Evidence for macro-evolution

[NxNW]

Creationists mainly explain the geological layers in terms of a single catastrophic event which seems also contain supernatural elements. So the positioning of fossils in those layers does not provide a billion-year calendar and order of succession. You have no way of demonstrating that it does.

If all fossils were created at once and buried in a single flood event, they'd be sorted by weight or bouyancy. But instead they're sorted by species and by age. We don't find fossil rabbits in the precambrian. Ever.

This is very strong evidence for evolution, and a failure for creationists.

 

[AV1611VET]

Homo erectus and Homo habilis are tool crafters but would never be able to pass for any modern human ...

That's because they were people who were struck down with bone-altering diseases, as a judgement of God.

Deuteronomy 28:59 Then the LORD will make thy plagues wonderful, and the plagues of thy seed, even great plagues, and of long continuance, and sore sicknesses, and of long continuance.

David was struck down with one such plague, and probably would have passed for what you guys call a Neanderthal or Cro-magnon.

He describes his ailment in detail in the 38th Psalm.

Note especially his complaint about his bones.

Psalm 38:6 I am troubled; I am bowed down greatly; I go mourning all the day long.
7 For my loins are filled with a loathsome disease: and there is no soundness in my flesh.

But David repented (Psalm 39), and God restored him back to health (Psalm 40).

 

[mindlight]

In any reasonable colloquial sense like you've been using they absolutely are.

Just like you don't need to be an eye witness to find proof of the guilt of a murderer.



You accept it because it lines up with your interpretation of a story that is completely impossible according to all presented evidence.



Why is it harder to prove? The same system works to demonstrate if someone is a sibling, cousin or from a common family in the animal kingdom.



What does that mean?

How does one measure the "humanity" of a fossil?

Homo erectus and Homo habilis are tool crafters but would never be able to pass for any modern human or chimp.



Yes, and the evidence has been comprehensive in its support for evolutionary theory.


Why?

Forensics is a cool tool that allows the identification of criminals so long as they leave DNA at the crime scene and this coheres with their actual DNA. Now please prove that Cain killed Abel using this tool.

Identifying patterns and describing them is not the issue here. It is drawing links between these patterns that is impossible.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Mankind has lived with uncertainty for most of its existence. What we cannot know we will not know whatever stories we fill the cloud of unknowing with. God did it, is an explanation that works but requires trust/faith.

So nothing. Got it.

 

[AV1611VET]

We don't find fossil rabbits in the precambrian. Ever.

That's because academia "accordions out" the layers of the earth, putting millions of years between them.

Dig down 20 feet and find animals with shells.

Dig down another 20 feet and find worm-like animals.

Then simply say a jillion years passed between those two layers, and then claim they never co-existed.

When in reality, they lived side-by-side.

 

[AV1611VET]

So nothing. Got it.

No, you don't got it.

Until academia admits that God created the earth ex nihilo -- out of nothing -- they'll never truly understand "nothing".

 

[mindlight]

So nothing. Got it.

Beats unsubstantiated waffle.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Establishing links between identified samples is the basic problem with fossils and DNA. We can see similarities in patterns but the links between the two are more questionable the greater the deviance.

What does this mean?

Because there is no documented historical path between one fossil and another the modeling of these into a common theory of ancestry and path of evolution is always going to be speculative.

There are numerous examples of detailed evolutionary paths from one species to another.

Detailed trees of relationships can be worked out with genetic samples from many members. If we had DNA samples from all the members of Carnivora we could work out the detailed relations between them. Which species split from which and potentially estimate when.

After I wrote the above paragraph, I searched for it and lo and behold a evolutionary tree of Carnivora from mtDNA:

Evolutionary history of Carnivora (Mammalia, Laurasiatheria) inferred from mitochondrial genomes

And it would look like this:

The historical and theological arguments are more conclusive regarding microevolution because there is no scientifically verifiable argument here.

Neither historical or theological "arguments" can say *anything* about evolution. They are not science.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Theology also supports the activity of legitimate science because it posits a rule-based universe.

Theology tells us that god(s) can arbitrarily change the laws of nature to suit their own purposes. It is not a rational basis to build a systematic investigation of nature upon.

 

[AV1611VET]

There are numerous examples of detailed evolutionary paths from one species to another.

But not one genus ("kind") to another.

 

[Hans Blaster]

But not one genus ("kind") to another.

Genus is just a species from the past that has already split into several species.

 

[mindlight]

What does this mean?

There are numerous examples of detailed evolutionary paths from one species to another.

Detailed trees of relationships can be worked out with genetic samples from many members. If we had DNA samples from all the members of Carnivora we could work out the detailed relations between them. Which species split from which and potentially estimate when.

After I wrote the above paragraph, I searched for it and lo and behold a evolutionary tree of Carnivora from mtDNA:

Evolutionary history of Carnivora (Mammalia, Laurasiatheria) inferred from mitochondrial genomes

And it would look like this:

View attachment 342709

Neither historical or theological "arguments" can say *anything* about evolution. They are not science.

You do not seem to be aware of how your assumptions shape your conclusions. Look at your picture above as a collection of dots each one with a properly described mtDNA sample. You are using analogy to find pattern similarities and then draw the lines between those dots to build your model of common ancestry. You are assuming that the one at the beginning of this pattern-matching process was chronologically before the ones after it. None of these assumptions can be proven, so it looks a little like a pretty house of cards.

That said genetic similarities within the same kinds of creatures or plants are to be expected by definition and do not prove evolution anyway just the adaptability and flexibility of said designs.

 

[mindlight]

Theology tells us that god(s) can arbitrarily change the laws of nature to suit their own purposes. It is not a rational basis to build a systematic investigation of nature upon.

Theology speaks of a deeper 'magic' inaccessible to our puny investigations. Is it rational to pretend we understand something we cannot know?

 

[mindlight]

A few years ago I sat in the same room with a whole panel of Nobel Prize winners. They unanimously agreed that Darwin is the greatest scientist of all time, and his Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is the greatest scientific achievement of all time.

It is terrifying that some of the brightest minds of our generation could be so deeply deceived.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You do not seem to be aware of how your assumptions shape your conclusions.

That's rich.

Look at your picture above as a collection of dots each one with a properly described mtDNA sample.

The sequenced DNA makes a nested hierarchy (a tree) with out prompting. That is the form any organization of the samples and their variation takes. Nested trees are exactly what you would expect from creatures descended from a single breeding population of "carnivora"

You are using analogy to find pattern similarities and then draw the lines between those dots to build your model of common ancestry.

For the record, this is not my work, nor would any evolutionary genetics be my work. I am a physicist, not a biologist or geneticist.

As I said above, the natural pattern of organization for such a set of samples *IS* a nested hierarchy and none other. The genetics screams out common ancestry without any prior or prompt.

You are assuming that the one at the beginning of this pattern-matching process was chronologically before the ones after it. None of these assumptions can be proven, so it looks a little like a pretty house of cards.

The chronology comes from a simple assumption of steady rates of mutation in mtDNA. That is all.

That said genetic similarities within the same kinds of creatures or plants are to be expected by definition and do not prove evolution anyway just the adaptability and flexibility of said designs.

The chart you just complained about was from mtDNA. It doesn't vary based on the environment or type of creature. The variations are random changes in the neutral places in the genetic structure. There aren't special cellular respiration adaptions for different lifestyles.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Theology speaks of a deeper 'magic' inaccessible to our puny investigations. Is it rational to pretend we understand something we cannot know?

Theology screams of human cultural creation. I find it tedious, boring, and personally irrelevant to any aspect of reality or my life.

 

[dlamberth]

Theology speaks of a deeper 'magic' inaccessible to our puny investigations. Is it rational to pretend we understand something we cannot know?

Theology speaks of a God acting not much different from the Greek/Roman pagan God's. And for myself, I wonder about the rationality of taking any of their Creation stories seriously. With science on the other hand, we do have something that is bringing to light what the Earth itself is showing us. There's no hocus pocus involved. An that to me is a way more rational direction to follow than theology. Now, if one were looking for a relationship with God, than go for the theology.

 

[Shemjaza]

That's because they were people who were struck down with bone-altering diseases, as a judgement of God.

Deuteronomy 28:59 Then the LORD will make thy plagues wonderful, and the plagues of thy seed, even great plagues, and of long continuance, and sore sicknesses, and of long continuance.

David was struck down with one such plague, and probably would have passed for what you guys call a Neanderthal or Cro-magnon.

He describes his ailment in detail in the 38th Psalm.

Note especially his complaint about his bones.

Psalm 38:6 I am troubled; I am bowed down greatly; I go mourning all the day long.
7 For my loins are filled with a loathsome disease: and there is no soundness in my flesh.

But David repented (Psalm 39), and God restored him back to health (Psalm 40).

That is an explanation... but it doesn't really seem to match up with the evidence.

Being transformed into a Homo erectus would make him powerful and inhuman... not bowed down and crippled.

Forensics is a cool tool that allows the identification of criminals so long as they leave DNA at the crime scene and this coheres with their actual DNA. Now please prove that Cain killed Abel using this tool.

Given that all we have is a story, then there really isn't evidence to convict Cain.

But you do understand that evidence exists to prove events that we didn't witness... like evolution.

Identifying patterns and describing them is not the issue here. It is drawing links between these patterns that is impossible.

Why? Describe the barrier... because what we have is multiple lines of evidence for events.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

Forensics is used to identify a person so long as they have a sample from the crime scene and a sample from the actual person. This has nothing to do with evolution.

It's completely relevant.. It's used for more than that. It's how evidence is evaluated after a crime has been committed. How can police solve crimes after they occur if you're saying the only way to know evolutionary history is to have a time machine? The fact that you don't think so tells me that you both don't know much about the methods and science of evolution and that you know what I'm asking destroys your time machine argument.

 

[Astrid]

Nothing conclusive.

So you are not aware that ice floats?