Evidences for evolution

[brt28006]

You vastly oversimplify aerodynamics, Mom2Angels.
The part about a bird's weight and its wing size needing to grow in comparative increments is not necessarily correct. Increase in muscle strength can make up for an increase in wing size, for example.

As for a bumblebee not being able to fly solely because of its aerodynamic qualities (I think someone else posted this) and the fact that it can fly being evidence of a creator... this claim too, is inaccurate. A bumblebee's aerodynamics much more resemble a helicopter's than an airplane's, whereas birds resemble airplanes (well... moreso than bumblebees.)
I take it, whoever quoted the part about bumblebees, that since they "shouldn't" be able to fly, that God himself gives assistance to each and every one of them, every time that one takes off... that is highly irresponsible, from a scientific standpoint, to assume such a thing... when more unconventional aerodynamics models can be substituted. Occam's Razor, you know; when two hypotheses explain something equally, go with the more rational one.

Now, for transitional species. I can name plenty.
Nearly everything Homo, for example. Homo habilis, H. rudolfensis, H. heidelbergensis, H. erectus, H. neandertalensis, etc. These were all extremely similar to, but genetically different from, modern H. sapiens. We ourselves could in fact be a transitional form towards the best developed hominid. Apart from human transitional forms, however, we have Archaeopteryx, a flying reptile; showing the transition between reptile and bird. Dinosaur species Avimimus, too, shows feathers in its fossil remains that were most certainly not used for flight, and would have served little to no purpose by themselves.
Andd then we've got the lungfish, probably very similar to the very first creature which stepped onto land so many aeons ago.

Finally, to whoever said that one species cannot arise from another, I refer you back to my post about the speciation experiment at Woods Hole O.I.
There was some disagreement when I first posted that as to the definition of speciation, so I'll ask this question instead.
Who can prove speciation can't happen?

 

[mom2"angels"]

You vastly oversimplify aerodynamics, Mom2Angels.
The part about a bird's weight and its wing size needing to grow in comparative increments is not necessarily correct. Increase in muscle strength can make up for an increase in wing size, for example.

This was a direct quote from a website, not my words.


I take it, whoever quoted the part about bumblebees, that since they "shouldn't" be able to fly, that God himself gives assistance to each and every one of them, every time that one takes off... that is highly irresponsible, from a scientific standpoint, to assume such a thing... when more unconventional aerodynamics models can be substituted.

I am not suggesting that. I am only saying there are too many wonderous things in the world for me to believe it JUST HAPPEND.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by mom2"angels"
I am not suggesting that. I am only saying there are too many wonderous things in the world for me to believe it JUST HAPPEND.

Okay, so, let's say I design a program, and the program is amazing and beautiful. On the one hand, I can tell you that some of the results are not things I planned; they are simply inevitable outcomes of the system. On the other hand, some people are very good at designing systems that have interesting results.

Thus, either way, it's still possible to have God and evolution at the same time.

 

[Heath Anderson]

I am not suggesting that. I am only saying there are too many wonderous things in the world for me to believe it JUST HAPPEND.

No biologist ever states that things "just happen" Evolution is not just random chance - evolution is the cumulated result of non random environment pressure interacting with [at times] random genetic mutation. Randomness is only a very small, however integral, part of modern evolutionary science. Patterns that exist as a result of interacting natural phenonema are never random in nature.

 

[Ray K]

Originally posted by mom2"angels"
Oiginally posted by Ray K
Aerodynamics are for fixed-wing airplanes, not animals with flapping wings. I'm guessing that you are simply parroting this old, creationist tract and actually know very little about aerodynamics.

Actually Ray, Aerodynamics applies to many other things besides fixed wing airplanes including cars & even flapping wing birds and insects. The following are some websites and excerpts from them discussing this very subject. BTW these are not christian websites.


OK. Let me be clear. You can define aerodynamics very broadly to include anything thing gets off the ground. But, in a practical sense, aerodynamics typically involves the lift properties of wing shapes. Or maybe I'm simply speaking of a narrow branch of aerodynamics.

Regardless, the point is that the objection to the bumblebee is all about its ratio of weight to wing surface area. This is only a problem for fixed wing aerodynamics. Once you start actually flapping the wings, many more factors come into play that make it a fallacy to criticize the surface area of the wing.

Anyone who says that, aerodynamically, abumblebee should not be able to fly is either ignorant of aerodynamics or is being misleading. "Ignorant" in this sense simply means a lack of knowledge, and is not meant to be insulting. I am ignorant of many things.

Yes, obviously I did!
My only point is that some creatures have very remarkable abilities and I don't believe that they JUST HAPPEND.

Flying is apparently not that remarkable. It's been developed fully 5 different times in history, and is currently in work in 2 more areas.

As far as I know a penguin is still a bird, a bat is still a rodent and the fish are still fish.

Only because we continue to categorize them as such. Stepping back for a moment, it is clear that all three are in the process of adapting to new environments. Without man to interfere, in another million years the penguin might certainly be considered a transitional form between flying and truly aquatic birds -- an avian dolphin. Think about it. Penguins are far more adapted to underwater life than any other bird. Their feathers have adapted, their wings now operate as flippers, and their lung capacity has increased dramatically to allow them to stay underwater for very long periods. Their food source is underwater, so clearly they aren't coming back out anytime soon.

Just because certain species have certain animals in them that have the same charactoristics as animals of other species does not mean that they evolved from each other or some similar creature. There are way too many blanks to be filled before I believe that. Survival of the fittest allows creatures to mimic the environment and even each other to provide advantages to it. But each kind of animal stays that kind.

Archaeopteryx is a clear link between birds and reptiles. A bird with teeth, wing claws, a long tail, and a weak breastbone! If the outline of feathers was not visible in the slate, it would have been identified as a reptile. You can't get much more transitional than that!

Number one, God IS like that. Number two, does it make you feel better about yourself to put other people down?

No, you are making absurd statements. You state emphatically that there are no transitionals, and then ask me to list some. BUT WAIT--- don't count the platypus, because that's just God playing a little prank on us.

Gimme a break. That is extremely poor logic. It's clear that no matter what evidence I could present, you are willing to fall back on "that's just God having fun".

I'm sorry if it bruises your ego, but that is dumb. You actually have the nerve to contest other people's opinions as if you know what you're talking about, but then completely disregard their evidence.

I have a bachelors of science in Biology/Chemistry, 3.5 GPA. I even got an A in my evolution class. I am by no means an expert, nor am I claiming to be.

A wise move.

I can tell by reading all your posts that you have armed yourself very well with information and For The Most Part , you are fairly accurate as far as the THEORY of evolution goes.

I understand the concept and am also not trapped in a religious dogma that forces me to choose between evidence and faith.

My problem is that you keep asking for someone to prove that creationism is true, but evolution by ITS very nature can not be proven true OR untrue. (It takes millions of years for these changes to occur.) Well isn't that convenient. It automatically means no one will ever see it happen.

Two words: fossil record.

Or is that God just playing another trick on us?

You say after a while of not being proven wrong the general consensus begins to accept it as fact.

Actually, you got that right.

Well, the general consensus thought the earth was flat once too.

Open mouth, insert foot! The belief in a "flat Earth" was never a scientific one; it has religious foundations in the Bible.

Let's talk about scientific theories concerning the shape of the Earth. Aristotle observed in a straightforward manner that Earth was round 2000 years before Columbus sailed across the Atlantic. It is a method that you can perform yourself in your back yard. Erasthones calculated the radius of the Earth 200 years before Jesus was born.

If you are really interested in how scientists think, I'll let you look those up and see how they did it.

 

[Ray K]

Originally posted by Heath Anderson
Every single organism that has ever lived is a transitional form.

Thank you!

Why is that not obvious to anyone who claims to understand evolution?

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by Ray K
(in re: "every organism is a transitional form") Why is that not obvious to anyone who claims to understand evolution?

This is squarely, I'm afraid, the fault of people trying to explain evolution, and doing it badly. They talk about how humans arose, as though we started from bacteria and tried to get to humans, or how cats came to be. There are a lot of similarities between cats and dogs, and if you go back far enough, you find stuff that's hard to categorize as being one or the other. Neither of them was "the goal"; they're both just "where they are today". Sometimes, you see an older form and a newer one coexisting; for instance, there are species of fish that have been mostly unchanged for many thousands of years, and there are other fish which are very different which started as offshoots of them.

I sometimes wonder what we'll look like in thirty thousand years...

 

[Shane Roach]

Originally posted by Heath Anderson


This assertion is just plain false I'm afraid. The theory of evolution underpins every modern field of biological science - whether molecular or morphological.

I get this over and over. Because you include the concept of adaptation in evolution, and insist they are inseperable, you can get away with saying this, but it is silliness. It is not necessary to know how life began in order to study how it works now, nor is it necessary that our ideas on how diversity of species came into being be absolutely true to observe how things happen now.

And if science is no longer questioning this, then science in this field is dead.

 

[LouisBooth]

"
Every single organism that has ever lived is a transitional form. "

*sigh* agreed, but that's ADAPTION, NOT EVOLUTION. So back to your "drawing board".

"I sometimes wonder what we'll look like in thirty thousand years..."

Probably exactly the same as we do now, but hopefully a little closer to God and more in his will.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"
Every single organism that has ever lived is a transitional form. "

*sigh* agreed, but that's ADAPTION, NOT EVOLUTION. So back to your "drawing board".

I really wonder what you mean by this. Adaptation from one form to another is the very heart of evolution. Looking at the fossil record, you can see a series of creatures which gradually turn from one kind of animal into another. Each one along the phase is just "adapting"... But the end result is radical change.

 

[Heath Anderson]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"
Every single organism that has ever lived is a transitional form. "

*sigh* agreed, but that's ADAPTION, NOT EVOLUTION. So back to your "drawing board".

"I sometimes wonder what we'll look like in thirty thousand years..."

Probably exactly the same as we do now, but hopefully a little closer to God and more in his will.

Evolution is accumulated adaptation as a result of changing environments. You can't go back to the drawing board when the environment changes, so you have to build on what you have. No drawing board required I'm afraid. If the environment is constantly changing, then population are going to have to constantly change to survive in the environment. Over an extended period of time, this accumulated change (with the help of geographic isolation and behavioural differences) allow for the formation of new species. Not only is it a very simple idea, but the fossil record and radiometric isotope dating support the idea.

 

[LouisBooth]

"Evolution is accumulated adaptation as a result of changing environments. "

No, its not. You assume that it is. species do adapt but they do not do so to the point of speiciation. that is the unproven of evolution and it always will be. No, the fossil record doesn't suppor the idea and the dating is a whole nother question..flawed as it is...

 

[Heath Anderson]

Originally posted by Shane Roach


I get this over and over. Because you include the concept of adaptation in evolution, and insist they are inseperable, you can get away with saying this, but it is silliness. It is not necessary to know how life began in order to study how it works now, nor is it necessary that our ideas on how diversity of species came into being be absolutely true to observe how things happen now.

And if science is no longer questioning this, then science in this field is dead.

The original assertion was that extrapolation of adaptation to include speciation was not relevant to any field of biology. I'm simply pointing out that this is falsehood

Evolution and adaptation are inseparable. Evolution is simply accumulated adaptation over an extended period of time, with the result of new species being formed.

You're right [to a degree] when you asser that it is not necessery to know how life began in order to study how it works now - that's why that field of study is called abiogenesis and not evolutionary biology. But that doesn't mean that our observations of evolution in the past are irrelevant to our understanding of modern biology

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"Evolution is accumulated adaptation as a result of changing environments. "

No, its not. You assume that it is. species do adapt but they do not do so to the point of speiciation. that is the unproven of evolution and it always will be. No, the fossil record doesn't suppor the idea and the dating is a whole nother question..flawed as it is...

It's not unproven at all, and indeed, there's a number of fairly well-documented cases. Furthermore, there's a very interesting bacterium which has the odd quality that it renders the creatures it's in infertile with uninfected members of the same species. If you get two strains of the bacteria, you end up with two groups of things which are otherwise the same species - but no longer cross-fertile. Suddenly, they're *competing* for resources instead of sharing them, and they start diverging relatively quickly, as each tries to find a better niche.

There's a species of fish which can only live in polluted waters; if you take them out of the pollutants they're adapted to, they *die*. There's other fish of the same "type" that never adapted to the pollution. These fish can no longer coexist, let alone interbreed. Give them long enough, and you might well see speciation, especially if we gradually remove the pollutants from the water.

It happens. It happens constantly in bacteria (thus "resistant strains" of diseases which occasionally develop interesting new qualities).

 

[LouisBooth]

*summation of your arugment and all other evoulution arguments I have heard..*

"Give them long enough, and you might well see speciation, especially if we gradually remove the pollutants from the water. "

ahh..the major assumption....and a false one at that

So why have we never seen a single cell go to a mulicell?

 

[Heath Anderson]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"Evolution is accumulated adaptation as a result of changing environments. "

No, its not. You assume that it is. species do adapt but they do not do so to the point of speiciation. that is the unproven of evolution and it always will be. No, the fossil record doesn't suppor the idea and the dating is a whole nother question..flawed as it is...

I'm afraid that it MOST DEFINATELY IS - every single fossil that has ever been recovered has supported this. Similarly, recent developments in genetics, such as the discovery of Junk DNA, genetic similarity between groups and SHARED redundant DNA also support this. Speciation has been observed: Please see this link

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Please provide references of

a) where the fossil record does not support the idea of evolution being accumulated adaptation

b) flaws with radiometric dating that seriously undermine modern evolutionary biology.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
*summation of your arugment and all other evoulution arguments I have heard..*

"Give them long enough, and you might well see speciation, especially if we gradually remove the pollutants from the water. "

ahh..the major assumption....and a false one at that

So why have we never seen a single cell go to a mulicell?

So, how exactly do you kxnow that the assumption is false? We have seen speciation; there are a number of examples (Heather pointed to them.)

As to single to multicell, where would you expect to see it? We're talking about something that only has to happen once or twice in a billion years for the rest to follow nicely, and you're complaining that we can't find an example in the hundred years or so we've had the technology to look *at all*?

It would be very interesting to see a multicellular life form get started, but we'd need to be at the right place at the right time - and if it didn't turn out to be viable, we could miss it in the course of an afternoon.

 

[LouisBooth]

"every single fossil that has ever been recovered has supported this. "

actually they don't...

http://www.grisda.org/reports.htm


By the way, I've gone through that paper thanks and seveal places the author makes 1. assumptions 2. says if this is not it then it points to intellegent design

Read the paper before using it as evidence please.


"As to single to multicell, where would you expect to see it? We're talking about something that only has to happen once or twice in a billion years for the rest to follow nicely"

Okay, lets run with that...if he has only happen once or twice in a billion years then the odds are substancial that it would not survive. I once heard a harvard prof say (in his pride) I would rather believe a mathematical impossiblity like evolution then having to believe in God. I would have to say, the odds are against you


"you're complaining that we can't find an example in the hundred years or so we've had the technology to look *at all*? "

Yup, as scientists say to theists, no evidence you can't back up the claim, so yes, I am. Funny how they can do it but we can't.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by LouisBooth

"As to single to multicell, where would you expect to see it? We're talking about something that only has to happen once or twice in a billion years for the rest to follow nicely"

Okay, lets run with that...if he has only happen once or twice in a billion years then the odds are substancial that it would not survive. I once heard a harvard prof say (in his pride) I would rather believe a mathematical impossiblity like evolution then having to believe in God. I would have to say, the odds are against you

I don't see how we can evaluate the odds. For all you or I know, during the time we've been having this conversation, three new multicellular life forms have been tried experimentally in your digestive tract, and been found to be failures.

The thing about statistics is that about six thousand people a day will have experiences which happen one time in a million. Every *DAY*. We're talking about a whole planet, and half a billion years... You can get some awfully "unlikely" results during that time, and indeed, you should.

Evolution isn't "mathematically impossible". Depending on the numbers you try to plug in, you can get anything from "very very unlikely" to "we should be seeing more changes than we are".

"you're complaining that we can't find an example in the hundred years or so we've had the technology to look *at all*? "

Yup, as scientists say to theists, no evidence you can't back up the claim, so yes, I am. Funny how they can do it but we can't.

Ahh, but we have lots of evidence - the fossil record, and specific occurrences spotted in the wild - for the basic theory. In other words, if God made a thousand fish of the same species, but put five hundred of them in an icy mountain lake, and five hundred of them in a warm tropical lake, each population being right at the edge of what it could survive, and we waited a thousand years, we would have two different species of fish; we know this, because we've seen it happen, even in just a few hundred years.

Given that, we know that this happens some of the time. If it has always happened, it is enough to explain what we've seen, and we don't need to call any given part of it a miracle.

You want a miracle of creation? Look at the whole process, and imagine trying to design a device that reproduces itself, with constant variety, until it produces this kind of variety of life. *That* is a miracle in my mind.

 

[LouisBooth]

"I don't see how we can evaluate the odds. For all you or I know, during the time we've been having this conversation, three new multicellular life forms have been tried experimentally in your digestive tract, and been found to be failures. "

well we can look at a few things..

http://www.grisda.org/origins/02059.htm

its short sweet and to the point, just like I like em.


"Ahh, but we have lots of evidence "

You mean the house of cards? Scientists find data to fit this theory, not the other way around like it should be.

"we would have two different species of fish; we know this, because we've seen it happen, even in just a few hundred years. "

Umm..no we actually haven't