Could someone explain me evolution & Big Bang?

[Loudmouth]

As Iv'e said many times before and keep repeating myself that people who support evolution do not always use peer reviewed support for what they say.

I do cite peer reviewed articles, and quite often. "He did it, too" is not a valid way of dealing with the shortcomings of your arguments.

I can go and find a 100 posts that will make statements unsupported by peer review.

Then call them on it.

If you have 1 or 2 of a group of 10 scientists normally the minority is made to feel outcasts and this has been shown in the past. This is a human trait that happens and just because they are scientists doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Its almost a boys club that you have to belong to and they look down on those who rock the boat against the majority of thought.

Creationists are not the minority. They are absent from any area of science that matters. The only place you find creationists is in the realm of religion and politicis, not science. If you think I am wrong then show me a genetics paper where a scientist is using creationism to explain the similarities and differences seen between genomes.

There is a list of over a 1000 scientists that state “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

How many of them are publishing research in areas of biology that are related to evolution? Last I checked, there are a lot of dentists and engineers on that last. Besides, would you change your mind and accept evolution if we showed that an overwhelming majority of scientists in the fields related to evolution accept the theory? I doubt it.

They have been labelled radicals, crackpots, backwoods yokels, even a few snake handlers and flat earthers mixed in) dug up by pushy creationists to promote their cause.

Do you have anything to show that this is not the case?

Heres some examples of bias and that there are scientists with peer review papers who question evolution.

Biases are not found by going to creationist sites. They are found by reading the peer reviewed papers.

 

[stevevw]

First off, Steve, I think you're being a bit hypocritical - you call out others for not reading into your side more, but how much time have you actually spent reading literature on evolution by the people who actually work in the field? I distinctly remember in another topic repeatedly giving you a reference to look up the evolution of squirrel flight on Google Scholar, and to the best of my knowledge, you never checked it out, even though I pointed you towards it . times.

Now, I don't have time to really address everything you posted - have to get to work. But I would like to add one thing.

I asked you about the link as i couldnt get it and i tried again with what you said and still i got something else. I do read science sites as well for my reference. Thats how i get to understand how evolution says it happened. I probably spend more time reading science and evolution sites than any. I find it harder when it goes into the peer reviewed stuff and tech info but i still get a good basic understanding. Then i go into opposing views and see what they have to say. I rarely use religious sites for referencing now as many reject them straight away. You will notice that i do not come back straight away to reply as i like to do some research before i respond.

You can test it. I'll give you an example.

Extant snakes have these bones around their pelvis that seem to indicate that there was once an ancestor with hind limbs. Some snakes, like pythons and boas, even have nubby legs under their skin and small claws that protrude, sometimes called 'spurs'. Snakes are also most closely related to lizards

Based on this, evolutionary theory predicts that the earliest snakes we find should have hind limbs. If the earliest snakes we find don't have this trait, that's a big problem. Guess what the earliest found snake has?

A Cretaceous terrestrial snake with robust hindlimbs and a sacrum : Abstract : Nature

It had hind limbs. So how is that not a 'test'? We made a prediction, and the prediction turned out to be true. And I could show you some other examples if I wasn't pressed for time.

I will have to think about the snake and do some research before i answer. I am not a biologist or a geneticist so i have to do the hard yards and try to find out myself. This is where i have to rely on the experts. But like i said i like to challenge the main view as to me it doesn't make sense quite often.

Like with the snake without qualifying my thoughts as i haven't checked it out yet. But i often hear of how they link animals by showing how past creatures had a part of the body that has disappeared. Or how they show the links of bone structures and how the similarities connect one species to another. But to me this doesn't necessarily prove evolution because a snake can easily be seen as coming from a lizard or reptile in many ways. So why cant it just be within that species and just have great variation even to the point of losing its legs for what ever reason. After all its one thing to say a snake comes from a reptile but another to say a bird comes from a reptile which to me is another kind of animal. Or a wolf type creature to evolve into a whale.

I have said before that there is an element of evolution with variation within the same species. If someone found a great Dane and a chiwawa as fossils you can easily see how they could be mistaken as different species as they look completely different yet will have many similarities in bone structures ect. But they come from the same species just great variation. I have seen recent information with genetics that has shown that a species they had linked to another was shown to be wrong with the genetics. So even though they can point out that this animal comes from that animal because of the fossil record or by the skeleton structure, genetics can show this is not always the case. Because it is showing that this may not be the case to me it casts some doubt on how scientists have used this method to show links.

So i will have to get back to you on this but at least you are communicating and not dismissing. At least you are taking time to break it down and give me examples. You have to get to work and i have to get to sleep as it is 3am and im tired.

 

[Loudmouth]

Like with the snake without qualifying my thoughts as i haven't checked it out yet. But i often hear of how they link animals by showing how past creatures had a part of the body that has disappeared. Or how they show the links of bone structures and how the similarities connect one species to another. But to me this doesn't necessarily prove evolution because a snake can easily be seen as coming from a lizard or reptile in many ways. So why cant it just be within that species and just have great variation even to the point of losing its legs for what ever reason. After all its one thing to say a snake comes from a reptile but another to say a bird comes from a reptile which to me is another kind of animal. Or a wolf type creature to evolve into a whale.

I think this is a perfect illustration of why creationism is not science. No matter what features a fossil have it will never be accepted by creationists as being transitional. Creationism is not about an honest approach to the evidence. Creationism is about trying to make the evidence go away.

I have said before that there is an element of evolution with variation within the same species. If someone found a great Dane and a chiwawa as fossils you can easily see how they could be mistaken as different species as they look completely different yet will have many similarities in bone structures ect. But they come from the same species just great variation.

Chihuahuas and great danes are effectively different species. There is a strong barrier to genetic flow between the chihuahua and great dane populations. At best, dog breeds can be described as ring species which is the beginning of the formation of separate species.

More importantly, they would look at those features and correctly conclude that the shared features between chihuahuas and great danes is due to common ancestry and not separate creations.

Like I said above, once a creationist decides that two species belong to different kinds there is simply no fossil we could ever show them that would make them change their mind. That is why creationism is not science.

 

[mzungu]

After all its one thing to say a snake comes from a reptile but another to say a bird comes from a reptile which to me is another kind of animal.

Here you go:

 

[Subduction Zone]

stevevw, please define "kind". As most creationists defined it the word supports evolution. Are bacteria a "kind". Then to be fair all plant life and all animal life is a "kind".

 

[EternalDragon]

Here you go:

A fossil of an extinct bird is just that. A fossil.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A fossil of an extinct bird is just that. A fossil.

Except that is not a fossil of an extinct bird.

 

[Shemjaza]

A fossil of an extinct bird is just that. A fossil.

Yeah, just a bird with fingers on its wings, a long lizard-like tail and teeth.

I don't know what us Evos are talking about thinking this thing might be related to reptiles.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

A fossil of an extinct bird is just that. A fossil.

Is it a bird or a dinosaur?

Are dogs mammals or vertebrates?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Is it a bird or a dinosaur?

Are dogs mammals or vertebrates?

And don't forget it does not have a reversed hallux.



Farewell, Archaeopteryx

 

[EternalDragon]

Is it a bird or a dinosaur?

Are dogs mammals or vertebrates?

It's a bird.

 

[stevevw]

I agree. I have asked people to show where these papers lied and that has been the case. The lies were not there and the material was accurate, they just interpreted the material differently.

That is what i am talking about. Its the interpretation. What may look like a new species found in the fossil records is just variation with a species. You are looking back in time at bits and pieces of bones and fossils. How can you build a complete detailed story from that.

Variation maybe greater than we are led to believe and they are interpreting this as new species evolving. This can be substantiated by the fact there are many fully developed fossils found in all shapes but we never see a transition where say the wing is 1/2 developed. I dont mean they see a lizard type creature with feathered wings that are fully developed wings but a creature that has the bone structure 1/2 way there to a wing.

They find fully developed creatures with bone structures that look like they come from a limb to a wing. But each has a fully developed and functioning limb or wing. Just because you find a relation and connection between the two doesn't mean one turned into another, thats a giant leap. How do we know its not either variation or that different creatures will have similar structures because they come from the same blueprint for life. A fin has a hand like structure because its a form of hand but is modified for swimming. If the hand works so well why change the structure completely to make a fin. But what we dont see in the fossil records with evolution is the stages to get to a wing. This have occurred many times over so the transitionals should be greater in the records than the fully formed.

So thats why questions are asked and there is doubt among some. The thing is now that genetics is being used more this should confirm what evolution is saying. From what i have read the research is bring up surprising and unusual results that are suggesting that the connections they have made are not so straight forward.

So this is another reason why questions need to be asked and to wait and see what the results bring. To me its a case of is it just great variation within species or does evolution occur where new information is added to the genetics to create new a species separate from others.

 

[TLK Valentine]

It's a bird.

It's a plane!

It's...

 

[stevevw]

It's a plane!

It's...

super chicken

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's a bird.

Nope. For years I heard creationists claim that it was a bird because of its reverse hallux. Now it turns out that was not a correct assumption and that one defining characteristic used by creationists in he past has been shown not to be true. I already linked the article on the previous page.

Actually it is a perfect transitional species since no one can decide whether it is a bird or a dinosaur.

 

[stevevw]

stevevw, please define "kind". As most creationists defined it the word supports evolution. Are bacteria a "kind". Then to be fair all plant life and all animal life is a "kind".

I had a feeling someone may have said something. Surely you can tell what i meant within the context of what i was talking about. Why pick out the one word that has a connotation to religion and focus on that rather than the overall thing i was talking about. I think even in the sentence itself it puts it in the context i was talking about.

In the context i was referring Kind to mean separate species. I didn't know they also refered it to bacteria.

kind


noun 1. a class or group of individual objects, people, animals, etc., of the same nature or character, or classified together because they have traits in common; category: Our dog is the same kind as theirs.

2. nature or character as determining likeness or difference between things: These differ in degree rather than in kind.

3. a person or thing as being of a particular character or class: He is a strange kind of hero.

4. a more or less adequate or inadequate example of something; sort: The vines formed a kind of roof.

5. Archaic. a. the nature, or natural disposition or character.

b. manner; form.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I had a feeling someone may have said something. Surely you can tell what i meant within the context of what i was talking about. Why pick out the one word that has a connotation to religion and focus on that rather than the overall thing i was talking about. I think even in the sentence itself it puts it in the context i was talking about.

Kind equals separate species. I didn't know they also refered it to bacteria.

kind


noun 1. a class or group of individual objects, people, animals, etc., of the same nature or character, or classified together because they have traits in common; category: Our dog is the same kind as theirs.

2. nature or character as determining likeness or difference between things: These differ in degree rather than in kind.

3. a person or thing as being of a particular character or class: He is a strange kind of hero.

4. a more or less adequate or inadequate example of something; sort: The vines formed a kind of roof.

5. Archaic. a. the nature, or natural disposition or character.

b. manner; form.

I don't want a dictionary definition. I want a working definition. The definition of "species" is a bit fuzzy because evolution is a fact. Yet I can give a working definition of species and show how its "fuzzy borders" supports evolution.

Don't give me a list of animals that are of the same kind or not. For example it does not good to claim that all dogs are of a "kind". I need a way to tell whether two animals are of the same kind or not.

Be warned, when Justa tried to define kind I was able to show how his definition supported evolution.

 

[stevevw]

Here you go:

I though the recent discoveries classified Archaeopteryx as a bird.
The trouble is with looking back and trying to determine these things is you dont have the creature in front of you. From what i have read the language that is used is may have , might have been and we can assume.

Even so it still doesn't say that it could be a bird that had some reptilian features or a dino that had feathers. The other thing is that the wings are complete. I am talking about a transitional fossil that is in the process of getting those complete wings. Half formed bone structures that show many stages bit by bit until the wings are fully complete. It seems that we are always shown complete fossils and Archaeopteryx is always held up as the great transition. But even if you say that we can use this as an example it seems there aren't many and there should be heaps of fossils showing varying stages of developing wings.

Study claims oldest bird, Archaeopteryx, is not a bird-like dinosaur | National Post

 

[Subduction Zone]

I though the recent discoveries classified Archaeopteryx as a bird.
The trouble is with looking back and trying to determine these things is you dont have the creature in front of you. From what i have read the language that is used is may have , might have been and we can assume.

Even so it still doesn't say that it could be a bird that had some reptilian features or a dino that had feathers. The other thing is that the wings are complete. I am talking about a transitional fossil that is in the process of getting those complete wings. Half formed bone structures that show many stages bit by bit until the wings are fully complete. It seems that we are always shown complete fossils and Archaeopteryx is always held up as the great transition. But even if you say that we can use this as an example it seems there aren't many and there should be heaps of fossils showing varying stages of developing wings.

Study claims oldest bird, Archaeopteryx, is not a bird-like dinosaur | National Post

It really does not matter if it is classified as a bird or as a dinosaur. The debate on what it is is extremely strong evidence that it is a transitional species. If specialists cannot decide which it is that means it is just about exactly "halfway in between". Or in other words, transitional.

 

[Shemjaza]

Even so it still doesn't say that it could be a bird that had some reptilian features or a dino that had feathers. The other thing is that the wings are complete. I am talking about a transitional fossil that is in the process of getting those complete wings. Half formed bone structures that show many stages bit by bit until the wings are fully complete. It seems that we are always shown complete fossils and Archaeopteryx is always held up as the great transition. But even if you say that we can use this as an example it seems there aren't many and there should be heaps of fossils showing varying stages of developing wings.

Here you go:

Unless velociraptor is also just a bird.

We have more and ore evidence that many of therapod dinosaurs had feathers, and they clearly aren't flyers. But the point is that in evolution you'd expect the creatures on either branch on both sides of the split to be ambiguous.

If dinosaurs and birds aren't related, why should there be reptile like birds and bird like dinosaurs? Why have all the really reptile looking birds died out?