Why Evolution is True

Status
Not open for further replies.

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Hmm, let's see, according to your own definition, one population becoming reproductively isolated from another (a.k.a. speciation) is macroevolution. Hmmm, has that happened in the lab? With humans watching? Let's see:

A botanist crossed two different species (or, according to you, populations since they could cross). Some of the resulting hybrids were fertile. They also were immediately isolated from their parent species because their genetic make up was different. We know the complete evolutionary history of this third perfectly good species, generation after generation, it is all documented and can be replicated today. Cases like this are seen in plants constantly.
Digby, L. 1912. The cytology of Primula kewensis and of other related Primula hybrids. Ann. Bot. 26:357-388.

There is your "proof" of macroevolution. And that was 102 years ago (granted, this was the oldest example I could find, do you want more recent ones?).

Now, go ahead and change your definition of kind, your definition of macroevlution, your definition of empirical science, or all of them.

species and ring species are not macroevolution according to most universities. Evolution at above the level of species is macro evolution according to berkley and most non generic sites. Also plants I know can cross meny genus, and thats fine. I am not concerned with common ancestry of plant life. But if thats your only proof than thats fine, it just means that your pinching pennies to find proof. And this proves my point succinctly, that you changing the bars here, and moving on to plant life goes to show that the things we are talking about, namely dog like to whale like transitions, or bird like to dinasaur transitions, or ape like to human like transitions don't exist. And you know this. It's now time for you to own this fact. So we can move on. Thank you for the comment.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
species and ring species are not macroevolution according to most universities. Evolution at above the level of species is macro evolution according to berkley and most non generic sites.

Just more semantics from gradyll.

The basic question that you continue to ignore is why can't evolution produce two species that share common ancestry but can not interbreed? What is stopping it?

If we split a population of dogs and keep them separate for 10 million years, what is stopping each population from accumulating different mutations through microevolution that result in a lack of fertility between the two populations when they are reunited 10 million years later?
 
Upvote 0

CabVet

Question everything
Dec 7, 2011
11,738
176
Los Altos, CA
✟28,402.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Also plants I know can cross meny genus, and thats fine. I am not concerned with common ancestry of plant life.

And there you have it ladies and gentlemen, evolution is ok as long as it applies only to plant life, because, frankly, who cares about plants?

The only one who is "changing the bars" (or moving the goal posts) is you. You asked for an example of macroevolution, I gave you one. Do you want more? Or if I show you one in flies will you just say that you are not concerned with common ancestry of fly life? What evidence would you accept? A chimp giving birth to a human?
 
Upvote 0

Paul of Eugene OR

Finally Old Enough
Supporter
May 3, 2014
6,373
1,857
✟256,002.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Well thats going to be a bit hard for the average bloke in the street. But I can research and look up scientists who show that some of the accepted beliefs are wrong or at least in question. One of those is with how many scientists have come out in recent times and questions darwins tree of life. I could site several prominent science sites that have shown this.
Darwin's Tree of Life May Be More Like a Thicket
New Scientist says Darwin was wrong – Pharyngula
Horizontal gene transfer in evolution: facts and challenges

The problem is for some of the evidence is that its nots so black and white. Like I mentioned with the interpretation of bones and fossils you will have x amount of scientists saying that they believe that it fits in with their view and then have some others that question that and bring up valid points. Even if the majority say it is supportive of a transition because there are some that bring up other possibilities it places doubt over the evidence and at least puts it on some shaky ground to be used as strong evidence.

Because a variation can be within the same species and not a new species. Evolution needs a progressive transition of a creature into another species. So those variations should gradually show changes that turn it into a new shape or type of creature. But this is where it gets hard to tell and where I believe that scientists can misinterpret transitions. Because like you are indicating there can be a stage where you just can tell whether its a variation of the same creature or a transition. Such as with a dog there are many shapes but they are still dogs. Or like I said with bats there are many bats that are classed as different species but they are all still bats with bat shapes. They havnt turned into owls or lizards.

Like I said thats where its hard. But I would have thought if a creature is transforming from one to another completely different shape that there would be some stages in between. Like a Dino to bird. Would you have a stage where the wings are stumps and useless before it got to the point of functional wings. Or do the wings pop out in one generation completely working.

There is still a fair amount of conjecture about what is classed as homo erectus, Neanderthal and homo sapiens. Some say that they are all the same species or at least early homo sapiens fall into the same species as homo erectus and Neanderthals. But as you see from the skulls found at Georgia and my example with dogs you can have a lot of size and shape between the same species. So without any solid evidence such as DNA then its up to interpretation and this is to sketchy.

Even with the DNA evidence it has been showing that there are some similarities that make some of the separate species that scientists had categorized put into the same species. Then we get some connections between totally different shaped creatures who were thought to not be on the same evolutionary line linked together through the DNA. There is also some evidence that the so called different species cross bred and may have produced another so called species that has been labeled a transition. But the main point is that because of all this conjecture its harder to definitely say what the transition for ape to man is or whether they are just apes and humans. There could be one group that is just humans and has a great amount of variation in size and shape and then another group who are apes with great size and variation.

We just dont know definitely because we are looking back like a detective in a cold case and trying to piece things together. But what this also does is put a question mark on some if not many of the so called transitions that are needed to show a gradual transformation of ape to man. We had a number of species that scientists were saying were showing the stages of ape man transforming into a human. Then with the new discoveries they have lost a bunch of species and stages in the line that was showing this progression because they are now lumped as being in the same species with variation. So what happens now to all the gaps that are left with these species taken out. So to say that the evidence is so strong that you can call it fact is to me a little premature.
Homo erectus - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
https://theconversation.com/of-heads-and-headlines-can-a-skull-doom-14-human-species-19227
New fossil suggest ancient human ancestors the same species: Homo erectus | Genetic Literacy Project
New DNA Analysis Shows Ancient Humans Interbred with Denisovans - Scientific American

The key issue is the ability correctly to infer a genetic relationship between two species on the basis of a similarity in appearance, at gross and detailed levels of anatomy. Sometimes this approach....can be deceptive, partly because similarity does not necessarily imply an identical genetic heritage: a shark (which is a fish) and a porpoise (which is a mammal) look similar…, BONES OF CONTENTION, 1987, p. 123

There are other scientists who dont consider Australopithecine as ape to human but just ape. It is grossly like an ape and the evidence for it walking is highly contentious.
The Fall of <i>Australopithecus sediba</i>: Controversy and the Quest for Glory Cloud Claims of Human Ancestry - Evolution News & Views

Well when you consider that for every single species that is claimed to ever walk the earth there would be millions. So would it stand to reason that there would be billions of transitionals for each and every one. If mutations are primarily non advantageous and only 1 in 10,000 are beneficial then would there be billions of failed transitions. If a reptile found that wings were advantageous through natural selection they would only find that through a process of trial and error. There is no real intelligence behind evolution and its a blind and random. Though the ultimate aim of natural selection is adaptation to the environment for survival there is still a lot of mutations that will fail and be of no use.

So wouldn't there be many generations of failed changes that were not taken on if it is random and chance. For a reptile to get a wing it may have gone through 10s of thousands of other failed mutation that maybe produces stub toes or hair in places on its body or a change in its skin or a change in its metabolism that all were not advantageous. These all would have nothing to do with wings because it didn't know it needed wing or that wings would have been advantageous in the first place. So any mutation could have occurred in a pot luck process. Then eventually after many non beneficial changes it eventually found that having wings was beneficial for survival such as avoiding predators. So wouldn't there be billions of fossils of failed mutated creatures we would find that are the results of getting the ones we ended up with. Even just for wings we would have to have many stages of wing development to finally get a good set of wings that were beneficial. Would the stages that we non beneficial be rejected anyway as not being advantageous. (Forgive me if I sound a bit simplistic as I dont know much about genetics so this is just my understanding).

If you take the Pakicetus as a transition for early whale which lived on the land. To get from that to a whale would have taken many thousands of attempts. It just didn't find the right things it needed in one generation. There would have been many generations of failed changes that just didn't work because its all based on random chance. Even just with the size factor to go from a small dog like creature to a whale which is near 100 feet and around 170 tonnes would need 100s of stages in transitions. The next generation cannot jump to big in size because the mother would not be able to have the baby. So it would take tiny changes in sizes and that would take hundreds of generations which would leave hundreds of fossils of different sizes to get to the whale. But all we have is patchy stages with fairly big jumps. There is not much evidence for all the other things that need to change like breathing, shape, different tail movement which requires a rotation of the hips and pelvis, hip and pelvis which to me in the process would leave a creature struggling to move as it was gradually changing, sonar and hearing, seeing under water ect. Thats not taking into consideration that some of the features of Pakicetus are also unrelated to whales. They say it adapted to water because it had to eat fish. Yet its teeth were strong for ripping flesh. They say it learnt to be in the water a lot yet its legs were built for fast running across land.

So as you will see there is still a lot of contradictory evidence for transitions and I dont think there is any real qualifications that can determine what a transition is clearly because much of it is up to visual interpretation.The only real way that a line of transition could be shown perhaps is through genetics. But you also have to remember that variation is also shown through genetics so you have to have a clear understanding of what a species is. Especially if you go back in time where its harder to establish because you can always have the DNA and we dont know whether animals cross bred more often to produce new kinds of animals or other forms of HGT were at play.

Digging up a creature that happens to have a few similarities to another and then making a whole line of out this is not a solid foundation as you also have to consider the differences and that there is no other real evidence like genetics to make sure it is a fact. Especially now that genetics is showing that the lines and trees that were made in the past are coming under question. Some creatures are being taken out of those lines because they are related to another totally unrelated line of creature and some creatures are being linked together that show no resemblance yet are closer through genetics than the animals that scientists use to say belonged together. Its still early days so we will have to wait and see. But I dont think you can say that the theory has a strong case to say its fact.

Your objections read more like simple rejection of the findings based on faith instead of reasonable objections. What can one fossil have in relation to another . . . except similarities?

Genetics is not showing the lines and trees made in the past are coming into qeustion. Genetics is confirming the lines and trees made in the past.

And you continue to sport ear wiggling muscles that our species no longer uses at all. How many species back was it that those vestigial muscles were actually useful, do you suppose?
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
And there you have it ladies and gentlemen, evolution is ok as long as it applies only to plant life, because, frankly, who cares about plants?

The only one who is "changing the bars" (or moving the goal posts) is you. You asked for an example of macroevolution, I gave you one. Do you want more? Or if I show you one in flies will you just say that you are not concerned with common ancestry of fly life? What evidence would you accept? A chimp giving birth to a human?

look up changing the bars, its what one does when they are running. and there you have it ladies and gentlman
 
Upvote 0

CabVet

Question everything
Dec 7, 2011
11,738
176
Los Altos, CA
✟28,402.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
look up changing the bars, its what one does when they are running. and there you have it ladies and gentlman

Just like saying that you are "not concerned with plant life" when I show you an example of macroevolution in plants, right?
 
Upvote 0

PsychoSarah

Chaotic Neutral
Jan 13, 2014
20,521
2,609
✟95,463.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
As I repeat, they would need to find evidence of intersexual compatibility beteen genra, which has not happened in the hundreds of years of searching for the missing link.

Um, no, we wouldn't have to have a modern species which humans could breed with which was nonhuman to prove evolution. This makes 0 sense, why on earth would this be the case?
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,904
1,261
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
No, there is not a single historical record of a person seeing an angel. Jesus didn't write a line in the Bible, neither did the apostles, so I am not saying they were liars. In addition, the Bible is not "historical record".
Jesus did write lots of lines. His words were recorded and He made sure of that as He Himself said He would.

To back up your claim no one has seen an angel you have to prove the millions who dis wrong and know every person that lived to see who saw what. You are talking out of your depth.
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Um, no, we wouldn't have to have a modern species which humans could breed with which was nonhuman to prove evolution. This makes 0 sense, why on earth would this be the case?

define transition, this may answer your question.
thanks for the comment
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Just like saying that you are "not concerned with plant life" when I show you an example of macroevolution in plants, right?

we were talking about vertebrates, and you bring up plant life? Do plants have backbones? I jest, but..

thats not changing the bars?

secondly, most people do not question the evolution of plant life. Thats a nontopic.
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Define extinction, thanks for the comment.

the definition of extinction does not answer your question. It's a matter of definitions regarding transition. I define it as macro evolutionary links, like most scientific sites define it. MAinly evolution on a wide scale between two things that are at a higher taxa than species. the closest thing is genus. So I believe evolution between genra is macroevolution. So your transition would thus be between two genra. A monkey -man transition, a whale and dog like transition or a bird and dinasaur tranition, all of those are examples. To disagree is to disagree with sites that define macroevolution that way, U.C. Berkley etc.
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
well the generic sites usually will say "at or above the level of species," but the more technical sites like UC Berkley say "above the level of species".

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VIADefinition.shtml
"Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level"

also indiana university:

http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/pap.macroevolution.pdf

also some institutes of Biological Sciences:

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

national evolution sythesis center:

https://www.nescent.org/media/NABT/

2006 Annual Meeting of the National Association of Biology Teachers -- Albuquerque, NM
This year's theme: "Macroevolution: Evolution above the Species Level"

3rd Annual AIBS, BSCS, NESCent Evolution Science and Education Symposium

3rd Annual AIBS, BSCS, NESCent Evolution Science and Education Symposium

want more?
 
Upvote 0

PsychoSarah

Chaotic Neutral
Jan 13, 2014
20,521
2,609
✟95,463.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
the definition of extinction does not answer your question. It's a matter of definitions regarding transition. I define it as macro evolutionary links, like most scientific sites define it. MAinly evolution on a wide scale between two things that are at a higher taxa than species. the closest thing is genus. So I believe evolution between genra is macroevolution. So your transition would thus be between two genra. A monkey -man transition, a whale and dog like transition or a bird and dinasaur tranition, all of those are examples. To disagree is to disagree with sites that define macroevolution that way, U.C. Berkley etc.

Yes, and we can provide fossils that look like that. However, you fail to understand that while chimpanzees are the closest living species evolution wise to humans, our last genus split wasn't with them. There used to be other, bipedal apes like humans, which we were genetically even closer to, and likely could have interbred with. They died out thousands of years ago.

In addition, perhaps we can breed with chimpanzees, but I challenge you to find someone who has actually had sex with one. No sex, no chimp-human hybrids for you to see right now alive.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Yes, and we can provide fossils that look like that. However, you fail to understand that while chimpanzees are the closest living species evolution wise to humans, our last genus split wasn't with them. There used to be other, bipedal apes like humans, which we were genetically even closer to, and likely could have interbred with. They died out thousands of years ago.

In addition, perhaps we can breed with chimpanzees, but I challenge you to find someone who has actually had sex with one. No sex, no chimp-human hybrids for you to see right now alive.

well then again you see the problem, no evidence. Eventually you must provide evidence of common ancestry. the way most technical sites define macroevolution, is above the level of species. So you must prove this assertion that one animal turned into another animal (two genra), and provide not assumptions (you said "likely" or "could have"). Now please take as many billions of years as you want and take as many steps as needed. The problem with taking many steps is that you can't prove the ancestry as readily. But you would have to actually observe what you are saying to call it a scientific fact.
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Just more semantics from gradyll.

The basic question that you continue to ignore is why can't evolution produce two species that share common ancestry but can not interbreed? What is stopping it?

If we split a population of dogs and keep them separate for 10 million years, what is stopping each population from accumulating different mutations through microevolution that result in a lack of fertility between the two populations when they are reunited 10 million years later?

see my last post, and also this one:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7417298/#post66007155

thanks for the comment.
 
Upvote 0

PsychoSarah

Chaotic Neutral
Jan 13, 2014
20,521
2,609
✟95,463.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
well then again you see the problem, no evidence. Eventually you must provide evidence of common ancestry. the way most technical sites define macroevolution, is above the level of species. So you must prove this assertion that one animal turned into another animal (two genra), and provide not assumptions (you said "likely" or "could have"). Now please take as many billions of years as you want and take as many steps as needed. But you would have to actually observe what you are saying to call it a scientific fact.

I don't need to hook up humans and chimpanzees to prove an evolutionary link. However, I can show you a plenty of other animal hybrids if that's all you need to support evolution. Lions and tigers, horses with zebras and donkeys, whales and dolphins, and many more can produce offspring.
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I don't need to hook up humans and chimpanzees to prove an evolutionary link. However, I can show you a plenty of other animal hybrids if that's all you need to support evolution. Lions and tigers, horses with zebras and donkeys, whales and dolphins, and many more can produce offspring.

the only qualifications for macroevolution (per the definition) is to have a hybrid link two genras and also create fertile offspring, as this is what would be required to share common ancestry on a macro level. So please provide your "many more" hybrids. Most of what I have seen is infertile and thus the evolution failed.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

PsychoSarah

Chaotic Neutral
Jan 13, 2014
20,521
2,609
✟95,463.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
the only qualifications for macroevolution (per the definition) is to have a hybrid link two genras and also create fertile offspring, as this is what would be required to share common ancestry on a macro level. So please provide your "many more" hybrids. Most of what I have seen is infertile and thus the evolution failed.

Oh, what is this? A small number of female mules are fertile? I guess we learn something new every day.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bhsmte
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.