Discussion on the how it all started

[renniks]

Sadly, your attempt to ridicule the ToE only makes you appear ridiculous. Why are you afraid of acquiring a sound understanding of evolutionary theory? Millions of other Christians are altogether comfortable with it.

Or perhaps I have a sound understanding of the Evolution theory and find it ridiculous.

 

[renniks]

For 800th time, there aren't leaps.

The change is so gradual that you can't tell from one generation to another.

Grizzly bears and Polar bears are two very closely related species, but have a whole lot of specialised variations to survive in their different environments. The Ancestral bear population would have been more similar to those two then their cousins the black bears.

All bears are pretty similar... but it's also clear that the dog family is also pretty similar to the bear. Genetics supports this.

Gradualism has not been borne out by the fossil record. Now they are saying changes happen quickly in the space of a couple of generations which fits perfectly into what Creationists have believed all along about how species adapt to their environments due to being designed with that function in their DNA

 

[renniks]

This post alone is enough to know that you really don't know anything useful about evolution -- what it is, how it works -- including the notion that it has "believers". That's not how science works. It's not a religion; it's not a political philosophy; it's not a lifestyle.

Yes, it has believers, as in, you accept the common theory, even though so much of it has already been shown to be very doubtful by scientists trying to prove it. It takes faith to believe any common theory is true, any philosophy or any religion. Evolution is no different.

 

[renniks]

I see that you did not understand your source. He was not advocating eugenics. He was stating what appeared to be regretfully true. He had seen first hand the work of various explorers and colonizers. He was afraid that "civilized man" would eliminate others. And they came close to doing that in places. He was not all that wrong.

You are now just being dishonest about what he said, because it casts doubt on your hero.

 

[renniks]

Internet conventions, Forum Rules and common courtesy require that when assertions are made they are supported. Please provide support for your assertion by offering citations for these alleged quotes.

I did. I provided a link to the article I was quoting.

 

[renniks]

Grizzly bears and Polar bears are two very closely related species, but have a whole lot of specialised variations to survive in their different environments. The Ancestral bear population would have been more similar to those two then their cousins the black bears.

So? This is what creationists would call adaptation, not evolution at all. We can all observe the adaptation of species. I've been observing the difference in the ecosystem for 40 years, as different species wax and wane due to such things as the eastern coyote expansion, the migration of fisher into our area, the explosion of the beaver population and the increase in winged predators. All these things change how different species react to the new realities. But the bears are still bears, the birds are still birds, the fish are still fish.... rodents are still rodents and canines are still canines.

 

[Shemjaza]

Gradualism has not been borne out by the fossil record. Now they are saying changes happen quickly in the space of a couple of generations which fits perfectly into what Creationists have believed all along about how species adapt to their environments due to being designed with that function in their DNA

You need to study what the theory actually says.

Even the most rapid punctured equilibrium example is thousands of generations... not a couple of generations. It would still be invisible on a generation to generation level.

So? This is what creationists would call adaptation, not evolution at all. We can all observe the adaptation of species. I've been observing the difference in the ecosystem for 40 years, as different species wax and wane due to such things as the eastern coyote expansion, the migration of fisher into our area, the explosion of the beaver population and the increase in winged predators. All these things change how different species react to the new realities. But the bears are still bears, the birds are still birds, the fish are still fish.... rodents are still rodents and canines are still canines.

That's the bizarre thing about modern Creationism... they often accept all the necessary ingredients for evolution.

Species can adapt and change. They can develop new traits, they can even split into two very similar but both uniquely adapted species.

If accept that bears can all come from a Proto bear species... Why can't bears and dogs come from a Proto bear-dog species?

What is the barrier?

 

[pitabread]

Or perhaps I have a sound understanding of the Evolution theory

 

[renniks]

Even the most rapid punctured equilibrium example is thousands of generations... not a couple of generations. It would still be invisible on a generation to generation level.

Lol, how can it be invisible? There's still all those missing intermediate forms, unless you literally have parents of one species give birth to a totally different species..

 

[renniks]

I don't really give a rip what you believe. You have not demonstrated why anyone would believe in evolution.

 

[renniks]

You need to study what the theory actually says.

Even the most rapid punctured equilibrium example is thousands of generations... not a couple of generations. It would still be invisible on a generation to generation level.



That's the bizarre thing about modern Creationism... they often accept all the necessary ingredients for evolution.

Species can adapt and change. They can develop new traits, they can even split into two very similar but both uniquely adapted species.

If accept that bears can all come from a Proto bear species... Why can't bears and dogs come from a Proto bear-dog species?

What is the barrier?

Dogs are basically broken wolves. They evolved largely by losing genetic functions through mutation.The mutations don’t construct new genes. Most of them break or damage preexisting genes.

Many modern authorities continue to use fossils as proof of evolution, chronologically lining up those which appear similar, yet the gaps have only grown more glaring with time.
Researchers know that it would take millions of internal changes for dinosaurs to evolve into birds, flat plants into trees, fish into amphibians. Note there are no half-fish/half-salamanders or one-third monkey/two-thirds humans, ever.
Darwin wrote that whales came about as a result of bears going to sea, lol. Let's see some evidence for that one!
Something besides unguided evolution is going on.

Natural selection does happen in a variety of situations, but it doesn’t change a species into another.

 

[pitabread]

I don't really give a rip what you believe.

Fair enough.

But when you make claims like we should expect to find half-dogs/half-cats, it's a strong indication you haven't studied the subject.

You have not demonstrated why anyone would believe in evolution.

I always point people to free educational resources for that: Educational resources for learning about biology and evolution

The onus is on them to take advantage of them. I can't force people to learn.

 

[renniks]

But when you make claims like we should expect to find half-dogs/half-cats, it's a strong indication you haven't studied the subject.

Really?
Many modern authorities continue to use fossils as proof of evolution, chronologically lining up those which appear similar, yet the gaps have only grown more glaring with time.
Researchers know that it would take millions of internal changes for dinosaurs to evolve into birds, flat plants into trees, fish into amphibians. Note there are no half-fish/half-salamanders or one-third monkey/two-thirds humans, ever.
Darwin wrote that whales came about as a result of bears going to sea, lol. Let's see some evidence for that one!
Where are all these intermediate species fossils? I'm old enough to remember when the evolution crowd was trying to tell us that the platypus was proof of evolution..

 

[pitabread]

Really?

Yes, really. It speaks to a complete misunderstanding of the very concept of inheritance and what common ancestry for species means.

Where are all these intermediate species fossils?

There are loads of intermediary fossils in the fossil record. However, it needs to be understood that intermediary fossils (between higher taxa) are part of the ancestral lineages of those taxa.

What we don't expect are half-and-half versions of a bunch of modern extant species. Modern species are not intermediaries between one another.

If you examples of intermediaries, TO has an older FAQ set up with various fossil vertebrate intermediaries: Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ

Of course this archive is a bit out-of-date as it was last updated 1997. If you comb the paleontology literature, you always find more examples. Especially worth noting is there are no shortage of fossils out there. The Smithsonian has about 40 million fossil samples alone.

(There are also some paleontology courses in the previous educational material I linked.)

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are now just being dishonest about what he said, because it casts doubt on your hero.

No, it is clear that he is not advocating eugenics. Where do you think that he did that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Really?
Many modern authorities continue to use fossils as proof of evolution, chronologically lining up those which appear similar, yet the gaps have only grown more glaring with time.
Researchers know that it would take millions of internal changes for dinosaurs to evolve into birds, flat plants into trees, fish into amphibians. Note there are no half-fish/half-salamanders or one-third monkey/two-thirds humans, ever.
Darwin wrote that whales came about as a result of bears going to sea, lol. Let's see some evidence for that one!
Where are all these intermediate species fossils? I'm old enough to remember when the evolution crowd was trying to tell us that the platypus was proof of evolution..

I see that you still do not understand evolution. By the way, a species always is part of its ancestral group. That is why you are still an ape.

 

[renniks]

I see that you still do not understand evolution. By the way, a species always is part of its ancestral group. That is why you are still an ape.

No, I'm a human. I don't see any apes building computers or skyscrapers, btw.


Simply put, the proponents of the ruling theory tell us that we are all undoubtedly intelligent enough to fully grasp their theory, as long as we concur with it. But we are nothing but totally unqualified outsiders if we raise critical questions concerning any of its basic tenets, or if we come to the conclusion that it is mostly wrong.

Darwin imagined the origin of species (and, in fact, of all life forms) by selection of “infinitesimally small changes,” “infinitesimally slight variations,” and “slow degrees.”
"For natural selection can act only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a leap, but must advance by the shortest and slowest steps,” or “the transition [between species] could, according to my theory, be effected only by numberless small gradations” (emphasis added). Virtually the same is said by neo-Darwinists today.

How many transitional links are then required on the assumed evolutionary road to humans? How many, in fact, must actually and historically have existed during the last approximately 17 million years of geologic time, as stipulated for the last common ancestor of humans and great apes?

Well, on the basis of the ruling theory: Certainly millions!
And let's not forget, there should also be infinite numbers of intermediate links on the extinct side branches.

Even on the neo-Darwinian presuppositions of evolution by mutation and selection, it has not been possible to document and prove the essentially assumed gradual process of man’s origin.

Ian Tattersall (Professor and Head of the anthropological department of the American Museum of Natural History in New York City from 1971 to 2010; now curator emeritus):

"We differ from our closest known relatives in numerous features of the skull and of the postcranial skeleton, in important features of brain growth, and almost certainly in critical features of internal brain organization as well. These differences exist on an unusual scale. At least to the human eye, most primate species don’t differ very much from their closest relatives. Differences tend to be largely in external features such as coat color, or ear size, or even just in vocalizations; and variations in bony structure tend to be minor. In contrast, and even allowing for the poor record we have of our closest extinct kin, Homo sapiens appears as distinctive and unprecedented. Still, we evidently came by our unusual anatomical structure and capacities very recently: There is certainly no evidence to support the notion that we gradually became what we inherently are over an extended period, in either the physical or the intellectual sense."

Bernard Wood:

"Even with all the fossil evidence and analytical techniques from the past 50 years, a convincing hypothesis for the origin of Homo remains elusive."

Jeffrey H. Schwartz (Professor of Anthropology at the University of Pittsburg, past President of World Academy of Art and Science):

"[W]e should not expect to find a series of intermediate fossil forms with decreasingly divergent big toes and, at the same time, a decreasing number of apelike features and an increasing number of modern human features."

Professors John D. Hawks, Keith Hunley, Sang-Hee Lee, Milford Wolpoff (

"…no gradual series of changes in earlier australopithecine populations clearly leads to the new species [Homo sapiens], and no australopithecine species is obviously transitional. This may seem to be an unexpected statement, because for 3 decades habiline species have been interpreted as being just such transitional taxa, linking Australopithecus through the habilines to later Homo species."



We, like many others, interpret the anatomical evidence to show that early H. sapiens was significantly and dramatically different from earlier and penecontemporary australopithecines21 in virtually every element of its skeleton and every remnant of its behavior.

…Our interpretation is that the changes are sudden and interrelated and reflect a bottleneck that was created because of the isolation of a small group from a parent australopithecine species. In this small population, a combination of drift and selection resulted in a radical transformation of allele frequencies, fundamentally shifting the adaptive complex"(Wright 1942); in other words, a genetic revolution...


I can go on, but you perhaps can understand why I'm a skeptic, or an non believer when it comes to this fairly tale. I think I just come to these threads to be amused at agnostics and athiests blind Faith in this tale they've been told.

 

[pitabread]

No, I'm a human. I don't see any apes building computers or skyscrapers, btw.

Taxonomically speaking, humans are a member of the Hominidae clade (aka the "great apes"). In that respect, humans are apes.

It's also worth noting that this is strictly a biological classification; it's not really a point of debate. It's just based on the respective biological characteristics we share with other members of Hominidae.

 

[Larniavc]

Or perhaps I have a sound understanding of the Evolution theory and find it ridiculous.

No. No you do not.

Have you read the paper I provided for you in answer to your question about cell membranes and dna?

Or will you ignore that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, I'm a human. I don't see any apes building computers or skyscrapers, btw.

If you are a human, then you are an ape. You just contradicted yourself. And all of those objects were built by ape. Tell me which of the following traits that you do not have:

Apes are primates. Primates are mammals that share the following characteristics:

• hair instead of fur
• fingernails instead of claws
• opposable thumbs
• higher brain-to-body size ratio/high level of intelligence
• prehensility (ability to grasp with fingers and/or toes)
• padded digits with fingerprints
• binocular vision i.e. both eyes focus on one object (depth perception)
• reduced olfactory sense and dependent on vision more than smell

Here is some more from this source:

Hominidae | primate family

"Formerly, humans alone (with their extinct forebears) were placed in Hominidae, and the great apes were placed in a different family, Pongidae. However, morphological and molecular studies now indicate that humans are closely related to chimpanzees, while gorillas are more distant and orangutans more distant still. Since classification schemes aim to depict relationships, it is logical to consider humans and great apes as hominids, that is, members of the same zoological family, Hominidae. "

Simply put, the proponents of the ruling theory tell us that we are all undoubtedly intelligent enough to fully grasp their theory, as long as we concur with it. But we are nothing but totally unqualified outsiders if we raise critical questions concerning any of its basic tenets, or if we come to the conclusion that it is mostly wrong.

Creationists cannot seem to understand. There is no other theory. Most of them refuse to even learn what is and what is not evidence. You have refused to discuss even the basics of science and your posts quite frequently. One cannot have a competing theory when one does not have a proper testable model. In fact by definition one cannot even have evidence without a testable model.

Darwin imagined the origin of species (and, in fact, of all life forms) by selection of “infinitesimally small changes,” “infinitesimally slight variations,” and “slow degrees.”
"For natural selection can act only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a leap, but must advance by the shortest and slowest steps,” or “the transition [between species] could, according to my theory, be effected only by numberless small gradations” (emphasis added). Virtually the same is said by neo-Darwinists today.

He did not imagine it. It was a conclusion drawn from the evidence. Evidence is a very powerful tool. Creationists avoid it because they can see where it leads. And right, evolution can never take the leap that creationists demand as "proof". They ignore the evidence and what the theory says and demand a strawman version of evolution, one that would ironically refute the theory.

How many transitional links are then required on the assumed evolutionary road to humans? How many, in fact, must actually and historically have existed during the last approximately 17 million years of geologic time, as stipulated for the last common ancestor of humans and great apes?

Not as many as you think. And it is a bit more complicated than you seem to think. The transitions that we have are rather small these days. How many do you think have been found between Lucy and us? Please note, we don't need all of the steps to know that evolution happened. Since fossilization is a very rare event it is not expected that we would have all of the steps. But what we need to show is that there are no fossils appearing out of order. Modern man cannot be found before Homo erectus for example. But all of Homo erectus did not have to die out. They eventually did but there is often overlap when predecessors and successors lived at the same time.

Well, on the basis of the ruling theory: Certainly millions!
And let's not forget, there should also be infinite numbers of intermediate links on the extinct side branches.

No, branching is relatively rare. And we do not need links. That is a false claim. The found fossils only have to match the model. Can you repeat that? For example I do not need a picture of your grandfather to know that he existed. His existence can be definitely inferred by DNA and other evidence.

Even on the neo-Darwinian presuppositions of evolution by mutation and selection, it has not been possible to document and prove the essentially assumed gradual process of man’s origin.

Ian Tattersall (Professor and Head of the anthropological department of the American Museum of Natural History in New York City from 1971 to 2010; now curator emeritus):

"We differ from our closest known relatives in numerous features of the skull and of the postcranial skeleton, in important features of brain growth, and almost certainly in critical features of internal brain organization as well. These differences exist on an unusual scale. At least to the human eye, most primate species don’t differ very much from their closest relatives. Differences tend to be largely in external features such as coat color, or ear size, or even just in vocalizations; and variations in bony structure tend to be minor. In contrast, and even allowing for the poor record we have of our closest extinct kin, Homo sapiens appears as distinctive and unprecedented. Still, we evidently came by our unusual anatomical structure and capacities very recently: There is certainly no evidence to support the notion that we gradually became what we inherently are over an extended period, in either the physical or the intellectual sense."

Bernard Wood:

"Even with all the fossil evidence and analytical techniques from the past 50 years, a convincing hypothesis for the origin of Homo remains elusive."

Jeffrey H. Schwartz (Professor of Anthropology at the University of Pittsburg, past President of World Academy of Art and Science):

"[W]e should not expect to find a series of intermediate fossil forms with decreasingly divergent big toes and, at the same time, a decreasing number of apelike features and an increasing number of modern human features."

Professors John D. Hawks, Keith Hunley, Sang-Hee Lee, Milford Wolpoff (

"…no gradual series of changes in earlier australopithecine populations clearly leads to the new species [Homo sapiens], and no australopithecine species is obviously transitional. This may seem to be an unexpected statement, because for 3 decades habiline species have been interpreted as being just such transitional taxa, linking Australopithecus through the habilines to later Homo species."



We, like many others, interpret the anatomical evidence to show that early H. sapiens was significantly and dramatically different from earlier and penecontemporary australopithecines21 in virtually every element of its skeleton and every remnant of its behavior.

…Our interpretation is that the changes are sudden and interrelated and reflect a bottleneck that was created because of the isolation of a small group from a parent australopithecine species. In this small population, a combination of drift and selection resulted in a radical transformation of allele frequencies, fundamentally shifting the adaptive complex"(Wright 1942); in other words, a genetic revolution...


I can go on, but you perhaps can understand why I'm a skeptic, or an non believer when it comes to this fairly tale. I think I just come to these threads to be amused at agnostics and athiests blind Faith in this tale they've been told.

TLDR, but one correction. You are not a skeptic. You cannot be. Skeptics follow the evidence and you to date have refused to learn what is and what is not evidence. Until you learn what is and what is not evidence you can only be a science denier.