A thread on evolution

[Subduction Zone]

you don't want to know. Well I guess I can give it to you, since you are so adamant. A little backround first. you have species, and then you have genus level taxonomy. Evolution happens at a species level and I can show you papers that define this level evolution as micro evolution. Macro level evolution is where you have two animals or types of animals evolving into a whole other genus of animal. For example a dog like creature into a whale or a dinosaur into a bird. The obvious conclusion is that there would be many transitions of monkey to man, and dinosaur to bird, and dog to whale creatures roaming the earth. Hence the search for the missing link. My question is can you provide a missing link between two separate genus of animal? Lucy for example is ape like, while neanderthal is human like. So those would not qualify, you must show one that has both. This is the necessary ingredient to prove macro evolution is possible since macro evolution is at a taxa higher than species, or at the genus level at a minimum. But could be also higher, like a transition between two family of creature.

"Missing link" is an incorrect term to use. A more proper one would be transitional species and there are countless examples. Tiktaalik is one that you certainly have heard of. And of course there is archaeopteryx.

In fact the fossil record is so rich these days that almost all species are thought to be transitional.

 

[createdtoworship]

I refuse to believe no one has told you about Homo erectus and Homo habilis.

those are human like, not ape like. you would have to prove the ape likeness, from what I know ape like creatures have a shovel face and human like creatures have a check bone, so we would need a photograph of the fossils.

 

[createdtoworship]

"Missing link" is an incorrect term to use. A more proper one would be transitional species and there are countless examples. Tiktaalik is one that you certainly have heard of. And of course there is archaeopteryx.

In fact the fossil record is so rich these days that almost all species are thought to be transitional.

Tiktaalik is a fish like creature and I believe archaeopteryx is unlike a bird and more of a dinasaur if I am not mistaken. so you would have to prove it an amphibian and a bird respectively. And because you only gave a few means that you must not have too many up your sleeve.

 

[Subduction Zone]

those are human like, not ape like. you would have to prove the ape likeness, from what I know ape like creatures have a shovel face and human like creatures have a check bone, so we would need a photograph of the fossils.

You need to find some better terminology. Men are apes. You are an ape. That has already been proven. There are quite a few variations between all of the different apes out there.

By the way, you also got the term "macroevolution" wrong. Macroevolution is at the species level and above. And we have observed new species forming. I will link you some info on ring species if you would like. "Microevolution" is within a species. For example all of the different breeds of dogs would be an example of microevolution.

And here is your source:

Macroevolution - Biology-Online Dictionary

I can find some more for you if you would like.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Tiktaalik is a fish like creature and I believe archaeopteryx is unlike a bird and more of a dinasaur if I am not mistaken. so you would have to prove it an amphibian and a bird respectively

Right, they are both part way in between or "missing links" if you like.

You should learn what transitional species are so that you do not look so bad.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And why would I have to prove that Tiktaalik is an amphibian? You don't seem to understand the evolutionary history of amphibians.

 

[Shemjaza]

those are human like, not ape like. you would have to prove the ape likeness, from what I know ape like creatures have a shovel face and human like creatures have a check bone, so we would need a photograph of the fossils.

Homo habilis is human like? That's seriously broad. If you look at the link you will see he has a ape like flat face, but human like arched upright feet. Also evidence of simple tool crafting (hence the name).

 

[Jimmy D]

you don't want to know. Well I guess I can give it to you, since you are so adamant. A little backround first. you have species, and then you have genus level taxonomy. Evolution happens at a species level and I can show you papers that define this level evolution as micro evolution. Macro level evolution is where you have two animals or types of animals evolving into a whole other genus of animal. For example a dog like creature into a whale or a dinosaur into a bird. The obvious conclusion is that there would be many transitions of monkey to man, and dinosaur to bird, and dog to whale creatures roaming the earth. Hence the search for the missing link. My question is can you provide a missing link between two separate genus of animal? Lucy for example is ape like, while neanderthal is human like. So those would not qualify, you must show one that has both. This is the necessary ingredient to prove macro evolution is possible since macro evolution is at a taxa higher than species, or at the genus level at a minimum. But could be also higher, like a transition between two family of creature.

I'm disappointed to be honest. Is the next step us showing you well known examples of transitional fossils and you finding excuses to reject them? Do you realize that there are many ways of demonstrating common ancestry?

Anyway, here is a diagram showing fossils that represent the transitions from land to sea mammal.

 

[lesliedellow]

Lucy for example is ape like, while neanderthal is human like.

Neanderthal was not only ape like, he was an ape - and so are we.

 

[pitabread]

My question is can you provide a missing link between two separate genus of animal?

This was the big bad question you claimed 'evolutionists' ran away from??? Just asking about so-called missing links?

Here I was hoping it would be something original and interesting. I mean, there are entire webpages dedicated to this sort of thing : Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ

Talk about an anti-climax.

 

[Obliquinaut]

This was the big bad question you claimed 'evolutionists' ran away from??? Just asking about so-called missing links?

Here I was hoping it would be something original and interesting. I mean, there are entire webpages dedicated to this sort of thing : Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ

Talk about an anti-climax.

If one simply ignores the data, or as a lay person simply "dismisses it" out of hand then by definition everyone is avoiding his question. Isn't this Creationist Debate Camp 101?

 

[Aman777]

My question is can you provide a missing link between two separate genus of animal?

Sure. Noah is the missing link between the sons of God (prehistoric mankind) and Humans (descendants of Adam). The sons of God were made the 5th Day from Water. Gen 1:21 Humans were made the 3rd Day from the dust of the ground. Gen 2:7 IOW, Humans (His kind) married and produced children with prehistoric mankind, or the sons of God (Their kind)...exactly as God told us in Genesis 6:4.

That is HOW today's 7.4 Billion living Humans (descendants of Adam) changed from animal-like to Human intelligence, with the DNA of the common ancestor of Apes thrown in. I do NOT agree that Humans are animals since Humans were FIRST made and neither do I think the sons of God are animals. They are simply the end result of God's creation from Water. What it demonstrates is that mindless nature does NOT and cannot change a creature made from water, into a Human. (descendant of Adam). As a child, I used to tell everyone I wanted to be an Indian. As I grew up, I learned that it doesn't work that way. Amen?

 

[KWCrazy]

What a quote mine is: taking a quote out of context such that it supports one's position, even though the original material does not.

I think that's a good definition, though the accusations frequently don't fit it. Many quotes against evolution come from evolutionists themselves. That doesn't mean it's a quote mine. For example, if one says if there are no transitional fossils but he still believes in evolution, his statement about no transitional fossils remains a true representation of what he said. If someone said "There is no doubt there are transitional fossils" and ascribes it to the above quoted, it's a quote mine.

A famous example is a quote by professor James Barr:
Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience. (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the “days” of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.

The quote is from a letter from Professor James Barr to David C.C. Watson of the UK, dated 23 April 1984. Barr is an evolution believer and to my knowledge, nobody has claimed otherwise. His quote isn't used to show that be believes Genesis happened as stated, only that the original intent of the writer was to describe a six day creation and not long periods.

The fact is, many people write questions that are relevant to the subject and them answer them in their own opinion. Does that invalidate the question if you disagree with the conclusion? There is some dishonesty in deliberately misquoting people, to be sure, but I think most of the "quote mining" accusations are just name calling.

 

[lesliedellow]

Sure. Noah is the missing link between the sons of God (prehistoric mankind) and Humans (descendants of Adam). The sons of God were made the 5th Day from Water. Gen 1:21 Humans were made the 3rd Day from the dust of the ground. Gen 2:7

Oh golly gosh, so we are a silicon based lifeform, are we? And the sons of God were...... dihydrogen monoxide.

 

[createdtoworship]

You need to find some better terminology. Men are apes. You are an ape. That has already been proven. There are quite a few variations between all of the different apes out there.

By the way, you also got the term "macroevolution" wrong. Macroevolution is at the species level and above. And we have observed new species forming. I will link you some info on ring species if you would like. "Microevolution" is within a species. For example all of the different breeds of dogs would be an example of microevolution.

And here is your source:

Macroevolution - Biology-Online Dictionary

I can find some more for you if you would like.

you will have to prove with peer review preferably why men are apes, but ultimately there will need to be a link between two genra, which you have not provided.

the generic sites usually will say "at or above the level of species," but the more technical sites like UC Berkley say "above the level of species".


http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VIADefinition.shtml

"Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level"


also indiana university:


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


also some institutes of Biological Sciences:


An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie


national evolution sythesis center:


NESCent: NABT: Macroevolution: Evolution Above the Species Level


2006 Annual Meeting of the National Association of Biology Teachers -- Albuquerque, NM

This year's theme: "Macroevolution: Evolution above the Species Level"


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


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

Douglas Futuyma defines it: “the origin and diversification of higher taxa.”

Douglas Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, pg. 447, glossary (Sinaeur, 1998).


“Evolutionary change on a grand scale, encompassing [among other things] the origin of novel designs…” (Campbell’s, Biology, 4th ed.)



A Peer review article also coincides:"The term macroevolution was introduced by Iurii Filipchenko, a Russian geneticist and developmental biologist and mentor of Theodosius Dobzhansky. Filipchenko distinguished between Mendelian inheritance within species and non-Mendelian, cytoplasmic inheritance responsible for the formation of taxa above the species level."

Erwin, D. H. (2000), Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution. Evolution & Development, 2: 78–84. doi: 10.1046/j.1525-142x.2000.00045.x

Article found online here:
Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution

although I typically think wikipedia is error prone, here is a link that shows that the journal is peer reviewed:

Evolution & Development - Wikipedia

 

[createdtoworship]

Neanderthal was not only ape like, he was an ape - and so are we.

these are common misconceptions. Neanderthal had a human like cheek bone, and not an ape like shovel face.

 

[createdtoworship]

I'm disappointed to be honest. Is the next step us showing you well known examples of transitional fossils and you finding excuses to reject them? Do you realize that there are many ways of demonstrating common ancestry?

Anyway, here is a diagram showing fossils that represent the transitions from land to sea mammal.

I understand, so please define which genera each are transitioning from so we can analyze them one at a time.

 

[Obliquinaut]

you will have to prove with peer review preferably why men are apes, but ultimately there will need to be a link between two genra, which you have not provided.

the generic sites usually will say "at or above the level of species," but the more technical sites like UC Berkley say "above the level of species".


http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VIADefinition.shtml

"Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level"


also indiana university:


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


also some institutes of Biological Sciences:


An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie


national evolution sythesis center:


NESCent: NABT: Macroevolution: Evolution Above the Species Level


2006 Annual Meeting of the National Association of Biology Teachers -- Albuquerque, NM

This year's theme: "Macroevolution: Evolution above the Species Level"


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


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

Douglas Futuyma defines it: “the origin and diversification of higher taxa.”

Douglas Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, pg. 447, glossary (Sinaeur, 1998).


“Evolutionary change on a grand scale, encompassing [among other things] the origin of novel designs…” (Campbell’s, Biology, 4th ed.)



A Peer review article also coincides:"The term macroevolution was introduced by Iurii Filipchenko, a Russian geneticist and developmental biologist and mentor of Theodosius Dobzhansky. Filipchenko distinguished between Mendelian inheritance within species and non-Mendelian, cytoplasmic inheritance responsible for the formation of taxa above the species level."

Erwin, D. H. (2000), Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution. Evolution & Development, 2: 78–84. doi: 10.1046/j.1525-142x.2000.00045.x

Article found online here:
Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution

although I typically think wikipedia is error prone, here is a link that shows that the journal is peer reviewed:

Evolution & Development - Wikipedia

Seems like we could save some time and see how this post was responded to in 2014!

Creationists: What are the reasons general acceptance of deep time and evolution

 

[createdtoworship]

Homo habilis is human like? That's seriously broad. If you look at the link you will see he has a ape like flat face, but human like arched upright feet. Also evidence of simple tool crafting (hence the name).

I would need a scan or photograph of the skull, so far i have seen both human like and ape like skulls claiming to be both homo habilis, would need further investigation.

 

[Obliquinaut]

these are common misconceptions. Neanderthal had a human like cheek bone, and not an ape like shovel face.

Why is it so scary to think of humans as great apes? Just curious why this is so very, very scary to some people.