The Demise of Evolution

[Shemjaza]

The article that JimmyD linked to his post established that the ape was upright. I concede that. It may well have been a breed of ape within its own category, apart from other apes that walked on all fours, but it does not it into the gap between ape and human. It has not be proved to be the missing link.

She's only the start.

There are more apes even more specialised for walking upright.
Later with rudimentary crafted tools.
Later with flatter faces and lither forms.
And later almost like a modern human... but with "ape" traits no modern human has.

 

[Job 33:6]

You believe evolution includes evolving from fish to amphibians, one lifeform to another higher one... Do you mean that species cross over to another?

There is no fossils tbat are found intact to demonstrate that one lifeform evolve to another higher ones. No one found a fish-toad, so to speak. There are only postulations and theories.

Did you read my post? Do you understand what it said?

Especially the last sentence it is important to understand.

"And if genetics matches the fossil record, then you have a stronger case for why the fossil reflect common decent of amphibians from fish."

Think of reasons for why or how our genetic phylogeny would match the fossil record.

From what I gather, I can only imagine that you're a missionary. You do not appear to be a scientist. You should take time to listen to what is being said, rather than simply rejecting without familiarity. If you're sincere, you ought to investigate what is being said.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are citing stuff without explaining. Who knows if you really understand them. I was hoping for some attempt to explain some compelling evidences. For instance, if I am asked to share biblical basis for believing n Jesus, i will cite a few prophecies, beside personal experience. If asked to show why i believe in Bible. I will give a few specific historical details, etc

Whay is the big deal about studying evidence abundantly for whole life to know a little .Too much knowledge without practical end is pointless.

Do you think proof comes from scientific evidence only? Even scientists won't agree with you.

If you don't believe in a Creator God, how do you explain the origin of life? And what evidences do you have.?

That is because you asked such a huge general question that it would take far too long to post links for it all. Pay me money and I will put up a page of links. But what good would it do? You probably won't follow the rule of evidence.

And I am sorry but you just took away your right to demand evidence. Until you understand what evidence is and how to apply it your demands have no merit. There is more than one way to use the word "prove". In the sense that you are trying to abuse " prove", yes evidence does prove evolution. If you think that anyone has ever been proven guilty in a criminal trial then yes, evidence does prove evolution.

Scientists also understand math. Something very few lay people understand. In math there are absolute proofs and in that sense evidence does not prove evolution, but I am sure that you were not using that word that way.

Evolution is a fact by the way. Scientists will agree with that. You should not conflate the fact of evolution, proven far beyond a reasonable doubt, and the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution. Just as the theory of gravity explains the law of gravity. Theories explain facts. Theories can change. Sometimes a flaw in a theory is so great that it is refuted, but even that does not refute the facts that it tried to explain. But that happens extremely rarely. In fact the only one I can think of that has been refuted was the phlogiston theory of combustion.

Phlogiston | chemical theory

That was over two hundred years ago.

So, would you like to learn about evidence so that you can demand it? If not correction is all that you can expect. Creationists are for some odd reason afraid to learn about evidence.

 

[Larniavc]

Evolutionists maintain that Lucy provides the best evidence to date that ape-humans existed.

No they don't. Humans are in the category 'apes'. Just like chimps are. Just like gorilla are. Just like orangutans are.

 

[Job 33:6]

You are citing stuff without explaining. Who knows if you really understand them. I was hoping for some attempt to explain some compelling evidences.

.

"There is no fossils tbat are found intact to demonstrate that one lifeform evolve to another higher ones. No one found a fish-toad, so to speak. " - @roman2819

I'll just copy some text from my other post:

I'll now provide evidence for evolution as it pertains to the question "Or do you think fossils actually support evolution better than being hard proof of the flood?".

As we all know, tiktaalik is a popular transitional fossil. Its traits are significant as they're some of the earliest of their kind. It has a flat head with eyes on top, much like amphibians of the late devonian. It has wrist bones. It has spiracles for breathing air. It has robust pectoral girdles and a robust rib cage for lifting itself against the forces of gravity above water, much like amphibians of the late devonian. It also has an infused skull and a neck for turning it's it's while it's body remains stationary, which is something found in amphibians but not fish.

It is very much a tetrapodomorph with many traits of amphibians.

But it also has fins,gills and scales like a fish.

Which means that it was basically a hybrid between fish and tetrapods.

All the above aside, what makes tiktaalik more significant isn't simply its traits, but how, where and even "when" it was found.

In the fossil record, no land animals are found anywhere in precambrian, Cambrian, ordovician or silurian rock, nor anywhere in between. By the mid to late devonian, we find tetrapods/amphibians like salamander like species that walked on land.

So if evolution were true, of tetrapods evolved from fish, a species like tiktaalik ought to exist between the earliest formations of the devonian or by the end of the silurian at the latest, and the late devonian.

Before tiktaalik was found, Neil Shubin and his team knew this. So the scoured geologic maps for rocks of roughly the mid devonian to find rocks between fish and tetrapods where tiktaalik might hypothetically be found.

So they rented a helicopter trip to the Canadian Arctic where these middle aged rocks could be examined.

They originally started out searching marine devonian strata and realized that they needed to move inland (prehistoric inland) to the west, and they had to make their way to geology of a river bed/lacustrine origin. And it was there that some 10-15 tiktaalik specimen were found.

The reason that this serves as evidence for evolution is that it confirms the succession of fossils in accordance with genetic analyses of modern day life. Fish are genetically more similar to tetrapods than to any other animal of higher derivation, which means that it ought to follow, based on genetics, that tiktaalik ought to be present in the location in which it was later found. This is a prediction made with the understanding of descent with modification and common descent, and tiktaalik holds the feature that we might expect to be found in a particular place at a given time.

with the above said, see the following:

Google Image Result for http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/retrovirus.gif

Google Image Result for https://cdn.britannica.com/03/403-050-F1B9349F/Phylogeny-differences-cytochrome-c-protein-sequence-organisms.jpg

Google Image Result for http://www.sbs.utexas.edu/levin/bio213/evolution/cytochrome.2.gif

Google Image Result for https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/5/eaau7459/F1.large.jpg

Google Image Result for https://slideplayer.com/slide/4852752/15/images/3/Pituitary+Gland+Figure+Phylogeny+of+the+vertebrate+pituitary..jpg

Google Image Result for https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article/figure/image?download&size=large&id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000436.g002

above, we have evolutionary relationships based on what species have certain endogenous retroviruses, based on genetic changes of cytochrome C, based on fossil morphology, based on comparative anatomy of living species, and even based on biogeographic distributions, (you can see fossils change not only vertically through the fossil record, but also horizontally), respectively.

Independent studies in each of these fields yield their own cladistic relationships/phylogenetic trees, and while theyre all derived independently, they all match one another.

Which is to say that you can make predictions about genetics, based on the order in which fossils are found in the earth, and the reverse is true as well, in that we can use studies of proteins and DNA in modern day species, to predict the depth, geospatial location and temporal locations of fossils. And these predictions can be made, even to the extent that biologists can predict where fossils will be found in the earth, sometimes with more precision than even paleontologists can.

As the commom statement goes, this is something that really only makes sense in light of evolution.

To go back to my prior post, Neil Shubin is a professor of anatomy. He understood or rather, understands anatomical relationships between fish and tetrapods, and it is with this understanding that the locality of tiktaalik was predicted (Along with assistance from geologists and paleontologists).

 

[Ophiolite]

The 'Lucy' fossil rewrote the story of humanity

Much as I am an admirer of the BBC, a popularisation of a scientific discovery scarcely counts as science, and certainly does not meet the standards of a citation. Do you want to try again? I am taking this discussion seriously and it would be nice if you did the same.

 

[Paul James]

Much as I am an admirer of the BBC, a popularisation of a scientific discovery scarcely counts as science, and certainly does not meet the standards of a citation. Do you want to try again? I am taking this discussion seriously and it would be nice if you did the same.

Here is another member reading my mind and determining whether I am serious in my responses or not. I think I have said all I am going to say in this thread - so take it or leave it - that is your choice.

 

[pitabread]

If you don't believe in a Creator God, how do you explain the origin of life?

Just a note, but merely believing in a "creator God" doesn't explain the origin of life either.

 

[roman2819]

.

"There is no fossils tbat are found intact to demonstrate that one lifeform evolve to another higher ones. No one found a fish-toad, so to speak. " - @roman2819

I'll just copy some text from my other post:

I'll now provide evidence for evolution as it pertains to the question "Or do you think fossils actually support evolution better than being hard proof of the flood?".

As we all know, tiktaalik is a popular transitional fossil. Its traits are significant as they're some of the earliest of their kind. It has a flat head with eyes on top, much like amphibians of the late devonian. It has wrist bones. It has spiracles for breathing air. It has robust pectoral girdles and a robust rib cage for lifting itself against the forces of gravity above water, much like amphibians of the late devonian. It also has an infused skull and a neck for turning it's it's while it's body remains stationary, which is something found in amphibians but not fish.

It is very much a tetrapodomorph with many traits of amphibians.

But it also has fins,gills and scales like a fish.

Which means that it was basically a hybrid between fish and tetrapods.

All the above aside, what makes tiktaalik more significant isn't simply its traits, but how, where and even "when" it was found.

In the fossil record, no land animals are found anywhere in precambrian, Cambrian, ordovician or silurian rock, nor anywhere in between. By the mid to late devonian, we find tetrapods/amphibians like salamander like species that walked on land.

So if evolution were true, of tetrapods evolved from fish, a species like tiktaalik ought to exist between the earliest formations of the devonian or by the end of the silurian at the latest, and the late devonian.

Before tiktaalik was found, Neil Shubin and his team knew this. So the scoured geologic maps for rocks of roughly the mid devonian to find rocks between fish and tetrapods where tiktaalik might hypothetically be found.

So they rented a helicopter trip to the Canadian Arctic where these middle aged rocks could be examined.

They originally started out searching marine devonian strata and realized that they needed to move inland (prehistoric inland) to the west, and they had to make their way to geology of a river bed/lacustrine origin. And it was there that some 10-15 tiktaalik specimen were found.

The reason that this serves as evidence for evolution is that it confirms the succession of fossils in accordance with genetic analyses of modern day life. Fish are genetically more similar to tetrapods than to any other animal of higher derivation, which means that it ought to follow, based on genetics, that tiktaalik ought to be present in the location in which it was later found. This is a prediction made with the understanding of descent with modification and common descent, and tiktaalik holds the feature that we might expect to be found in a particular place at a given time.

with the above said, see the following:

Google Image Result for http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/retrovirus.gif

Google Image Result for https://cdn.britannica.com/03/403-050-F1B9349F/Phylogeny-differences-cytochrome-c-protein-sequence-organisms.jpg

Google Image Result for http://www.sbs.utexas.edu/levin/bio213/evolution/cytochrome.2.gif

Google Image Result for https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/5/eaau7459/F1.large.jpg

Google Image Result for https://slideplayer.com/slide/4852752/15/images/3/Pituitary+Gland+Figure+Phylogeny+of+the+vertebrate+pituitary..jpg

Google Image Result for https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article/figure/image?download&size=large&id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000436.g002

above, we have evolutionary relationships based on what species have certain endogenous retroviruses, based on genetic changes of cytochrome C, based on fossil morphology, based on comparative anatomy of living species, and even based on biogeographic distributions, (you can see fossils change not only vertically through the fossil record, but also horizontally), respectively.

Independent studies in each of these fields yield their own cladistic relationships/phylogenetic trees, and while theyre all derived independently, they all match one another.

Which is to say that you can make predictions about genetics, based on the order in which fossils are found in the earth, and the reverse is true as well, in that we can use studies of proteins and DNA in modern day species, to predict the depth, geospatial location and temporal locations of fossils. And these predictions can be made, even to the extent that biologists can predict where fossils will be found in the earth, sometimes with more precision than even paleontologists can.

As the commom statement goes, this is something that really only makes sense in light of evolution.

To go back to my prior post, Neil Shubin is a professor of anatomy. He understood or rather, understands anatomical relationships between fish and tetrapods, and it is with this understanding that the locality of tiktaalik was predicted (Along with assistance from geologists and paleontologists).

Thank you for taking timebto produce a detailed answer, i will take time to read and watch the video later.

But first , i have a question. Am i right to say you believe specie can cross over and evolve into another?

Previously there are couple of people in this thread who said there is no cross over in evolution.

 

[roman2819]

Just a note, but merely believing in a "creator God" doesn't explain the origin of life either.

You are evading my question or trying to change it. Our discussion here is between evolution and creation by God. We are not talking about a God who didn't create life.

 

[Job 33:6]

Thank you for taking timebto produce a detailed answer, i will take time to read and watch the video later.

But first , i have a question. Am i right to say you believe specie can cross over and evolve into another?

Previously there are couple of people in this thread who said there is no cross over in evolution.

Cross over? Well, speciation is an observed phenomenon, if that is what you mean. Are you referring to speciation?

Discovering a ring species

Greenish warblers

Observed Instances of Speciation

Some More Observed Speciation Events

 

[Speedwell]

Thank you for taking timebto produce a detailed answer, i will take time to read and watch the video later.

But first , i have a question. Am i right to say you believe specie can cross over and evolve into another?

Previously there are couple of people in this thread who said there is no cross over in evolution.

New species can form by evolving sufficient differences from a parent species. But there is no "crossover" in the sense that one species can evolve to become part of another, already existing species. It s theoretically possible, I suppose, that a species of dog in the right environment and over a long period of time might evolve cat-like features--but they would till be dogs, and could never actually become cats.

BTW, the singular form or "species" is also "species." "Specie" (without the final S) is a word meaning gold coinage.

 

[Speedwell]

You are evading my question or trying to change it. Our discussion here is between evolution and creation by God. We are not talking about a God who didn't create life.

No, it isn't, even though you are dishonestly trying to make it so. Our discussion is between evolution and creation by God according to your particular theology and no other.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here is another member reading my mind and determining whether I am serious in my responses or not. I think I have said all I am going to say in this thread - so take it or leave it - that is your choice.

It would be gracious if you owned up to your endless failing here. I know that you want to go back to the echo chamber of Christians that will not confront you when you are in error, it is a warm and fuzzy feeling. But you won't learn anything there and it will bring you no closer to the truth.

 

[Job 33:6]

@roman2819

One other thing that should be noted. You might look at my links and might see observed instances of salamanders changing to other salamanders. You might be wondering if we have observed salamanders turning into fish or birds.

In the fossil record, and through biological estimates related to genetics, it had taken over 100 million years for fish to evolve into amphibians. So, without living 100 million years, we wouldn't expect to see such a complete change in our life time. We would only be able to observe the small steps, unless we invented a time machine.

But it should also be noted that the difference between a fish and amphibian is greater than the difference between two species of the same genus We can observe one species evolving into another, but we simply do not live long enough to observe a family fully evolving to another family or an order fully evolving to another order etc.

If I look out my window for 3 seconds, I might see someone walking their dog a distance of 10 ft (species evolving to another species), but the difference between a fish and amphibian is something like a mile, and a person cannot be observed walking a mile in a matter of 3 seconds. We simply do not live long enough to see the accumulation of the number of steps necessary over such great expanses of time.

Google Image Result for https://image.slidesharecdn.com/taxonomy-141002004932-phpapp01/95/taxonomy-4-638.jpg?cb=1412211031

 

[MIDutch]

No one found a fish-toad, so to speak. There are only postulations and theories.

What if I told you that scientist have found an ancient fossil of exactly what you are looking for:

a fish with eyes on it's head like a toad,

front fins that are stumpy and arm like, but with fins instead of fingers,

walks on dry land on those stumpy arms,

spends much of its time on dry land as opposed to in the water, and can do so for 3 and a half days,

climbs trees like a frog.

If I told you scientists have found an ancient fossil like that, would that convince you that science has found a fish-toad?

 

[roman2819]

What if I told you that scientist have found an ancient fossil of exactly what you are looking for:

a fish with eyes on it's head like a toad,

front fins that are stumpy and arm like, but with fins instead of fingers,

walks on dry land on those stumpy arms,

spends much of its time on dry land as opposed to in the water, and can do so for 3 and a half days,

climbs trees like a frog.

If I told you scientists have found an ancient fossil like that, would that convince you that science has found a fish-toad?

Could this fish-toad be the result of Creaton? God can create whatever He like. I know there may be evidences to show it appeared to have evolved from fish to toad, but it could also be due to creation, isn't?

 

[roman2819]

No, it isn't, even though you are dishonestly trying to make it so. Our discussion is between evolution and creation by God according to your particular theology and no other.

Back to the real question : How then do you think life begins and what evidences are there to support origin of life?

 

[Shemjaza]

Could this fish-toad be the result of Creaton? God can create whatever He like. I know there may be evidences to show it appeared to have evolved from fish to toad, but it could also be due to creation, isn't?

A creator who sequentially creates creatures along many different unbroken branches... while leaving marks in their DNA as if they had lines of descent.

You can never rule it out... but I could also assume that hyper-gremlins stole my sausage rather than a guilty looking Labrador called Abby.

 

[Speedwell]

Back to the real question : How then do you think life begins and what evidences are there to support origin of life?

I don't know. At this point nobody really does, but given the way the rest of the universe works, I think it likely to have been a naturalistic process. There is some interesting work being done in the field, and some of the pieces are in place, but my suspicion that the solution will require a kind of paradigm jump rather like Darwin made with evolution.