A question I don't think creationists will answer.

[Naturalism]

I believe in evolution;
But I don't believe it happens the way they sell it and animate it.
I bring Dawkins into play for you to show you I have already read into decent arguments.
If google brought me the answers, then why am I here

Then how does you view on how evolution occurs differ from how they are selling it?

 

[bhsmte]

I believe in evolution;
But I don't believe it happens the way they sell it and animate it.
I bring Dawkins into play for you to show you I have already read into decent arguments.
If google brought me the answers, then why am I here

Ok, so you disagree with 99% of the biologists who are a member of the national academy of sciences, who forget more about evolution than anyone on this board with ever know.

Fine, you must have your reasons why you disagree. But, if you disagree with how the TOE claims events happen, how can you also say you believe in evolution? Do you have an alternate theory of evolution you believe in, that we are not aware of?

Lastly, I am a firm believer that people learn best when they research on their own. Boatloads of information available online from credible sources that could address any question you may have and you would be learning on your own and not from people you may have bias for or against on this board, because of ideology.

 

[Naturalism]

Please explain what would contribute to such an event.

And why such present day oxygenation was not the same back then for life to stop diversifying?

Might have something to do with all the many contemporary complex life forms are using Oxygen.

And does this mean by increasing oxygenation, we can evolve ourselves?

Evolution is occurring regardless, it's not as if oxygen levels going up or down would be the only environmental pressure or selective force that could be applied to any organisms. Consider any of the ranging environmental changes that could occur and life would evolve accordingly.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Yeah, it's a great thing. I will not deny the facts here.

I feel like that is exactly what you did in the post I was responding to...

But isn't that applicable on virusses and bacteria?

No. It's applicable to any DNA based life form. Phylogenetics is the study of evolutionary relationships among groups of organisms by looking at the hierarchical patterns of DNA.

As you know, DNA is inheritable. It also mutates. Based on these two facts, we can literally construct a family tree of life simply by looking at genomes and comparing them.

Not only that, but this tree can also be obtained by other area's of study - independent from one another.

We can draw it based on the fossil record.
We can draw it based on comparative anatomy.
We can draw it based on the geographic distribution of species.
We can draw it based on the genetic record.

And they always result in the same tree.
To me, this is what makes evolutionary history absolutely undeniable. This evidence is so strong, so consistent, so overwhelming that it makes me call evolution nothing short of a fact.

The observations lead to no absolute answer.

This is simply not true.

Those phylogenies have their limitations and one is never sure how accurate they turn out to be in 20 years from now.

Why, do you expect DNA to become radically different 20 years from now?
Do you really think that the consistent hierarchical patterns we see in DNA today won't be there 20 years from now?

That's like saying that the DNA test to determine if your dad is your actual dad might work today but not tomorrow.

I believe in evolution;
But I don't believe it happens the way they sell it and animate it.

Yeah well... science doesn't operate by what you believe. It goes by the evidence. The theory of evolution is the conclusion of the evidence - regardless of your beliefs.

I bring Dawkins into play for you to show you I have already read into decent arguments.

That's nice, but your comments about phylogenies tell me that you didn't understand much of it. Which is fine though. There's nothing wrong in essence with being ignorant about something.

If google brought me the answers, then why am I here

I'll help you then.

Phylogenetic tree - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The above is a tree of life, automatically generated based on completely sequenced genomes. It fits the predictions of evolution like a glove.

You can map the distribution of species on there and you'll see that that also fits like a glove. You can map trees from comparative anatomy on there and you'll get the same result.

You can even take single genes or DNA sequences and track them down and they'll follow what you see on that map. Like we can indeed do with ERV's.

You'll share more ERV's with chimps then with gorilla's. More with gorilla's then with oerang oetangs. More with oerang oetangs then with lions.

From every angle you approach this, that basic structure is always what comes out. It's a family tree.

 

[Bolleke]

Then how does you view on how evolution occurs differ from how they are selling it?

I keep it on a big "I don't know" but I find it hard to believe insects grow wings out of their gills etc. The observations are what they are and how many tiktaaliks have they found? Take Lucy, they animate up to 60% based on footprints which might not have been Lucy's foot. They have no hands but they reconstruct it based on what fragments?

@Bshmte, I will address you later on;
@Dogmahunter, likewise. But the google answer you gave wasn't exactly hitting it on the nail.
This is research in its babyshoes... We pass on DNA yes, and how do we compare our own DNA with a tiktaalik? Or a rodent? Or an aegyptopithecus? That's impossible. I can see evolution in our own family tree of humanoids, but that's less then 10 million years!

This comes from your wikipedia link:

Ultimately, there is no way to measure whether a particular phylogenetic hypothesis is accurate or not, unless the true relationships among the taxa being examined are already known (which may happen with bacteria or viruses under laboratory conditions). The best result an empirical phylogeneticist can hope to attain is a tree with branches that are well supported by the available evidence. Several potential pitfalls have been identified:

What is known between us and extinct species???
We see what evolution can do in great periods of times, but we also see what i can do in short period of times. But we see not what they animate in the fossilrecord.

Anyhow, I will get back to it later.

 

[Naturalism]

I keep it on a big "I don't know" but I find it hard to believe insects grow wings out of their gills etc. The observations are what they are and how many tiktaaliks have they found? Take Lucy, they animate up to 60% based on footprints which might not have been Lucy's foot. They have no hands but they reconstruct it based on what fragments?

You suggest that the current understanding is incorrect but summarize in how you object with - "I don't know". That is frankly not a very compelling argument why the prevailing model is wrong and why you're correct.

Might it be that it requires more reading and learning on your before assumed judgement & conclusion?

"Lucy", was a name given to a particular specimen of species known as A. Afarensis. It is just one specimen of that there exists other specimens for the same species that you might have guesses we have other parts of their body.

We pass on DNA yes, and how do we compare our own DNA with a tiktaalik? Or a rodent? Or an aegyptopithecus? That's impossible..

We do have rodents so we can map their genomes & analyze where they fit on the tree of life relative to humans (H. Sapiens).

I agree that with fossils which lack any possible remaining DNA that comparing our DNA to theirs is difficult if not impossible. Thankfully, we know of other methods to demonstrate how life is related (Cladistics, Phylogeny), so it's certainly not a zero sum game with DNA.

But we see not what they animate in the fossilrecord.

Be more specific please. What animations are you contesting?

 

[lifepsyop]

No. It's applicable to any DNA based life form. Phylogenetics is the study of evolutionary relationships among groups of organisms by looking at the hierarchical patterns of DNA.

I think you forgot morphology. Kind of a big thing to leave out when you are attempting to define phylogenetics. Are we meant to believe you are competent enough to appraise this subject?

As you know, DNA is inheritable. It also mutates. Based on these two facts, we can literally construct a family tree of life simply by looking at genomes and comparing them.

No, actually you can't. You have to assume this so-called "family tree" is real in the first place.

Not only that, but this tree can also be obtained by other area's of study - independent from one another.

We can draw it based on the fossil record.
We can draw it based on comparative anatomy.
We can draw it based on the geographic distribution of species.
We can draw it based on the genetic record.

No, you can draw it by heaping loads of assumptions, subjective interpretations, and pure imagination onto all of these.

And they always result in the same tree.

Wrong. Just curious... do you know what a homoplasy is and how this is interpreted in systematics?

To me, this is what makes evolutionary history absolutely undeniable. This evidence is so strong, so consistent, so overwhelming that it makes me call evolution nothing short of a fact.

Consider the possibility that you were over-sold on the "evidence", and haven't actually examined it too closely yourself.

That's nice, but your comments about phylogenies tell me that you didn't understand much of it.

I get the same feeling reading yours....

Phylogenetic tree - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The above is a tree of life, automatically generated based on completely sequenced genomes. It fits the predictions of evolution like a glove.

You can map the distribution of species on there and you'll see that that also fits like a glove. You can map trees from comparative anatomy on there and you'll get the same result.

I wish evolutionists would venture a bit further down that wikipedia page...

Phylogenetic Tree: Limitations: They do not necessarily accurately represent the evolutionary history of the included taxa. The data on which they are based is noisy; the analysis can be confounded by genetic recombination,[9] horizontal gene transfer,[10] hybridisation between species that were not nearest neighbors on the tree before hybridisation takes place, convergent evolution, and conserved sequences.

Actually, if I recall correctly, you were the same poster over-stating this on another thread.... and here you are doing it again even after being corrected by other evolutionists.

You can even take single genes or DNA sequences and track them down and they'll follow what you see on that map. Like we can indeed do with ERV's.

You'll share more ERV's with chimps then with gorilla's. More with gorilla's then with oerang oetangs. More with oerang oetangs then with lions.

Really, then explain to me: why don't you expect humans sharing more ERV's with gorillas than chimps due to incomplete lineage sorting in primate lineages? I'd love to hear this one...

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh yes, the old "There is only one Lucy" fallacy. While it is true that there is only one "Lucy" since she was an individual she is not the only Australopithecus afarensis ever found. She was not even the first. She is significant because she was the first one found that was complete enough so that we could tell from her hip-bones that she walked erect. That is the significance to Lucy. She did not walk perfectly erect but she walked erect more than she waked bent over. If you compare her hip bones to a chimps and ours you will see that hers are a bit closer to ours than to the chimps.

And as I said she was not the last one found. Her feet were originally based on the deduction that they should be somewhere between the feet of our closest living relative, the chimpanzee, and ours. Later finds showed this to be correct. They were quite close in their estimation. So close that there is no need to change the feet of various exhibitions of what Lucy would have looked like.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, actually you can't. You have to assume this so-called "family tree" is real in the first place.

When the genetic family tree matches that of other resources there is no "assumption" involved. At worst you could call it a deduction. One of the reasons that evolution is accepted as a proven fact is that there are several totally independent lines of evidence that support it.


For example if you had a bunch of eye-witnesses to a murder and they all said the same thing that would be pretty strong evidence. That could be equated to the fossil record and evolution. It supports evolution and only evolution. The fossils were there at the time life evolved so they are our "eye-witnesses". Now eye-witnesses can lie. They can be wrong. Luckily we also have a video tape (ERV's) we have morphology, we have DNA evidence (from DNA of course). And various other pieces of evidence that create their own tree of life, all independent of each other all supporting evolution.

Now you might have had an out when we had only the "eye-witness" accounts. We have much much more than that now.

 

[Naturalism]

You have to assume this so-called "family tree" is real in the first place.

We have to assume DNA is hereditary in how it works? Or we have to assume the same markers shared in the same species and across species groups shows they're related?

How far do you think you'd get in a court case where you'd suggest scientists are assuming DNA is linked to hereditary?

So we can look at your DNA for paternal markers to know "who's the daddy?" but we can't do the same for similar shared markers across separate species?

Really then explain to me: why don't you expect humans sharing more ERV's with gorillas than chimps due to incomplete lineage sorting in primate lineages? I'd love to hear this one...

The Phylogenetic Tree's show H. Sapiens are more closely related to Chimpanzee's than Gorilla's, thus we share more ERV's with Chimpanzee's as our common ancestor was more recent.

 

[AV1611VET]

That is the significance to Lucy. She did not walk perfectly erect but she walked erect more than she waked bent over. If you compare her hip bones to a chimps and ours you will see that hers are a bit closer to ours than to the chimps.

Solomon already did all that and concluded ...

Ecclesiastes 7:29 Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.

Notice he calls evolution an "invention"? not a "discovery"?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Solomon already did all that and concluded ...

Ecclesiastes 7:29 Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.

Notice he calls evolution an "invention"? not a discovery?

No he doesn't. Please quit being silly AV. Taking verses out of context is blasphemy. Seriously, I know that creationists have no respect for the works of others, you would think that at least they would have some respect for their own Bible.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Solomon already did all that and concluded ...

Ecclesiastes 7:29 Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.

Notice he calls evolution an "invention"? not a "discovery"?

You do realize that Solomon was likely referring to other religions, given the time period, right?

 

[lifepsyop]

So we can look at your DNA for paternal markers to know "who's the daddy?" but we can't do the same for similar shared markers across separate species?

You can if you assume the mystical evolutionary worldview where culled genetic accidents turn fish into humans over time. I don't think everyone is too excited by the idea of bringing darwinian creation mythology into paternity tests, though.

The Phylogenetic Tree's show H. Sapiens are more closely related to Chimpanzee's than Gorilla's, thus we share more ERV's with Chimpanzee's as our common ancestor was more recent.

That sounds simple enough, but in practice evolutionists jettisoned such rigid predictions a long time ago.

Mapping Human Genetic Ancestry - Ebersberger et al. 2007

The human genome is a mosaic with respect to its evolutionary history. Based on a phylogenetic analysis of 23,210 DNA sequence alignments from human, chimpanzee, gorilla, orangutan, and rhesus, we present a map of human genetic ancestry. For about 23% of our genome, we share no immediate genetic ancestry with our closest living relative, the chimpanzee. This encompasses genes and exons to the same extent as intergenic regions. We conclude that about 1/3 of our genes started to evolve as human-specific lineages before the differentiation of human, chimps, and gorillas took place. This explains recurrent findings of very old human-specific morphological traits in the fossils record, which predate the recent emergence of the human species about 5-6 MYA. Furthermore, the sorting of such ancestral phenotypic polymorphisms in subsequent speciation events provides a parsimonious explanation why evolutionary derived characteristics are shared among species that are not each other's closest relatives.

(For the dashed sequence trees, human and chimpanzee genetic lineages fail to coalesce in the exclusive ancestor of both species. In the ancestral species shared by humans, chimpanzees, and gorillas any 2 of the 3 lineages can join first.)

Now can you demonstrate why gene sorting events such as these could not be invoked to explain a greater percentage of ERV's shared between Humans and Gorillas than Humans and chimps? Would evolutionists not simply infer greater severity of prior speciation events?

Maybe you're starting to get the hint of how well protected Evolution is from potential falsification in phylogenetic analyses...

 

[Bolleke]

Oh yes, the old "There is only one Lucy" fallacy. While it is true that there is only one "Lucy" since she was an individual she is not the only Australopithecus afarensis ever found. She was not even the first. She is significant because she was the first one found that was complete enough so that we could tell from her hip-bones that she walked erect. That is the significance to Lucy. She did not walk perfectly erect but she walked erect more than she waked bent over. If you compare her hip bones to a chimps and ours you will see that hers are a bit closer to ours than to the chimps.

And as I said she was not the last one found. Her feet were originally based on the deduction that they should be somewhere between the feet of our closest living relative, the chimpanzee, and ours. Later finds showed this to be correct. They were quite close in their estimation. So close that there is no need to change the feet of various exhibitions of what Lucy would have looked like.

I did not say there is only one Lucy.
I said there has only been found one Tiktaalik as far as I can remember.
Both are imaged based on footprints and fossils.
Lucy is a fossil puzzeled together, where they have not found real actual tangible feet and hands.
They are animated based on footprints. Google Leatoli footprints. The same goes for tiktaalik, there is no pelvic grid or fin to examine. It has a neck, yep that's the observation! It basicly ends there.

Tiktaalik is too poor evidence to say you evolved from that one.

 

[Bolleke]

Ok, so you disagree with 99% of the biologists who are a member of the national academy of sciences, who forget more about evolution than anyone on this board with ever know.

Fine, you must have your reasons why you disagree. But, if you disagree with how the TOE claims events happen, how can you also say you believe in evolution? Do you have an alternate theory of evolution you believe in, that we are not aware of?

Lastly, I am a firm believer that people learn best when they research on their own. Boatloads of information available online from credible sources that could address any question you may have and you would be learning on your own and not from people you may have bias for or against on this board, because of ideology.

Well, tell me how we evolved from tiktaalik. How do they animate fossils of what we evolved from?
Tiktaalik to human being. What observations are pointing that way?

I see evolution happening with examples as domestication. Natural selection is wonderful explained by Dawkins in his latest book. The flowers and the bees. I have seen the fossil records of horses covering 50 million years.
So to say I have not looked, would not be fair of you.
I see them puzzeling a hypotheses together to explain our origins.
I see evolution happening through gaining tolerance and resistance.
Do you know how they found a vaccin for chicken pox? How close was that one? Can you imagen if men didn't have domesticated animals? If it was not for farmers that had been in touch of a less harmful variant where would we have been today? Pure luck on current observations has always helped mankind forward. I see no value in animating a fairy tail to children and feeding it as truth just to overthrow "creationists". That's just plain bully work.
I have seen the fossils, I have been to museums, I have read the books.
Evolution is a word with way more value to it then it deserves.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I keep it on a big "I don't know" but I find it hard to believe insects grow wings out of their gills etc. The observations are what they are and how many tiktaaliks have they found? Take Lucy, they animate up to 60% based on footprints which might not have been Lucy's foot. They have no hands but they reconstruct it based on what fragments?

@Bshmte, I will address you later on;
@Dogmahunter, likewise. But the google answer you gave wasn't exactly hitting it on the nail.
This is research in its babyshoes... We pass on DNA yes, and how do we compare our own DNA with a tiktaalik? Or a rodent? Or an aegyptopithecus? That's impossible. I can see evolution in our own family tree of humanoids, but that's less then 10 million years!

This comes from your wikipedia link:


What is known between us and extinct species???
We see what evolution can do in great periods of times, but we also see what i can do in short period of times. But we see not what they animate in the fossilrecord.

Anyhow, I will get back to it later.

Here is the post where you complained about the reconstruction of Lucy's foot. I explained how they did it and why and that they were found to be correct by later fossils. Your complaint amounted to the "only one Lucy" fallacy.

And creationists keep forgetting that evolution is considered a proven fact in the world of science. Lucy only answered some of the questions of HOW we evolved, not IF we evolved.

Let's compare this to a trip from New York to Los Angeles. Lucy simply helps to answer what road we used to enter Los Angeles.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And on Tiktallik. You keep forgetting that evolution is a done deal

Let's go back to our New York to Los Angeles analogy. Tiktallik simply helps us to learn how "entered California". We already know that we took the journey.

Keeping with the analogy of the road trip. Your assertion of creationism is similar to saying that we made the trip by magic from New York to L.A.. We say, no we drove there. We have evidence from stops all along the route. We can show the route that others took to cities on the west coast starting at New York. All that the fossil record is doing at this point in time is refining our picture of the route that we took.

 

[Bolleke]

Here is the post where you complained about the reconstruction of Lucy's foot. I explained how they did it and why and that they were found to be correct by later fossils. Your complaint amounted to the "only one Lucy" fallacy.

And creationists keep forgetting that evolution is considered a proven fact in the world of science. Lucy only answered some of the questions of HOW we evolved, not IF we evolved.

Let's compare this to a trip from New York to Los Angeles. Lucy simply helps to answer what road we used to enter Los Angeles.

Can you show me her feet and her hands then please? thank you

 

[Bolleke]

And on Tiktallik. You keep forgetting that evolution is a done deal

Let's go back to our New York to Los Angeles analogy. Tiktallik simply helps us to learn how "entered California". We already know that we took the journey.

Keeping with the analogy of the road trip. Your assertion of creationism is similar to saying that we made the trip by magic from New York to L.A.. We say, no we drove there. We have evidence from stops all along the route. We can show the route that others took to cities on the west coast starting at New York. All that the fossil record is doing at this point in time is refining our picture of the route that we took.

Yeah and remember how they had to review their entire theory after finding a living fossil, lungfish.
Let's not forget nebraska and piltdown man.

Isn't the real thing real and absolute, none changing?

The tiktaalik's image will change over time just as it did with the itchyosaurs.

I see the fossils, so I know a tiktaalik lived on earth.
But I see nothing leading up to us. Unless a great story

About the hominoids, i don't not like to argue there, because to me that's another story then actual transformations such as tiktaalik to hynerpeton.
So I hope we could drop lucy? I just wanted to point out the animations aren't always what they seem. They are fixed up and not just a tiny bit