A Complete Skull from Dmanisi

[freezerman2000]

Ha.

Wow! That's truly enlightening!

 

[lasthero]

tectonic plates is not a theroy

Yes, it is.

Plate Tectonic Theory: Plates and Interplate Relationships

gravity is an example of a theroey that scienctists believed was the only influencing factor and the reason why everything stayed in its place

Um. No.

it seems gravity isnt the only influence affecting matter in the universe. dark energy plays a part as well, all that empty space isnt empty space. dark matter makes up 80% of the universe, what we see the planets and stars are only 20%. this dark energy has a very big influence on keeping everything in place yet its measurement is so minute. if it wasn't for dark matter than everything would be flying everywhere.

I'm not a cosmologist, but I'm pretty sure that's all...not right. That's not what dark matter is.

the universe isn't slowing down as thought with the big bang theory and promoted throughout teaching that it is speeding up.

Source?

the theory that man evolved from several branches of ape is being question with the discovery of skulls that seem to point to their being maybe only i ot 2 lines of variation from apes.

Yeah. So?

. the discovery of soft tissue in dinosaurs bones which have been tested and react as cells showing it is not contamination.

Again with this. Source, please? Please, show the actual scientific paper that details this.

at one stage they turned a tooth into a completed ape man which turned out to be a pigs tooth.

You know, I'm starting to notice a trend with creationists, and that is that they seem to favor being as vague as conceivably possible. 'Some' scientists say this, 'they' turned a tooth into that...specifics? Nah.

Anyway, this is a lie, or at least a gross misrepresentation of the actual events. Basically, what happened with this was a single scientist got overeager with a tooth he found, some artist drew a picture of what he thought it might look like, and months later, they determined it was just a pig's tooth. It was never accepted by the scientific community, and even the guy who found the tooth thought the drawing held no real value. Creationists have been making this out to be way more than it was ever since.

some say that evolution is a fact but it hasn't been proven

Facts aren't 'proven'. Nothing is 'proven' in science.

there is no evidence of one kind changing into another kind.

What is a 'kind'? Define it, then we can talk about whether news ones have ever emerged. Until then, it's meaningless twaddlespeak.

Also, could you space your paragraphs out some? My eyesight is bad enough as is.

but each of theses are complete creatures not transition.

Of course they're complete. What do you think a transitional fossil is?

we dont see a lizard with little wings then bit bigger wings then continuing to have this growth of wings coming out. then one day they became wings.

No, we don't see that. And no one ever expected to see that. Because evolution doesn't work that way.

Oh, and dinosaurs aren't lizards.

 

[stevevw]

sorry lasthero, i tried to quote back on your reply but it keeps cutting out some of the words you wrote so i will just reply via the comment box at the bottom of the page.

first off what makes you think im a creationists. no im just an average bloke wondering, asking questions, throwing things out there. the point i am trying to make is that like religion the scientific community not all but there are prominent people who make statements that are not necessarily true. richard dawkins and many famous evolutionists say that evolution is fact, proven and without question. they fill in the empty spaces with a bit to much speculation which are promoted as being true. the pigs tooth is only an extreme example there are many more subtle ones that have been left unchallenged.


im not sure if i can post links at this stage as i tried before but this is link for soft tissue Dino bones. if it doesn't work just Google it. sorry cant post links yet need 50 or more posts. im trying as much as i can.

as for the universe speeding up. Brian Schmidt won a noble peace prize for his discovery. if you Google his name with speeding universe.
[FONT=&quot]
what is a kind. i thought that is a common word used for individual species. say a tiger is one kind and a deer is another kind.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]but each of theses are complete creatures not transition.
i mean that say the Dino with wings should have other fossils that show it with other stages of development from a Dino to a bird. all we have is a complete Dino or a complete bird or a complete Dino with wings and nothing in between. if you take man how many transitional changes do you think it would have taken to go from a monkey to a man. did the monkey wake up one morning and decide to walk upright or have shorter arms. was there a gradual shortening of the arms over thousands years.
[/FONT]
No, we don't see that. And no one ever expected to see that. Because evolution doesn't work that way.

then how did the dino get wings. how does a monkey become a man. if it takes many transitions that gradually change one individual species into another of different shape and size and texture, positions of bones, new bones and tissue which will all be slightly different along the way. if it takes say 10,000 years for one of these stages then there would be thousands of years of those shapes in fossils. times that by the amount of changes and we should have bones and fossils up to our eyeballs. or at least in between traces found in the fossil records. all i see is complete birds of various types and complete reptiles of various types.

 

[lasthero]

first off what makes you think im a creationists. no im just an average bloke wondering, asking questions, throwing things out there.

You're using creationist arguments - not even very good ones, at that. If it looks like a duck...

richard dawkins and many famous evolutionists say that evolution is fact, proven and without question.

When did Richard Dawkins ever say evolution was 'proven' or 'without question'?

im not sure if i can post links at this stage as i tried before but this is link for soft tissue Dino bones.

Can you at least name the paper you read it in? Who made the discovery? You did read the actual scientific paper, right?

as for the universe speeding up. Brian Schmidt won a noble peace prize for his discovery.

Without even looking it up, I can say with certainty that he did not get a Nobel PEACE prize. I'm gonna guess...physics.

...yup. Anyway, what's your point?

what is a kind. i thought that is a common word used for individual species. say a tiger is one kind and a deer is another kind.

If that's the case, we've witnessed new kinds emerging, because we've witnessed new species emerging.

Evidence for speciation

but each of theses are complete creatures not transition.

No one said a transitional fossil is supposed to be 'incomplete'.

all we have is a complete Dino or a complete bird or a complete Dino with wings and nothing in between.

You are woefully uninformed.

(A few) transitional fossils

On this page, you can see six of the transitions from dinosaurs to birds. What do you think a transitional fossil is supposed to look like, and why aren't these examples?

if you take man how many transitional changes do you think it would have taken to go from a monkey to a man.

How many transitional changes do you think it took to get from wolves to domesticated dogs?

did the monkey wake up one morning and decide to walk upright or have shorter arms. was there a gradual shortening of the arms over thousands years.

Probably more like the latter.

isnt it about

I don't know what you were about to say here, but it was wrong.

 

[biggles53]

first off what makes you think im a creationists. no im just an average bloke wondering, asking questions, throwing things out there. the point i am trying to make is that like religion the scientific community not all but there are prominent people who make statements that are not necessarily true. richard dawkins and many famous evolutionists say that evolution is fact, proven and without question. they fill in the empty spaces with a bit to much speculation which are promoted as being true. the pigs tooth is only an extreme example there are many more subtle ones that have been left unchallenged.

Could you please give some examples of people, such as Dawkins, making those statements...? Otherwise you are simply making wild assertions...

And let's get something straight.......evolution is BOTH a fact and a theory...! It is a FACT that alleles will vary in frequency in a population over time. This is indisputable. We can count it. It is a FACT.

A THEORY has been developed to explain this fact. At its most basic, the theory states that genes will mutate and as a result will confer differences within the genomes of populations, from generation to generation. Those mutations which give an advantage in terms of reproductive success will persist to the detriment of those that don't - this is natural selection. It's nothing more complicated than elementary mathematics.

what is a kind. i thought that is a common word used for individual species. say a tiger is one kind and a deer is another kind.

And here we see the problem of using non-specific terms such as "kind". Are a tiger and a lion the same kind? How about a tiger and a leopard? A deer and a goat? A goat and a sheep?

but each of theses are complete creatures not transition.

Ummm......the two terms are not incompatible... ALL transitional species were "complete". You are transitional between your parents and your children. Each of you is a "complete creature", no..?

i mean that say the Dino with wings should have other fossils that show it with other stages of development from a Dino to a bird.

We have those fossils.

all we have is a complete Dino or a complete bird or a complete Dino with wings and nothing in between.

That is simply incorrect. Do yourself a favour mate and EDUCATE yourself about the subject...!

if you take man how many transitional changes do you think it would have taken to go from a monkey to a man. did the monkey wake up one morning and decide to walk upright or have shorter arms. was there a gradual shortening of the arms over thousands years.

Now you are simply becoming embarrassing.....

 

[stevevw]

once again sorry i have to reply here as part of the text goes missing when i try to quote.

first off what makes you think im a creationists. no im just an average bloke wondering, asking questions, throwing things out there.
​

You're using creationist arguments - not even very good ones, at that. If it looks like a duck...

well maybe they are reasonable questions to ask and investigate. not everyone who has that opinion is a creationists. i also ask the same questions about religion or creation..

richard dawkins and many famous evolutionists say that evolution is fact, proven and without question.
​

When did Richard Dawkins ever say evolution was 'proven' or 'without question'?

"Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact. The evidence for evolution is at least as strong as the evidence for the Holocaust, even allowing for eye witnesses to the Holocaust." (Richard Dawkins: The Greatest Show on Earth)

im not sure if i can post links at this stage as i tried before but this is link for soft tissue Dino bones.
​

Can you at least name the paper you read it in? Who made the discovery? You did read the actual scientific paper, right?

well if you go to nature.com the international weekly journal on science you will see the piece. just put nature.com soft tissue dino bones in search and you'll get it. dont worry im fast getting up to the 50 posts at the rate im going. every time i open my email there is another 3 or 4 replies i have to answer so it wont take long.

as for the universe speeding up. Brian Schmidt won a noble peace prize for his discovery.
​

Without even looking it up, I can say with certainty that he did not get a Nobel PEACE prize. I'm gonna guess...physics.

yes well brian schmidt is an australian who not many know. a brilliant cosmologist. if you search nobelprize.org with Brian Schmidt you will get it.

well doesn't the big bang theory say that from the big explosion billions of years ago when everything was blown into it present position that it should shrink and slow down. after all that is the laws of the universe what goes up must come down. what blows out must slow down.

...yup. Anyway, what's your point?

what is a kind. i thought that is a common word used for individual species. say a tiger is one kind and a deer is another kind.
​

If that's the case, we've witnessed new kinds emerging, because we've witnessed new species emerging.

such as.

but each of theses are complete creatures not transition.
​

No one said a transitional fossil is supposed to be 'incomplete'.

i mean it is a fully function stage of its journey to becoming something else. lets say man again. we have a few different shaped shaped skulls with different sized brain cavities. the lastest discovery of the Dmanisi, Georgia is saying that all skulls found now could belong to only 1 0r 2 groups/ branches. that they all go back to a common ancestor. so if you include the limb changes with lengths positioning and the complete body then there would have to be a lot of transitional stages for an ape to become a man. so if the arm of an ape got gradually shorter and if the gate and posture changes so much then there should be a lot of fossil evidence for theses stages. an arm cant shorten be six inches over night. so for 10,000 years it was 5 inches shorter, then 4 then 3 until it was the same length as we are today. how many transitions would it take to get there.

sorry for my ignorance i know a little but not a lot. you have to remember that i am trying to keep an open mind as well seek the answers im looking for.

all we have is a complete Dino or a complete bird or a complete Dino with wings and nothing in between.
​

You are woefully uninformed.

well give me a site to find out more. you see when you say woefully its like that's bad and i would say there are many like me, in fact without being derogatory their are many who either just dont know or dont get the chance to know. as i am learning i will probably have a to simplistic view, but that's OK because its my view. thats the beauty everyone can have their point of view and you can change it with knowledge.



On this page, you can see six of the transitions from dinosaurs to birds. What do you think a transitional fossil is supposed to look like, and why aren't these examples?

if you take man how many transitional changes do you think it would have taken to go from a monkey to a man.
​

How many transitional changes do you think it took to get from wolves to domesticated dogs?

but isn't a wolf closely related to a domestic dog the same as kyotes and jackals. they are all dog shaped. i agree there is variation within individual kinds and it can be great. interbreeding has made many different breeds. but where did the wolf come from, was there always a wolf type animal and maybe smaller versions as well.

did the monkey wake up one morning and decide to walk upright or have shorter arms. was there a gradual shortening of the arms over thousands years.
​

Probably more like the latter.

that's what im says if we find a fossil of a monkey man with 50 inch arms then we should find them with shorter and shorter arms in the fossil records showing gradual transformation. the latest skull dicovery indicates there is even less variation.

The spectacular fossilized skull of an ancient human ancestor that died nearly two million years ago has forced scientists to rethink the story of early human evolution.
Anthropologists unearthed the skull at a site in Dmanisi, a small town in southern Georgia, where other remains of human ancestors, simple stone tools and long-extinct animals have been dated to 1.8m years old.


Experts believe the skull is one of the most important fossil finds to date, but it has proved as controversial as it is stunning. Analysis of the skull and other remains at Dmanisi suggests that scientists have been too ready to name separate species of human ancestors in Africa. Many of those species may now have to be wiped from the textbooks.

isnt it about
​

I don't know what you were about to say here, but it was wrong.

i cant remember either but im glad you have a sense of humor about it

 

[lasthero]

not everyone who has that opinion is a creationists.

Maybe, but I can't say I've ever met anyone who does. The Nebraska Man one is the clencher.

When did Richard Dawkins ever say evolution was 'proven' or 'without question'?

"Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact. The evidence for evolution is at least as strong as the evidence for the Holocaust, even allowing for eye witnesses to the Holocaust." (Richard Dawkins: The Greatest Show on Earth)

You could make similar statements about gravity. That doesn't mean gravity is 'proven' or 'without question', only that it's a solid theory.

just put nature.com soft tissue dino bones in search and you'll get it.

Maybe you're talking about this?

Dinosaur of the day – mummified-o-saurus : Nature News Blog

Not exactly a scientific paper, but whatever. At any rate, what's the big deal?

yes well brian schmidt is an australian who not many know.

I fail to see the relevance, but okay.

well doesn't the big bang theory say that from the big explosion billions of years ago when everything was blown into it present position that it should shrink and slow down.

No.

after all that is the laws of the universe what goes up must come down. what blows out must slow down.

'What goes up must come down' is not a law of the universe. It's not a law of anything. It's a saying.

such as.

The link that I showed you had examples. That's why I showed it to you.

i mean it is a fully function stage of its journey to becoming something else.

Of course it's fully functional.

so if you include the limb changes with lengths positioning and the complete body then there would have to be a lot of transitional stages for an ape to become a man. so if the arm of an ape got gradually shorter and if the gate and posture changes so much then there should be a lot of fossil evidence for theses stages. an arm cant shorten be six inches over night. so for 10,000 years it was 5 inches shorter, then 4 then 3 until it was the same length as we are today. how many transitions would it take to get there.

That's not the way it works, and no one ever said it was. You're looking at transitional fossils like they're big jumps, like an animals is suddenly this, then it's that. But it's not. The transitional fossils we have are just snapshots of a larger pictures. Between each one, there were lots and lots of smaller changes. It's a gradient.

well give me a site to find out more.

I did. I know you can't make links, but you should be able to SEE them.

 

[stevevw]

not everyone who has that opinion is a creationists.
​

Maybe, but I can't say I've ever met anyone who does. The Nebraska Man one is the clencher.

you see i dont know much about this, ive heard something along the lines of a hoax of some sort but i dont know the details.

When did Richard Dawkins ever say evolution was 'proven' or 'without question'?

"Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact. The evidence for evolution is at least as strong as the evidence for the Holocaust, even allowing for eye witnesses to the Holocaust." (Richard Dawkins: The Greatest Show on Earth)
​

You could make similar statements about gravity. That doesn't mean gravity is 'proven' or 'without question', only that it's a solid theory.

gravity has just about been proven though it has been superseded by Einsteins theory of relativity. we see in in action, we have to make adjustments when putting rockets in orbit. so we can do tests to verify its existence.

just put nature.com soft tissue dino bones in search and you'll get it.
​

Maybe you're talking about this?


Not exactly a scientific paper, but whatever. At any rate, what's the big deal?

no this is not it. that was in 2007 the paper for this was released in Oct 2012. the actual paper or an abstract from it can be found on thebonejournal.com. i just typed it into browser and the home page actually has the article on it.

yes well Brian Schmidt is an Australian who not many know.
​

I fail to see the relevance, but okay.

well doesn't the big bang theory say that from the big explosion billions of years ago when everything was blown into it present position that it should shrink and slow down.
​

No.

the expansion was launched in the Big Bang, and ever since then, each bit of matter in the universe has been attracted to every other bit by the force of gravity. This should have been slowing down the expansion. Before the discovery of dark energy, scientists had two models of how the universe's expansion would work. In one scenario, there would be enough matter in the universe to slow the expansion to the point where, like the baseball, it would come to a halt and start to retract, everything crashing back together in a "Big Crunch."
In the other scenario, there would be too little matter to stop the expansion and everything would drift on forever, always slowing and slowing but never stopping — like the spaceship. The galaxies would drift apart from each other until they were out of view. The universe would continue growing larger as countless generations of stars faded and died out. It would end in a vast, dark, and cold state: a "Big Chill," if you will.

By the early 1990s, astronomers had calculated how much mass was in the universe, and decided on the Big Chill as the most likely end of the universe. But then dark energy showed up in our observations.
According to the Big Chill, the universe should be expanding more slowly today than it did in the past, because gravity has had time to work on slowing the universe down over all these billions of years. But astronomers found that the universe is moving faster today than it was a billion years ago, meaning something must be working to speed it up.
This result seems crazy because gravity always pulls and slows — it never pushes. Yet some force appears to be pushing the universe apart. Astronomers, concluding that we just don't know what this force is, have attributed it to a mysterious dark energy.


'What goes up must come down' is not a law of the universe. It's not a law of anything. It's a saying.

it is a famous saying that is attributed to newton to describe gravitational affect on our atmosphere. masses attract and are attracted as if all their mass was concentrated at their centers. it is a law of physics. this is a general physical law called induction. gravity plays its part in the universe between the planets and other bodies.
Newton's law has since been superseded by Einstein's theory of general relativity, but it continues to be used as an excellent approximation of the effects of gravity.
which is being superseded by the higgs boson and dark energy. they are all related and work together and have an influencing affect to each other. how we dont fully know yet.

such as.
​

The link that I showed you had examples. That's why I showed it to you.

well the site itself

i mean it is a fully function stage of its journey to becoming something else.
​

Of course it's fully functional.

so if you include the limb changes with lengths positioning and the complete body then there would have to be a lot of transitional stages for an ape to become a man. so if the arm of an ape got gradually shorter and if the gate and posture changes so much then there should be a lot of fossil evidence for theses stages. an arm cant shorten be six inches over night. so for 10,000 years it was 5 inches shorter, then 4 then 3 until it was the same length as we are today. how many transitions would it take to get there.
​

That's not the way it works, and no one ever said it was. You're looking at transitional fossils like they're big jumps, like an animals is suddenly this, then it's that. But it's not. The transitional fossils we have are just snapshots of a larger pictures. Between each one, there were lots and lots of smaller changes. It's a gradient.

well give me a site to find out more.
​

I did. I know you can't make links, but you should be able to SEE them.

well the site itself gives a warning to start with.
When a fossil is called "transitional" between two types of animal, that means it shows some of the traits of both, but it does not mean it links those animals by direct descent. Evolution is a branching process - by which we mean that species often
split in two.
i agree there are similarities in a lot of animals and things. human DNA sequences are around 50% identical to a banana.but that's how things were made, you dont make a different organism when you make living things, its the same blueprint. they are similarities but those similarities didn't come because they evolved from them, those similarities are there because they are similar but a separate individual species that has that in common. the biology that makes it all work is also similar.

the ape humans that are mentioned are already up for dispute as the new discoveries of skulls at Georgia are indicating less variation and less branches and maybe only 1 or two lines. so that to me points to them being one species with many variations.

the rest i will have to check out a bit more i have heard of them and checked out the Archeopteryx before. like i said to me it looks like a bird with teeth. not because it is changing into something else but because its a bird with teeth and that's it. there are no other fossils showing any stages beside a bird and then a bird with teeth. so we teeth then no teeth and nothing in between.

like you said its a snapshot of that animal at that stage. but where are all the other snapshots of all the other stages that got it to have teeth. im asking the opposite of what you are say i said. you said i was thinking its like one stage then magic another stage pops up and its changed and suddenly has teeth.
as you said, You're looking at transitional fossils like they're big jumps. no i understand evolution and it needs lots of time and it needs an individual species to evolve into another different species, hence we from apes which come from lamas or whatever it was, that came from. plus there are many branches to allow this so that it accommodates the thousands or more of species.

to do this it needs many changes along the way and it needs the time to do it as scientist concluded that this could only happen over a long period to change from one to another to get where we are today. so the fossils we have seen in the time that we have been searching which is quite a number have only shown a complete for example bird with teeth, small meat eating Dino with fully completed wings, fish with what looks like feet/legs and many others with similarities in both. but of all the stages needed to get where we are today that's all we've found which could also be argued that they are species that were just made that way and have died out. like i said you dont changed the blueprint of life because when making many different kinds. a heart works for all to pump the blood, the DNA is related because that's whats in living things they come from the same blue print. if you make a vehicle with an engine that same machine can adapt to water like a boat or fly like a plain, its still the same blue print.
i understand at a greater level physicists and biologist will see it right down to the genetic level and say we had to have evolved from each other its there in the make up. but to me this only says the same thing i was saying that all living things will have that in common that's how they are made. whether it be by evolution or creation by an intelligent being or entity or god both can have all those similarities and connections. both say we can be traced back to a common ancestor and both are possible. like i said i try and keep an open mind as im not totally convinced in either way. dispute that i have a faith but no amount of logic or evidence or lack of evidence will make much difference to that because that's what faith is a personal thing that you may have. doesn't mean i have to stop finding out or thinking for myself. in fact it should make you want to know more.

 

[Naraoia]

Very cool ... I only wish they could find more human ancestor fossils.

I rather wish they could find more chimp and gorilla ancestors. Of the human lineage we have plenty.

... the theory of volition ...

Typo?

I have noticed that there are no Chimpanzee ancestors in the fossil evidence, that is unless you go back a lot further then 2 Mya. I have often wondered if their ancestors are somehow getting passed off as our ancestors.

I highly doubt that. First, I highly doubt they'd mistake one for the other unless the fossil is very close to the split. And indeed, there has been such a debate over the classification of Sahelanthropus, which is one of the earliest possible hominins.

Second, I highly doubt they would pass off a chimp ancestor as a human ancestor because what gets you noticed in science is novelty. How many possible human ancestors have been published? How many chimp ancestors? Finding which of these would cause a bigger splash in the community?

In addition they would have accumulated fewer mutations and perhaps even had nearly pristine genomes resulting in greater variation.

What is a "pristine genome" and how does it result in greater variation?

It does seem reasonable to at least consider whether a cranial capacity much closer to the of Chimpanzees might possibly be their ancestors.

Unfortunately, cranial capacity isn't the only trait these finds have. Besides, if humans came from an ancestral ape with a chimp-sized brain, then a chimp-sized brain alone is a very weak reason to consider chimp affinities for a fossil.

For some reason this possibility is never explored...

If you make absolute claims, a single counterexample can prove you wrong. Voilà.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v419/n6907/full/419581a.html

This contrast with all known hominids is itself sufficient to exclude Sahelanthropus from the hominid clade as we currently understand it.

We believe that Sahelanthropus was an ape living in an environment that was later inhabited by australopithecines and, like them, it adapted with a powerful masticatory complex. A penecontemporary primate with a perfect and well-developed postcranial adaptation to obligate bipedalism6 is more likely to have been an early hominid.

 

[Naraoia]

Stevevw: can you try and use the quote/multiquote buttons? The lack of quotes makes your replies to people pretty hard to parse.

 

[EternalDragon]

How many transitional changes do you think it took to get from wolves to domesticated dogs?

None. Dogs are wolves. Just as pelicans and doves are both birds.

 

[dad]

Wow! That's truly enlightening!

Thanks. Here was the quote I responded to..

"The current best theory for that is because East Africa was also more densely forested then which isn't nearly as conducive to species fossilization."


So, when there is a lack of fossils, science has to cook up some current best guess as to why not.

Likewise, we do know that life was created the same time, so when we see missing fossils, we need to surmise why some are not there. Rather than using present state laws, and the supposed thickness of the forests, I have used the record of God, to surmise why man and beast were mostly missing from the fossil record. That reason of course is that man and beast at that time, in the former nature could not fossilize most likely!

It is enlightening to realize that science is largely about best guesses based on present state laws! Period. So pitifully inept, and comically limited.

 

[freezerman2000]

My response was sarcasm...
Who is we?
And your Different State theory is a guess..."so pitifully inept and comically limited"..in your own words,not mine.

 

[lasthero]

None. Dogs are wolves. Just as pelicans and doves are both birds.

So you think a wolf just, one day, popped out a regular domesticated dogs?

 

[freezerman2000]

None. Dogs are wolves. Just as pelicans and doves are both birds.

read this....
Dog vs Wolf - Difference and Comparison | Diffen

 

[lasthero]

you see i dont know much about this, ive heard something along the lines of a hoax of some sort but i dont know the details.

Maybe you should look up the details before using them in an argument. Just a thought.

gravity has just about been proven though it has been superseded by Einsteins theory of relativity. we see in in action, we have to make adjustments when putting rockets in orbit. so we can do tests to verify its existence.

Nope. That's not the same thing as 'proving something'. And we can test evolution, too.

no this is not it. that was in 2007 the paper for this was released in Oct 2012. the actual paper or an abstract from it can be found on thebonejournal.com. i just typed it into browser and the home page actually has the article on it.

Okay. Again, I ask, though - what's the big deal?

i agree there are similarities in a lot of animals and things. human DNA sequences are around 50% identical to a banana

If we just found these things lying randomly in the fossil record, you might have a point - but it's not JUST the similarities, but where we find them. As the fossil record rises throughout time, we see a gradual change - for instance, with birds, the early forms give way to the later form. You don't see them out of order, there's a general progression that we would expect from an organism changing over time.

Archeopteryx before. like i said to me it looks like a bird with teeth. not because it is changing into something else but because its a bird with teeth and that's it

Okay, I don't care who you are - this:

Does not just look like 'a bird with teeth'. It has many characteristics that are NEVER found in birds but are distinctly reptilian, and the link I gave you detailed quite a few of them. Check it out.

 

[Naraoia]

so if you include the limb changes with lengths positioning and the complete body then there would have to be a lot of transitional stages for an ape to become a man. so if the arm of an ape got gradually shorter and if the gate and posture changes so much then there should be a lot of fossil evidence for theses stages. an arm cant shorten be six inches over night. so for 10,000 years it was 5 inches shorter, then 4 then 3 until it was the same length as we are today. how many transitions would it take to get there.

How fast such a change happens depends on (1) the nature of the variation - e.g. how much effect individual mutations tend to have on arm length, (2) the amount of variation - e.g. how many different genes influence arm length, and how often mutations that decrease it come about, (3) the strength and constancy of selection.

It's also not like arms got shorter and shorter in discrete steps like you describe. Individuals in a population have different proportions. Because something like arm length isn't a single-gene trait, it'll vary continuously; the distribution of arm lengths in any given population will probably look like a nice bell curve. What happens under selection is that the peak of the bell curve moves left or right. There will still be individuals who have long arms like the average individual a few generations before, but there will be fewer of them. And so it goes until variation runs out or the selection pressure changes.

(Here is a nice textbook figure illustrating how different types of selection affect continuous traits)

well the site itself gives a warning to start with.
When a fossil is called "transitional" between two types of animal, that means it shows some of the traits of both, but it does not mean it links those animals by direct descent. Evolution is a branching process - by which we mean that species often
split in two.

Indeed, and it is very difficult to demonstrate just from fossils that one species was directly ancestral to another (or two). It is possible for groups that have very detailed fossil records, like some microorganisms with hard shells. (Foraminiferans in particular - forams have a good enough fossil record that you can begin to answer questions about different modes of speciation with them.)

i agree there are similarities in a lot of animals and things. human DNA sequences are around 50% identical to a banana.but that's how things were made, you dont make a different organism when you make living things, its the same blueprint.

On the face of it, that's a reasonable position, but why can't, say, a very powerful deity just play around a bit? Humans have speculated about all kinds of life forms that aren't like life as we know it, up to and including life forms based on an entirely different chemistry such as silicon rather than carbon. Humans have realised that many different genetic codes are equally good at avoiding deadly errors. What stops an entity powerful enough to create all the diversity of life from trying out such possibilities?

Equally, does this logic imply that when different organisms use different blueprints, then they were designed by different intelligences? (This is cdk007's argument, not mine ). So, for example, fine, cytochrome c proteins in all organisms have similar sequences. Common designer, right? How about analogous enzymes? There is a long list of enzyme types (see link) that do the same thing, yet share no detectable similarity. Were these enzymes created by different designers?

Or for an easier example - the wings of all flying birds share basically the same structure. They have the same skeleton, with vestigial little hands and flight feathers coming off the hand bones. Why didn't the designer give the same wings to bats or pterosaurs? These creatures are rather similar in many ways - all were/are warm-blooded, actively flying land vertebrates. Why don't bats and pterosaurs have wings made of feathers, and why do all three groups have very different variations on a basic forelimb skeleton?

the rest i will have to check out a bit more i have heard of them and checked out the Archeopteryx before. like i said to me it looks like a bird with teeth. not because it is changing into something else but because its a bird with teeth and that's it. there are no other fossils showing any stages beside a bird and then a bird with teeth. so we teeth then no teeth and nothing in between.

The teeth are not the only way Archie differs from all modern birds. For example, it also has three fully developed fingers in its wings, and it has a long tail made of separate vertebrae. There are more bird-like creatures than it that still aren't totally like living birds. For example, here's Sapeornis, which has a shortened tail with fused vertebrae, but the three fingers are still fairly... finger-like. (And Sapeornis only had teeth in its upper jaw.) And then there are many dinosaurs that have fewer bird-like traits than Archie - for example, the fuzzy Sinosauropteryx that only had simple fluffy protofeathers, lacked the extra-long wing-like arms, and so on.

to do this it needs many changes along the way and it needs the time to do it as scientist concluded that this could only happen over a long period to change from one to another to get where we are today. so the fossils we have seen in the time that we have been searching which is quite a number have only shown a complete for example bird with teeth, small meat eating Dino with fully completed wings, fish with what looks like feet/legs and many others with similarities in both. but of all the stages needed to get where we are today that's all we've found...

So which stages of these transitions are we still missing in your opinion?

which could also be argued that they are species that were just made that way and have died out. like i said you dont changed the blueprint of life because when making many different kinds. a heart works for all to pump the blood,

Funny you should mention hearts, since there are different kinds of hearts! Vertebrates have one heart, but the details of its construction vary among groups. Octopuses have a main heart and then two separate hearts for their gills. Earthworms have five pairs of simple hearts, or rather, pulsating blood vessels. Et cetera. And then we didn't even mention that hearts pump totally different kinds of blood. The worms I work on have green blood, horseshoe crab blood is bright blue, and of course vertebrate blood is a very pretty red, because all three of these carry oxygen on different pigments.

like i said i try and keep an open mind as im not totally convinced in either way. dispute that i have a faith but no amount of logic or evidence or lack of evidence will make much difference to that because that's what faith is a personal thing that you may have. doesn't mean i have to stop finding out or thinking for myself. in fact it should make you want to know more.

Wanting to know more I can totally sympathise with.

 

[EternalDragon]

So you think a wolf just, one day, popped out a regular domesticated dogs?

Stop being silly.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Stop being silly.

No, E.D. knows that dogs evolved.

In fact when you include the concept of ring species most creationists that most creationists will admit that evolution can happen. Yet there is somehow a magical reason that other apes and men are separated, even though they will readily admit to larger scale evolution elsewhere.

 

[lasthero]

Stop being silly.

Then there would have to be intermediates in between. Animals that weren't quite a dog and weren't quite a wolf.