. By it's very nature evidence must either exist for or contrary to the argument for it to be rectified. Without these evidences it is a negative proof (yet another logical fallacy). I'll stick by my belief that eventually Evolution is at this time the most logical theory for where things came from. Until you can provide something with enough empirical evidence to infer it's likelihood over that of what evolution has empirically to offer, then I'll stand staunch. Quite simply, we had to come about somehow, so you cannot simply say all the theories are not at minimum going along the lines of how it came about, unless you are ascribing to a nihilistic view on whence we came.

[Coyote]

Truth be told, there is continuing significant debate, even among scientists who believe that evolution (in SOME form) is supported by fossil records. The special and specific conditions required for fossils to form, the lack of multiple stratas in various global locations, the lack of complete skeletal structures are all some of the areas upon which the traditional hypothesis of evolution is formed are all lacking.

Across the board of pro-evolutionists and pro-creationists, the argument is very strong for a creationist argument, combined with a micro-evolution (or macro-adaptation) answer. If you choose to reject the biblical creation story, that is your choice, just as if you choose to embrace it.

In many areas the scientific community is nearly unanimous in the final suppositions gained from research. Evolution is one of the areas where it is widely divided. Both for creationism and for evolution, there is a lack of rock-solid, empirical evidence for either case. The "smoking gun", if you will, is yet to be found. Most likely in our life as we know it, it never will be.

The scientific community is by no means widely divided on evolution - it is in pretty much total agreement that evolution occurs - there is a great deal of rock solid evidence from a variety of research areas. The only disagreement is in the details. The fossil record is clear on macro-evolution for example, in the case of the horse which provides an incredible record of the steps from Eohippus to the modern day equine. There are also "walking fish" and of course the archeoptyrix (sp?) - partway between bird and reptile.

The evidence supporting creationism is extremely weak - in fact every bit of it can be shot down. The fact that there are still gaps in evolutionary theory does not mean those gaps are evidence for creation theory.

[palerider]

The fossil record is not the only support. What about DNA which shows relationships between unrelated species?

That we are all made of the same stuff? The improbability of DNA forming out of chaos is enough of a leap, but to suggest that each species should have developed something besides DNA? I favor intelligent design and if I were designing a set of life for a world, I would reuse the same materials as much as possible.

[r0beph]

That we are all made of the same stuff? The improbability of DNA forming out of chaos is enough of a leap, but to suggest that each species should have developed something besides DNA? I favor intelligent design and if I were designing a set of life for a world, I would reuse the same materials as much as possible.


I'm missing your point. Intelligent Design is a great load negative proof arguments without any shred of empirical evidence. At least evolution has enough evidence to infer a viable theory. There is "life" of sorts without DNA. such as prions. those little folding replicating proteins. No DNA in those guys and they replicate.

[Coyote]

That we are all made of the same stuff? The improbability of DNA forming out of chaos is enough of a leap, but to suggest that each species should have developed something besides DNA? I favor intelligent design and if I were designing a set of life for a world, I would reuse the same materials as much as possible.

No, it is not that we all have DNA/RNA - it's that we have very similar DNA/RNA and species far removed geographically have DNA more similar then nearby species that occupy the same ecological niche and developed similarly.

[Coyote]

The problem with Intellegent Design is that all of it's arguments and "evidence" can be consolidated into one statement: Life is so complex it couldn't possibly have evolved naturally.

What kind of "proof" is that? Negative evidence is not proof. Why don't they submit any of this to peer review?

[palerider]

I'm missing your point. Intelligent Design is a great load negative proof arguments without any shred of empirical evidence. At least evolution has enough evidence to infer a viable theory. There is "life" of sorts without DNA. such as prions. those little folding replicating proteins. No DNA in those guys and they replicate.

And evolution is much of the same. Stories are fabricated, without empirical to fill the great gaps in the fossil record. How is intelligent design different? And at this point, there is not enough evidence to make macroevolution a viable theory unless you are simply putting more stock in the stories than they deserve.

Give me a reason to accept that one species can evolve into another species as you must believe this happened in order to subscribe to macroevolutionary theory. Your lion / tiger argument doesn't argue macroevolution. Should members of the same class, order, family and genus mate, the offspring will still belong to that class, order, family and genus. That is not macroevolution.

Give me a reason to believe that somehow animals from class saurischia
evolved and became class mammalia.

[palerider]

No, it is not that we all have DNA/RNA - it's that we have very similar DNA/RNA and species far removed geographically have DNA more similar then nearby species that occupy the same ecological niche and developed similarly.


Describe "very similar". Two species that have an 85% similarity in their DNA are very far apart. Even among species that supposedly have very similar DNA (man and the great apes for example) a closer look reveals that they aren't that close at all.

When the DNA testing began on neanderthals there was great hope to find a closer relationship to europeans and an ever smaller relationship to peoples further from europe, but when the results came it, it was found that neanderthal was a closer relative to chimps than any human being and the dissimilarity between neanderthal and people scattered across the globe was nearly universal.

[Coyote]

Describe "very similar". Two species that have an 85% similarity in their DNA are very far apart. Even among species that supposedly have very similar DNA (man and the great apes for example) a closer look reveals that they aren't that close at all.


Well - to put it simply the presence of similar or identical genes in two organisms is a genetic fingerprint of a common ancestor somewhere down the line. It provides a more accurate mapping of a species family tree then fossils. The more similar the DNA in one species is to another - the more recently the divergence. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by asking me to describe "very similar" - does it matter? What I find interesting is what DNA analysis reveals. For example - in studying species occupying a similar niche.

Researchers studied DNA from an extinct cheetah-like cat found in America. The evolutionary tree drawn from the data showed that the American cheetah-like cat was genetically most closely related to the puma, rather than to the true African cheetah. The American cheetah-like cat and the true cheetah show remarkable similarity in their development, including elongated limbs and enlarged nostrils. But the genetic data indicates that this similarity is in fact an example of parallel evolution; the development of similar bodies in response to similar ecological pressures. In otherwords - evolution.

Another interesting aspect of DNA is looking at it within the context of the movement of continental plates and the geographical seperation of species. Species that are physically quite disimilar now and exist on different continents still show a close relationship in their DNA - closer then nearby physically similar species.


When the DNA testing began on neanderthals there was great hope to find a closer relationship to europeans and an ever smaller relationship to peoples further from europe, but when the results came it, it was found that neanderthal was a closer relative to chimps than any human being and the dissimilarity between neanderthal and people scattered across the globe was nearly universal.

I'm not sure what you are getting at...perhaps I'm confused here. I am under the impression that the neandrathal has long been eliminated from the direct line of the homosapiens tree. As a matter of fact - not that it makes any diff here - I seem to remember reading something recently about neandrathal's and homosapiens co-existing for a brief period.

[Coyote]

And evolution is much of the same. Stories are fabricated, without empirical to fill the great gaps in the fossil record. How is intelligent design different? And at this point, there is not enough evidence to make macroevolution a viable theory unless you are simply putting more stock in the stories than they deserve.

Give me a reason to accept that one species can evolve into another species as you must believe this happened in order to subscribe to macroevolutionary theory. Your lion / tiger argument doesn't argue macroevolution. Should members of the same class, order, family and genus mate, the offspring will still belong to that class, order, family and genus. That is not macroevolution.

Give me a reason to believe that somehow animals from class saurischia
evolved and became class mammalia.

Well, the Archaeoptyrx provides an excellent example of transition from saurischia to avian...

[palerider]

Well, the Archaeoptyrx provides an excellent example of transition from saurischia to avian...

Sorry, but archaeoptryx is not a good example of a transition from anything to anything.


Archaeoptryx had fully formed flying feathers (including asymmetric vanes and ventral, reinforcing furrows as found in modern flying birds). It had the elliptical wings of modem woodland birds, and a large wishbone for attachment of muscles responsible for the downstroke of the wings.

Further, CT scans of the skull of archaeopteryx has revealed that it had a brain like that of a modern bird. Its brain was 3 times the size of a dinosaur of similar size and very large optic lobes necessary to process the visual imput a flying creature would recieve. Also, its inner ear had a cochlea length and semicircular canal that were in nearly exact proportion to modern birds.

Archaeoptryx also had had pneumatized vertebrae and pelvis. This would indicate the presence of both a cervical and abdominal air sac (at least two of the five sacs present in modern birds). And this in turn strongly indicates that the unique bird lung design was already present in what almost every evolutionists claims is the earliest bird.

And Dr Alan Feduccia, a world authority on birds at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and an evolutionist himself (see Feduccia v Creationists), says:

“Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that.”

Archaeoptryx was a flying, perching bird. It is not an example of a transitional creature. Just look at the evidence, not just in the case of archaeoptryx, but everything. The sudden appearance, fully formed, of all the complex invertebrates (snails, clams, jellyfish, sponges, worms, sea urchins, brachiopods, trilobites, etc.) with no trace of ancestors. The sudden appearance, fully formed, of every major kind of fish (supposedly the first vertebrates) with no trace of ancestors. Where is the evidence of evolution.

By the way, there are three other types of flying creatures—flying insects, flying reptiles (now extinct), and flying mammals (bats). What are the odds that millions of years of evolution of these three different types of flying creatures, each involving the fantastic transition from a land animal into a flying animal, would have failed to produce large numbers of transitional forms. If all of that evolution has occurred, the museums should be full of fossils of intermediate forms for each. But alas, not a trace of a transitional form has ever been found for any of these creatures.

[Coyote]

Sorry, but archaeoptryx is not a good example of a transition from anything to anything.


Archaeoptryx had fully formed flying feathers (including asymmetric vanes and ventral, reinforcing furrows as found in modern flying birds). It had the elliptical wings of modem woodland birds, and a large wishbone for attachment of muscles responsible for the downstroke of the wings.

Further, CT scans of the skull of archaeopteryx has revealed that it had a brain like that of a modern bird. Its brain was 3 times the size of a dinosaur of similar size and very large optic lobes necessary to process the visual imput a flying creature would recieve. Also, its inner ear had a cochlea length and semicircular canal that were in nearly exact proportion to modern birds.

Archaeoptryx also had had pneumatized vertebrae and pelvis. This would indicate the presence of both a cervical and abdominal air sac (at least two of the five sacs present in modern birds). And this in turn strongly indicates that the unique bird lung design was already present in what almost every evolutionists claims is the earliest bird.

And Dr Alan Feduccia, a world authority on birds at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and an evolutionist himself (see Feduccia v Creationists), says:

“Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that.”

A couple of things to keep in mind here: First, Feduccia always said that Archaeopteryx descended from archosaurs - it may not be transitional, but it still descended from them. Second, Feduccia is more or less the only paleontologist with this particular opinion. But most important - Feduccia also says that evolution, common descent etc. are facts and that the theory of evolution is our best explanation for those facts.


Archaeoptryx was a flying, perching bird. It is not an example of a transitional creature. Just look at the evidence, not just in the case of archaeoptryx, but everything. The sudden appearance, fully formed, of all the complex invertebrates (snails, clams, jellyfish, sponges, worms, sea urchins, brachiopods, trilobites, etc.) with no trace of ancestors. The sudden appearance, fully formed, of every major kind of fish (supposedly the first vertebrates) with no trace of ancestors. Where is the evidence of evolution.

By the way, there are three other types of flying creatures—flying insects, flying reptiles (now extinct), and flying mammals (bats). What are the odds that millions of years of evolution of these three different types of flying creatures, each involving the fantastic transition from a land animal into a flying animal, would have failed to produce large numbers of transitional forms. If all of that evolution has occurred, the museums should be full of fossils of intermediate forms for each. But alas, not a trace of a transitional form has ever been found for any of these creatures.

The odds are easy - much easier then the odds for the origin of life itself. Envirnoment shapes the form - hence you have animals as dissimilar as kangaroos and white tail deer or the American Cheetah-type cat and the African Cheetah occupying the same ecological niches with similar forms. Actually - just for the heck of it, look up prehistoric marsupial life in South America after the Andes first split the continent and effectively isolated the south. You had an incredible array of marsupials develop and occupy the same niches, with very similar physical forms, that mammels evolved into in the northern continent. There were marsupial equivelants to elephanst, tigers, and more.

The other fact - even more important - that people tend to disregard is very very few lifeforms ever become fossils. Fossils require extremely rare conditions to be preserved and more, to be preserved intact. Most species never leave any fossil evidence.

[Coyote]

Let me add Archaeoptryx is not the only example of a transitional fossil. Othniel Charles Marsh assembled an incredible array of fossils in his reconstruction of the evolution of horses in the form of a single, consistently developing lineage with many "transitional" types. This is often cited as a family tree with a number of clear transitional fossils. Other specimens cited as transitional forms include the "walking whale" Ambulocetus, the recently-discovered lobe-finned fish Tiktaalik. So you see...there are some transitional fossils.

[Rokerijdude11]

looks lik the wiley coyote cleared the air on this subject!!
way above my head in this conversation.Impressive

[vyo476]

looks lik the wiley coyote cleared the air on this subject!!
way above my head in this conversation.Impressive

I concur.

[palerider]

A couple of things to keep in mind here: First, Feduccia always said that Archaeopteryx descended from archosaurs - it may not be transitional, but it still descended from them. Second, Feduccia is more or less the only paleontologist with this particular opinion. But most important - Feduccia also says that evolution, common descent etc. are facts and that the theory of evolution is our best explanation for those facts.

I am aware of what Feduccia says and believes, which is why I used his quote. I figured it would carry more weight with you than if I posted a quote from some creationist anatomist. Feduccia, however, is not the only scientist that holds that postion since CT scanning has revealed the details of the skull and the pneumatized vertebrae and pelvis. Now, there are very few palentologists who hold that it was not a fully developed flying creature.

And decended from is not an argument for macroevolution.

The other fact - even more important - that people tend to disregard is very very few lifeforms ever become fossils. Fossils require extremely rare conditions to be preserved and more, to be preserved intact. Most species never leave any fossil evidence.

And that makes a good argument for evolution? The simple fact of a theoretically incomplete fossil record? Since archaeopteryx was a fully developed flying creature, the odds are far greater of finding a fossil of one of its many transitional forms (if you believe in macroevolution) than finding multiple examples of its fully developed flying form.

[r0beph]

I am aware of what Feduccia says and believes, which is why I used his quote. I figured it would carry more weight with you than if I posted a quote from some creationist anatomist. Feduccia, however, is not the only scientist that holds that postion since CT scanning has revealed the details of the skull and the pneumatized vertebrae and pelvis. Now, there are very few palentologists who hold that it was not a fully developed flying creature.

And decended from is not an argument for macroevolution.



And that makes a good argument for evolution? The simple fact of a theoretically incomplete fossil record? Since archaeopteryx was a fully developed flying creature, the odds are far greater of finding a fossil of one of its many transitional forms (if you believe in macroevolution) than finding multiple examples of its fully developed flying form.

I'm still waiting to hear the supporting data for your argument. We understand you're position, you won't budge. So perhaps you'd care to enlighten us to this overwhelming data that has you so utterly convinced that macro-evolution is not possible.

[palerider]

Let me add Archaeoptryx is not the only example of a transitional fossil.

Archaeoptryx is not an example of a transitional fossil. It had fully formed feathers, its brain was like that of a flying animal, and its skeleal and muscular structure was fully developed for flight. That is not transitional.

Othniel Charles Marsh assembled an incredible array of fossils in his reconstruction of the evolution of horses in the form of a single, consistently developing lineage with many "transitional" types. This is often cited as a family tree with a number of clear transitional fossils. Other specimens cited as transitional forms include the "walking whale" Ambulocetus, the recently-discovered lobe-finned fish Tiktaalik. So you see...there are some transitional fossils.

Actually, the story told about the evolution of the horse is just that. A story. There is no gradual change from the little 4 toed creature of 50 million years ago to the horse we know today. The truth is that instead of gradual change, the fossils for each "intermediate species" appear fully distinct, exist for a time, and go extinct. This does not represent transition.


Paleontologist Colin Patterson, director of the Natural History Museum in London, where "evolution of the horse" "transitional fossils" were on public display at that time on the ground floor of the museum, said the following about the exhibition:

"There have been an awful lot of stories, some more imaginative than others, about what the nature of that history [of life] really is. The most famous example, still on exhibit downstairs, is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps fifty years ago. That has been presented as the literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that is lamentable, particularly when the people who propose those kinds of stories may themselves be aware of the speculative nature of some of that stuff."

The evolution of the horse scenario has been fabricated by using sequential arrangement of fossils of distinct species that lived at vastly different periods in India, South Africa, North America, and Europe, to present what evolutionist wish they could prove. There are more than 20 charts of the evolution of the horse, which, by the way, are completely different from each other. Each has been proposed by various researchers. It is clear that evolutionists still have reached no common agreement on these family trees. The only common feature in these arrangements is the belief that a dog-sized creature called eohippus (hyracotherium), which lived in the Eocene period 55 million years ago, was the ancestor of the horse. Those evolutionists ignore the fact, however, that eohippus is nearly identical to the hyrax, a small rabbit-like animal which still lives in Africa and has no relation whatsoever to the horse.

The imaginary line from Eohippus to Equus is very erratic to say the very least. It is alleged to show a continual increase in size, but the truth is that several variants were smaller than Eohippus, not larger. It is possible to bring specimens from different sources together in a convincing-looking sequence, but there is simply no evidence that they were actually ranged in this order in time.

And the walking whale? That one is not a transitional fossil either. The backbone of this creature ended at the pelvis and it had powerfully muscled rear legs. This is typical land animal anatomy. The backbone of a whale, on the other hand goes right on to the tail and there is no pelvic bone. Basilosaurus, believed to have lived some 10 million years after ambulocetus, possesses the latter anatomy. In other words, it is a typical whale. There is no transitional form between ambulocetus, a typical land mammal, and basilosaurus, a typical whale.

Further, below the backbone of basilosaurus and the sperm whale, there are small bones independent of it. Some evolutionists claim that these are vestigial legs. The fact is that these bones actually had another function. In basilosaurus, these bones ‘functioned as copulary guides’ and in sperm whales they act an anchor for the muscles of the genitalia.’[ To describe ese bones, which actually carry out important functions, as ‘vestigial organs’ is just one more example of the level of intellectual dishonesty that evolutionists will go to in order to construct their stories.


The tiktaalik is no more a transitional form than the coelacanth. When fossils of that fish were first discovered, they had the same high hopes that it represented a transitional fossil. When a living specimine was found, however, those hopes went down the drain as it became evident that those fins had nothing to do with walking, but were simply for fine maneuvering while swimming. The structure of tiktaalik's fins is nearly identical to those of coelacanth. If anything, the discovery of tiktaalik creates more gaps in the fossil record rather than closing any. I can unserstand that evolutionists want to believe in macroevolution. Hell, many of them have their entire lives invested in that belief. But fabricating stories to fill gaps is no substitute the hard evidence that they are so sorely lacking. The transition from any species to any other species would involved thousands upon thousands upon thousands of generations. That being said, the probability of finding transitional forms of any creature is thousands upon thousands of times greater than finding a fully developed creature. The pitiful handfull of fossils that can even be falsely represented as transitional should make it clear that however the life we see around us got here, macroevolution is simply not the route it took.

[palerider]

I'm still waiting to hear the supporting data for your argument. We understand you're position, you won't budge. So perhaps you'd care to enlighten us to this overwhelming data that has you so utterly convinced that macro-evolution is not possible.

Like I said. I don't know. But the fact that I don't doesn't make it necessary for me to believe blatant fabrication in order to be able to sleep at night. I can accept that there are things we don't know. Perhaps some day, some genuine transitional fossils will be found and then I will reevaluate my position. Or more non transitional fossils will be found that will simply reinforce my position.

The numerical fact is that tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of generations would be required for the transition from one species to another and that makes the odds of finding transitional fossils far greater than of finding non transitional forms. The fact that we have enough non transitional fossils to fill a city full of warehouses but only a pitiful handfull that are such that even a transitional story can be made up about them is evidence enough that macroevolution is not likely to be the route we, or any other creature on earth took to get here.

[Coyote]

Archaeoptryx is not an example of a transitional fossil. It had fully formed feathers, its brain was like that of a flying animal, and its skeleal and muscular structure was fully developed for flight. That is not transitional.

Actually, the story told about the evolution of the horse is just that. A story. There is no gradual change from the little 4 toed creature of 50 million years ago to the horse we know today. The truth is that instead of gradual change, the fossils for each "intermediate species" appear fully distinct, exist for a time, and go extinct. This does not represent transition.

In terms of evolution – that does represent transition – a gradual change from a browsing creature of the woods to a grass eating plains running animal. Because it is “transitional” does not mean it each one is not a fully distinct species. Perhaps we need to define what transitional means because there are different types of transitional fossils.

First – there is "General lineage". This is a sequence of similar genera or families, linking an older group to a very different younger group. Each step in the sequence consists of some fossils that represent a certain genus or family, and the whole sequence often covers a span of tens of millions of years. A lineage like this shows obvious morphological intermediates for every major structural change, and the fossils occur roughly (but often not exactly) in the expected order. Usually there are still gaps between each of the groups -- few or none of the speciation events (the process by which new biological species arise) are preserved. Sometimes the individual specimens are not thought to be directly ancestral to the next-youngest fossils (i.e., they may be "cousins" or "uncles" rather than "parents"). However, they are assumed to be closely related to the actual ancestor, since they have intermediate morphology compared to the next-oldest and next-youngest "links". The major point of these general lineages is that animals with intermediate morphology existed at the appropriate times, and thus that the transitions from the proposed ancestors are fully plausible.

Second – there is "Species-to-species transition". This is a set of numerous individual fossils that show a change between one species and another. It's a very fine-grained sequence documenting the actual speciation event, usually covering less than a million years. These species-to-species transitions are unmistakable when they are found. Throughout successive strata you see the population averages of teeth, feet, vertebrae, etc., changing from what is typical of the first species to what is typical of the next species. Sometimes, these sequences occur only in a limited geographic area (the place where the speciation actually occurred), with analyses from any other area showing an apparently "sudden" change. Other times, though, the transition can be seen over a very wide geological area. Many "species-to-species transitions" are known, mostly for marine invertebrates and recent mammals (both those groups tend to have good fossil records), though they are not as abundant as the general .

Another point to consider is transitions to New Higher Taxa. Both types of transitions often result in a new "higher taxon" (a new genus, family, order, etc.) from a species belonging to a different, older taxon. There is nothing magical about this. The first members of the new group are not bizarre, chimeric animals; they are simply a new, slightly different species, barely different from the parent species. Eventually they give rise to a more different species, which in turn gives rise to a still more different species, and so on, until the descendents are radically different from the original parent stock. For example, the Order Perissodactyla (horses, etc.) and the Order Cetacea (whales) can both be traced back to early Eocene animals that looked only marginally different from each other, and didn't look at all like horses or whales. (They looked rather like small, dumb foxes with raccoon-like feet and simple teeth.) But over the following tens of millions of years, the descendents of those animals became more and more different, and now we call them two different orders.

Source for the above information is Talk Origins Archive.


Paleontologist Colin Patterson, director of the Natural History Museum in London, where "evolution of the horse" "transitional fossils" were on public display at that time on the ground floor of the museum, said the following about the exhibition:

"There have been an awful lot of stories, some more imaginative than others, about what the nature of that history [of life] really is. The most famous example, still on exhibit downstairs, is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps fifty years ago. That has been presented as the literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that is lamentable, particularly when the people who propose those kinds of stories may themselves be aware of the speculative nature of some of that stuff."

The evolution of the horse scenario has been fabricated by using sequential arrangement of fossils of distinct species that lived at vastly different periods in India, South Africa, North America, and Europe, to present what evolutionist wish they could prove. There are more than 20 charts of the evolution of the horse, which, by the way, are completely different from each other. Each has been proposed by various researchers. It is clear that evolutionists still have reached no common agreement on these family trees. The only common feature in these arrangements is the belief that a dog-sized creature called eohippus (hyracotherium), which lived in the Eocene period 55 million years ago, was the ancestor of the horse. Those evolutionists ignore the fact, however, that eohippus is nearly identical to the hyrax, a small rabbit-like animal which still lives in Africa and has no relation whatsoever to the horse.

The imaginary line from Eohippus to Equus is very erratic to say the very least. It is alleged to show a continual increase in size, but the truth is that several variants were smaller than Eohippus, not larger. It is possible to bring specimens from different sources together in a convincing-looking sequence, but there is simply no evidence that they were actually ranged in this order in time.

I agree with what you say about the evolution of the horse – except, it does not in any way contradict evolution and that’s the issue. And also keep in mind - it is not only fossil evidence that is used to make these determinations but evidence from a host of other fields. Evolution is a fact – the exact mechanisms and details are still being explored but nothing you say above disputes evolution itself. Since then 1870, when Othniel Marsh first put together what he believed was the sequence of equine evolution the the number of equid fossils has increased dramatically, changing the overall evolutionary picture.

Yes - the actual evolutionary progression from Hyracotherium to Equus has been discovered to be much more complex and multi-branched than was initially supposed and the straight, direct progression from the former to the latter has been replaced by a more elaborate model with numerous branches in different directions, of which the modern horse is only one of many.

Yes - the change in equids' traits was also not always a "straight line" from Hyracotherium to Equus: some traits reversed themselves at various points in the evolution of new equid species, such as size and the presence of fossoles, and it is only in retrospect that certain evolutionary trends can be recognized

Fossil evidence suggests that the progression between species was not as smooth and consistent as was once believed – there I agree with you. However - some transitions, such as that of Dinohippus to Equus, were indeed gradual progressions, others, such as that of Epihippus to Mesohippus, were relatively abrupt and sudden in geologic time, taking place over only a few million years. Again, that doesn’t disprove evolution but instead suggests a new theory: punctuated equilibrium.

Eventually, in 1951 George Simpson recognized that the modern horse was not the "goal" of the entire lineage of equids – and yes, this contradicted modern evolutionary theory at the time. Simpson felt that Equus was simply the only genus of the many horse lineages that has happened to survive. This still doesn’t disprove evolution nor does it put a diety in the loop – it merely changes the details of the picture. People tend to jump on this as “proof” that evolution if weak, and that very weakness in turn provides “proof” that ID is valid. It doesn’t.

[Coyote]

And the walking whale? That one is not a transitional fossil either. The backbone of this creature ended at the pelvis and it had powerfully muscled rear legs. This is typical land animal anatomy. The backbone of a whale, on the other hand goes right on to the tail and there is no pelvic bone. Basilosaurus, believed to have lived some 10 million years after ambulocetus, possesses the latter anatomy. In other words, it is a typical whale. There is no transitional form between ambulocetus, a typical land mammal, and basilosaurus, a typical whale.

Further, below the backbone of basilosaurus and the sperm whale, there are small bones independent of it. Some evolutionists claim that these are vestigial legs. The fact is that these bones actually had another function. In basilosaurus, these bones ‘functioned as copulary guides’ and in sperm whales they act an anchor for the muscles of the genitalia.’[ To describe ese bones, which actually carry out important functions, as ‘vestigial organs’ is just one more example of the level of intellectual dishonesty that evolutionists will go to in order to construct their stories.

I would disagree – you left out Rodhocetus, for example, that falls between Basilosaurus and Ambulocetus. There is quite a good article with a lot of supporting evidence for the macro-evolution of the whale: paleontological, morphological, molecular biological, vestigial, embryological, geochemical, paleoenvironmental, paleobiogeographical, and chronological.. It is too lengthy to print here: http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/


The tiktaalik is no more a transitional form than the coelacanth. When fossils of that fish were first discovered, they had the same high hopes that it represented a transitional fossil. When a living specimine was found, however, those hopes went down the drain as it became evident that those fins had nothing to do with walking, but were simply for fine maneuvering while swimming. The structure of tiktaalik's fins is nearly identical to those of coelacanth. If anything, the discovery of tiktaalik creates more gaps in the fossil record rather than closing any.

Actually, aside from the tiktaalik and coelacanth, there are other excellent examples of transitional fish fossils (source is talkorigins):

Kenichtys: most fish have anterior and posterior external nostrils. In tetrapods, the posterior nostril is replaced by the choana, an internal nostril opening into the roof of the mouth. Kenichthys, a 395-million-year-old fossil from China, is exactly intermediate between the two, having nostrils at the margin of the upper jaw (Zhu and Ahlberg 2004).

A fossil shows eight bony fingers in the front fin of a lobed fish, offering evidence that fingers developed before land-going tetrapods (Daeschler and Shubin 1998).

A Devonian humerus has features showing that it belonged to an aquatic tetrapod that could push itself up with its forelimbs but could not move it limbs back and forth to walk (Shubin et al. 2004).

Acanthostega, a Devonian fossil, about 60 cm long, probably lived in rivers (Coates 1996). It had polydactyl limbs with no wrists or ankles (Coates and Clack 1990). It was predominantly, if not exclusively, aquatic: It had fishlike internal gills (Coates and Clack 1991), and its limbs and spine could not support much weight. It also had a stapes and a lateral sensory system like a fish.

Ichthyostega, a tetrapod from Devonian streams, was about 1.5 m long and probably amphibious. It had seven digits on its rear legs (its hands are unknown). Its limbs and spine were more robust than those of Acanthostega, and its rib cage was massive. It had fishlike spines on its tail, but these were fewer and smaller than Acanthostega's. Its skull had several primitive fishlike features, but it probably did not have internal gills (Murphy 2002).

Tulerpeton, from estuarine deposits roughly the same age as Acanthostega and Ichthyostega, had six digits on its front limbs and seven on its rear limbs. Its shoulders were more robust than Acanthostega, suggesting it was somewhat less aquatic, and its skull appears to be closer to later Carboniferous amphibians than to Acanthostega or Ichthyostega.


I can unserstand that evolutionists want to believe in macroevolution. Hell, many of them have their entire lives invested in that belief. But fabricating stories to fill gaps is no substitute the hard evidence that they are so sorely lacking.

They don’t appear to be lacking hard evidence nor do they appear to be fabricating stories. Unlike religious theories – they base their theories on evidence, not lack of evidence


The transition from any species to any other species would involved thousands upon thousands upon thousands of generations. That being said, the probability of finding transitional forms of any creature is thousands upon thousands of times greater than finding a fully developed creature. The pitiful handfull of fossils that can even be falsely represented as transitional should make it clear that however the life we see around us got here, macroevolution is simply not the route it took.


New theories on the “how” of evolution are continually being put together as new evidence comes to light. That’s the way science works. You should also realize it is not just fossil evidence that this is based – macro-evolution is supported by multi-disciplinary evidence.

[Coyote]

Like I said. I don't know. But the fact that I don't doesn't make it necessary for me to believe blatant fabrication in order to be able to sleep at night. I can accept that there are things we don't know. Perhaps some day, some genuine transitional fossils will be found and then I will reevaluate my position. Or more non transitional fossils will be found that will simply reinforce my position.

The numerical fact is that tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of generations would be required for the transition from one species to another and that makes the odds of finding transitional fossils far greater than of finding non transitional forms. The fact that we have enough non transitional fossils to fill a city full of warehouses but only a pitiful handfull that are such that even a transitional story can be made up about them is evidence enough that macroevolution is not likely to be the route we, or any other creature on earth took to get here.

Fossils are very very rare to begin with. Fossilization requires conditions that preserve the fossil before it becomes scavenged or decayed. Such conditions are common only in a very few habitats, such as river deltas, peat bogs, and tar pits. Organisms that do not live in or near these habitats will be preserved only rarely. In addition many types of animals are fragile and do not preserve well, many species have small ranges thus their chance of fossilization will be proportionally small. Also – the evolution of new species is probably fairly rapid in geological terms so transitions between species will be uncommon. Add to that, other processes destroy fossils. Erosion (and/or lack of deposition in the first place) often destroys hundreds of millions of years or more of the geological record, so the geological record at any place usually has long gaps. Fossils can also be destroyed by heat or pressure when buried deep underground. And, not only that – as rare as fossils are, their discovery is rarer still – typically, we only found those that have been exposed by erosion and only then if that exposure is recent enough that the fossils don’t erode.

As far as transitional fossils consider – as climates change, species migrate so we can’t assume a transition will occur all at one spot. Often times fossils must be collected from all over a continent – or the world – to find the transitions. Add that to overall rarity. Furthermore, regional politics interfere with collecting fossils. Some fabulous fossils have been found in China only recently because before then the politics prevented most paleontology there.

This shortage is not just in fossils but in paleontologists and taxonomists. Preparing and analyzing the material for just one lineage can take a decade of work. There are likely hundreds of transitional fossils sitting in museum drawers, unknown because nobody knowledgeable has examined them.

Also, the description of fossils is often limited to professional literature and does not get popularized – particularly among marine microfossils, which have the best record but are the most boring (to non-paleontologists).

[palerider]

We will just have to agree to disagree. Like I said early on, I can see evidence for microevolution and have no problems there, but the fossils set out to demonstrate macroevolution simply ask too much of the imagination to be considered more science than storytelling.

[Coyote]

We will just have to agree to disagree. Like I said early on, I can see evidence for microevolution and have no problems there, but the fossils set out to demonstrate macroevolution simply ask too much of the imagination to be considered more science than storytelling.

Okay...I'm cool with that. Obviously, I find the evidence both convincing and scientific. Sliante! :)

[God]

No, it is still a theory. A widely-accepted and highly probable theory, but a theory, because it is not fully provable as "fact."


You my friend need to get acquainted with some scientific terminology... look at the links provided for you...

I find this to be a very weak yet often brought up point in such discussions.... you realize what physics is right?? HIGHLY theoretical... or even math (i.e number THEORY...)

[vyo476]

You my friend need to get acquainted with some scientific terminology... look at the links provided for you...

I find this to be a very weak yet often brought up point in such discussions.... you realize what physics is right?? HIGHLY theoretical... or even math (i.e number THEORY...)

All right, all right, I get the picture. I need to stop playing devil's advocate all the time. If I had to pick something to believe I'd certainly go with evolution - I just think there are still a few more elements to the bigger puzzle that haven't been figured out yet.

And aren't you supposed to be against the idea of evolution, God?

[invest07]

According to evolutionary theory, every fossil should be in transition from parent to child. And the actual percent of transitional fossils is less than 1% and most of those are disputed. There are no where near enough of these and most that are presented as transitions are in serious dispute. The "missing links" have never been found. And I think they never will be found because they don't exist.
Gould and Eldridge cooked up Punctuated Equilibrium to try to explain this. I have reseasrched this topic and if you would like my findings concerning PE and the American Indians, send me an EMail.
rljdyates@aol.com

[invest07]

Microeveolution requires no speciation and can be explained fully by natural selection. Macroeveolution requires beneficial genetic mutations that result in a improvement to a species.
MicroE has been observed in nature and is well documented.
MacroE has never been observed in the wild nor has it been simulated in the lab. MacroE is a theory and unproven. And many of the assumptions upon which MacroE is based are dubious and mathematically improbable.

[Coyote]

Microeveolution requires no speciation and can be explained fully by natural selection. Macroeveolution requires beneficial genetic mutations that result in a improvement to a species.
MicroE has been observed in nature and is well documented.
MacroE has never been observed in the wild nor has it been simulated in the lab. MacroE is a theory and unproven. And many of the assumptions upon which MacroE is based are dubious and mathematically improbable.

Just to put things into perspective here....

3,800 million years ago - the earliest documented microfossils of life
145 million years ago - the earliest primitive mammels
1.8 million years - evolution of anatomically modern humans
9,500 years ago (approx) - the earliest known human civilizations, pre-literate
4,000 years ago - first literate human civilization
148 years ago - 1859 Darwin's Origin of the Species

Mankind is barely a blip in the radar of the geological timescale of life. What on earth makes you think we've been around long enough to witness or recongnize macro-evolution much less duplicate it in a lab? Even evolutionary changes that appear to occur rapidly do so only relative to the geological timescale.

[Coyote]

Actually...I might be wrong about "speciation" and simulated in a laboratory condition. I found the following reference much to my surprise:

In 1964, Dr. D. J. Reish removed 5 or 6 polychaetes (Nereis acuminata) from Los Angeles/Long Beach Harbor, and grew his sample to a size of thousands. In 1986, four pairs from this group were brought to Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution; the population at Woods Hole thus had gone through two bottlenecks, which are supposed to help drive evolution through genetic drift. In 1977-1978, two new cultures of N. acuminata were gathered from nearby Long Beach and Newport Beach, and grown under the same conditions as the Woods Hole sample. The three populations were later crossed, and it was found that the only crosses that would not produce viable offspring were the crosses involving the Woods Hole culture and the two new cultures. This signifies nothing less than speciation, and all in the laboratory as well. (Weinberg et al. 1992)

[9sublime]

Just to put things into perspective here....

3,800 million years ago - the earliest documented microfossils of life
145 million years ago - the earliest primitive mammels
1.8 million years - evolution of anatomically modern humans
9,500 years ago (approx) - the earliest known human civilizations, pre-literate
4,000 years ago - first literate human civilization
148 years ago - 1859 Darwin's Origin of the Species

Mankind is barely a blip in the radar of the geological timescale of life. What on earth makes you think we've been around long enough to witness or recongnize macro-evolution much less duplicate it in a lab? Even evolutionary changes that appear to occur rapidly do so only relative to the geological timescale.


Damn right. And also, notice that life has evolved from very basic to very advanced, but opponents of evolution still don't believe that species can evolve from simple cells to humans?

[Coyote]

Damn right. And also, notice that life has evolved from very basic to very advanced, but opponents of evolution still don't believe that species can evolve from simple cells to humans?


That's because they were all created at one time 3,000 years ago don't ya know.... :D

[Dave]

That's because they were all created at one time 3,000 years ago don't ya know.... :D

Once again, you are attacking a straw man. Nobody here is arguing creationism. Maybe its easier to make jokes than actually debating the points that are being raised.

[palerider]

1.8 million years - evolution of anatomically modern humans

The earliest anatomically modern human remains are barely 100K years old. Previous HOMINIDS were entirely separate species that appeared, lived for a while and went extinct. Many lived during the same time span. No evidence of human evolution.

[TruthAboveAll]

Just to put things into perspective here....

3,800 million years ago - the earliest documented microfossils of life
145 million years ago - the earliest primitive mammels
1.8 million years - evolution of anatomically modern humans
9,500 years ago (approx) - the earliest known human civilizations, pre-literate
4,000 years ago - first literate human civilization
148 years ago - 1859 Darwin's Origin of the Species

Mankind is barely a blip in the radar of the geological timescale of life. What on earth makes you think we've been around long enough to witness or recongnize macro-evolution much less duplicate it in a lab? Even evolutionary changes that appear to occur rapidly do so only relative to the geological timescale.

Actually, the first literate human civilization was not 4,000 years ago. The earliest recorded item happens to be an Egyptian calender dated 4241 BC. Add the 2000 years since to it. (We'll toss out the extra 7 years to cover the disputations about when exactly the dating system went from BC to AD.) If my addition is right, that makes it 6241 years. I'm going way out on a limb here and saying that there must have been a level of literacy if a calendar was actually in use.

Since the time of Darwin, there is no question that man has made tremendous advances in nearly every field, and our knowledge has been increasing at unimaginable rates. Short of a few very futuristic-minded individuals, the forefathers of the US would be totally stunned if they were to be suddenly transported into todays' world.

Which leads to a very strong note of caution: With all the trillions, billions, millions of years that is accepted to be proven by current scientific methodology it would be wise for us to consider that our foundational summaries might not be correct. And as far as life on earth is concerned, we will never know that with certainty.

This leads to some additional questions: If the suppositions are wrong, how do we justify teaching it as fact? Why are we teaching it at all? Whether by intelligent design or evolution, does it matter one iota to the average K-12 student? What bearing does the whole issue have on anything, in reality? Why is it that so many are so intent on convincing others that we are simply something that has evolved, with no true meaning or intrinsic value?

[Sgt Schultz]

This leads to some additional questions: If the suppositions are wrong, how do we justify teaching it as fact? Why are we teaching it at all? Whether by intelligent design or evolution, does it matter one iota to the average K-12 student? What bearing does the whole issue have on anything, in reality? Why is it that so many are so intent on convincing others that we are simply something that has evolved, with no true meaning or intrinsic value?

Maybe it's because it is one of the basic tenants of modern science. An understanding of which is important in this modern world. It only seems to be an issue here in the US while the rest of the world will pass us by when it comes to scientific literacy.

[palerider]

Maybe it's because it is one of the basic tenants of modern science. An understanding of which is important in this modern world. It only seems to be an issue here in the US while the rest of the world will pass us by when it comes to scientific literacy.

Following the crowd, or leading the crowd where they want you to lead them for that matter, hardly qualifies as scientific literacy.

And I find it somewhat sad that you would think that an unprovable, and unsupportable theory is one of the basic tenets of modern science. And understanding or not understanding whether or not macroevolution happened or not will not make a single contribution to anything. At best, it is trivia. Cold fusion, a cure for cancer, a simple and cheap way to process clean water for 2/3 of the people on earth that have never had a taste of it...those are important to the modern world. Evolution wouldn't even make the top 100 of things that are most important to the modern world.

[Coyote]

Actually, the first literate human civilization was not 4,000 years ago. The earliest recorded item happens to be an Egyptian calender dated 4241 BC. Add the 2000 years since to it. (We'll toss out the extra 7 years to cover the disputations about when exactly the dating system went from BC to AD.) If my addition is right, that makes it 6241 years. I'm going way out on a limb here and saying that there must have been a level of literacy if a calendar was actually in use.


My apologies for the incorrect figure. However, on a geological timescale that extra 2241 years doesn't even show up.


Since the time of Darwin, there is no question that man has made tremendous advances in nearly every field, and our knowledge has been increasing at unimaginable rates. Short of a few very futuristic-minded individuals, the forefathers of the US would be totally stunned if they were to be suddenly transported into todays' world.

Which leads to a very strong note of caution: With all the trillions, billions, millions of years that is accepted to be proven by current scientific methodology it would be wise for us to consider that our foundational summaries might not be correct. And as far as life on earth is concerned, we will never know that with certainty.

All geological reckonings are generally cautioned with a plus/minus a thousand years or so. Also - note, I started the reckoning here with first recorded fossils. Could have been life before that but no fossil record. However - the reckonings while perhaps not precise are well within the ballpark and backed by a good bit of data. 3,800 million years is not going to magically transform itself into 3,000 years.


This leads to some additional questions: If the suppositions are wrong, how do we justify teaching it as fact?

Because the exact details may be in dispute does not mean the suppositions are wrong.


Why are we teaching it at all? Whether by intelligent design or evolution, does it matter one iota to the average K-12 student? What bearing does the whole issue have on anything, in reality? Why is it that so many are so intent on convincing others that we are simply something that has evolved, with no true meaning or intrinsic value?

What is the purpose of science? A big part of it is to help us understand the world around us. What's wrong with that? Are you advocating a return to a flat earth mentality here?

[Coyote]

Once again, you are attacking a straw man. Nobody here is arguing creationism. Maybe its easier to make jokes than actually debating the points that are being raised.

Maybe you didn't notice I have been debating the actual points?

[Coyote]

The earliest anatomically modern human remains are barely 100K years old. Previous HOMINIDS were entirely separate species that appeared, lived for a while and went extinct. Many lived during the same time span. No evidence of human evolution.

Actually - two skulls found near the Omo River in Ethiopia in 1967 by Richard Leakey and originally thought to be about 130,000 years old have now been dated at 195,000 years, the oldest date known for a modern human skull. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-02/uou-toh021105.php

According to many paleontologists and anthropologists, there is evidence of human evolution. There is a fine transition between modern humans and australopithecines and other hominids and this transition is gradual enough that it is not always clear where to draw the line between human and not.

There are plenty of intermediate fossils to support this:

Australopithecus afarensis, from 3.9 to 3.0 million years ago (Mya). Its skull is similar to a chimpanzee's, but with more humanlike teeth. Most (possibly all) creationists would call this an ape, but it was bipedal.

Australopithecus africanus (3 to 2 Mya); its brain size, 420-500 cc, was slightly larger than A. afarensis, and its teeth yet more humanlike.

Homo habilis (2.4 to 1.5 Mya), which is similar to australopithecines, but which used tools and had a larger brain (650-cc average) and less projecting face.

Homo erectus (1.8 to 0.3 Mya); brain size averaged about 900 cc in early H. erectus and 1,100 cc in later ones. (Modern human brains average 1,350 cc.)

A Pleistocene Homo sapiens which was "morphologically and chronologically intermediate between archaic African fossils and later anatomically modern Late Pleistocene humans" (White et al. 2003, 742).

A hominid combining features of, and possibly ancestral to, Neanderthals and modern humans (Bermudez de Castro et al. 1997).

And there are fossils intermediate between these.

[9sublime]

Palerider, don't you find it slightly bizzare that creatures would come into existence, die out, and then taking their place are extremely similair humans.

[ArmChair General]

Why do I get the feeling that paleriders supposed degrees are both made up? he is by far the most ignorant college graduate I have ever had the displeasure of meeting. He constantly makes stuff up, and if you provide evidence that completely contradicts the BS he just spewed, instead of debating the points, he attacks the source.

palerider, you make me puke.

[palerider]

Why do I get the feeling that paleriders supposed degrees are both made up? he is by far the most ignorant college graduate I have ever had the displeasure of meeting. He constantly makes stuff up, and if you provide evidence that completely contradicts the BS he just spewed, instead of debating the points, he attacks the source.

palerider, you make me puke.

Whats the matter, you have nothing to say on this subject? Sniping from the sidelines and calling names because you got your little hiney whooped on the other thread is childish at best? If you would learn what you are talking about before you type it out to the public, that sort of thing woudn't happen.

And kindly provide an example or two where I attack a source in lieu of arguing the points.

[palerider]

Palerider, don't you find it slightly bizzare that creatures would come into existence, die out, and then taking their place are extremely similair humans.

Extremely similar hominids didn't take their place. A. afarenis, Kenyanthropus playtops, A. garhi, A. bahreighazall and A. Africanus all overlap each other. That is, they all existed at the same time. Then A. africanus, P. aethiopicus, K.rudolfensis, A. (H.) hablis and P.boisel all overlap each other. Then P. boisel, P. robustus, H.ergaster, and H. erectus all overlap each other. There was no dying off and being replaced by very similar hominids. If you want to suggest that there was interbreeding among these different animals, then we might have something to discuss, but your notion that one led to another in a macroevolutionary way when many of them walked the earth at the same time is more storytelling than science.

[Sgt Schultz]

Following the cr