Evolution Lesson

[Job 33:6]

I was involved in a discussion on abortion just recently. And the person I was speaking to kept saying something like "scientifically, human life begins at conception".

And naturally, I'm sure you can see where this is going, I said, that "human life" is something we, the observer, assign to the embryo. But a second prior or a second after that moment of conception, in a biological sense, the physical reality of the embryo hasn't really changed much, if at all.

And so I responded further with this question of, how do we know that this moment of conception, is the moment in which God actually created human life? As opposed to a moment in which people simply decide to start calling an embryo "human".

Yes, maybe the embryo is genetically unique from it's parents, being a combination of genes from each, but did God create life in this moment? Or is it simply the recombination of already living physical matter, that we, the observers, simply slapped a label on?

Anyway, I think people just confuse the reality of a horse, with the "title" "horse", that we simply assign to it, for ease of discussion.

And then when it comes to discussing taxonomy, some people think that there are horses and there are not horses. Without observing the real challenges that come with labeling life that is indefinetly changing on a molecular level.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

A thread for creationists that want questions answered about evolution, or to learn more about it, as well as about biology in general. The questions should be directed as to not try to get evolution compared with creationism, but I doubt people will go along with that for very long.

I was wondering about pole shifts and their effect on evolution. As I understand it, before the poles shift, the magnetic field weakens, letting in more radiation. I wondered if this would result in more changes to DNA. Are you aware of any work in this direction? Not a creationist by the way but something I've wondered about.

 

[Shemjaza]

I was wondering about pole shifts and their effect on evolution. As I understand it, before the poles shift, the magnetic field weakens, letting in more radiation. I wondered if this would result in more changes to DNA. Are you aware of any work in this direction? Not a creationist by the way but something I've wondered about.

Last time I researched this there didn't seem to be any mass extinctions that lined up with pole shifts, so it's likely that that idea that the field weakening before the shift isn't true on any long scale.

 

[Job 33:6]

I was wondering about pole shifts and their effect on evolution. As I understand it, before the poles shift, the magnetic field weakens, letting in more radiation. I wondered if this would result in more changes to DNA. Are you aware of any work in this direction? Not a creationist by the way but something I've wondered about.

Do any mass extinctions correlate with magnetic reversals?

No. There is no evidence of a correlation between mass extinctions and magnetic pole reversals.

Earth’s magnetic field and its atmosphere protect us from solar radiation. It’s not clear whether a weak magnetic field during a polarity transition would allow enough solar radiation to reach the Earth's surface that it would cause extinctions. But reversals happen rather frequently--every million years or so--compared to mass extinctions, which occur every hundred million years or so.

It's possible that down the road we may find more subtle influences to our evolution. But I'm not aware of any manipulation of evolution by pole reversals.

 

[FredVB]

So as you say, families in biological classification are meaningless. In communication with you I will still hold you to this quote.

That fossil evidence is showing the change of the body parts in a continuous way.

"Arbitrary" and "meaningless" are not synonyms.

Then my question about any evidence between biological families can still be answered.

There are transitionals that bridge fish to amphibians, amphibians to reptiles, reptiles to birds and reptiles to mammals, if this is what you mean.

Here are a handful of the more popular sequences.

View attachment 291506
View attachment 291507
View attachment 291508
View attachment 291509
View attachment 291510
View attachment 291511

I understand that. Groups of animals can be lined up by analogies in sequence of correspondences. So I ask, are any shown to be so close as families? If it shows the transition to a new family I would see it would be meaningful.

 

[Speedwell]

I understand that. Groups of animals can be lined up by analogies in sequence of correspondences. So I ask, are any shown to be so close as families? If it shows the transition to a new family I would see it would be meaningful.

How would you distinguish such a transition from any other speciation event? A new family is named when the genera within an existing family become so numerous or disparate that creation of a new family becomes convenient. In turn, genera become more numerous in the same way by the proliferation of species within them. How, then, would you determine which particular speciation event "triggered" the creation of a new family?

 

[Job 33:6]

Then my question about any evidence between biological families can still be answered.



I understand that. Groups of animals can be lined up by analogies in sequence of correspondences. So I ask, are any shown to be so close as families? If it shows the transition to a new family I would see it would be meaningful.

I would say that, without question, sequences typically, taxonomically, hold closer morphological relatedness than families of modern day species.

If we consider that dogs, bears and cats, as an example, are three families of the same order; with respect to fossils, it's normal to find fossil transitional species that hold more morphological similarities, in a sequence, than there are similarities between dogs and bears.

So to answer your question, I'd say, yes. Many transitional sequences are as close as families, and certainly closer as well. I'd say they more often land in the species and genus area with relation to one another. If we base our understanding purely off of morphology.

 

[Job 33:6]

I would say that, without question, sequences typically, taxonomically, hold closer morphological relatedness than families of modern day species.

If we consider that dogs, bears and cats, as an example, are three families of the same order; with respect to fossils, it's normal to find fossil transitional species that hold more morphological similarities, in a sequence, than there are similarities between dogs and bears.

So to answer your question, I'd say, yes. Many transitional sequences are as close as families, and certainly closer as well. I'd say they more often land in the species and genus area with relation to one another. If we base our understanding purely off of morphology.

And such transition srquences also span to greater morphological differences than those observed in families of today as well ^. Such as in the case of the reptile to mammal transition, or if we look at transitional species that simply hold features of two different families, one being of the past and one being of the future. I'd say transitionals, from a purely morphological stance, certainly depict family to family evolution.

 

[FredVB]

How would you distinguish such a transition from any other speciation event? A new family is named when the genera within an existing family become so numerous or disparate that creation of a new family becomes convenient. In turn, genera become more numerous in the same way by the proliferation of species within them. How, then, would you determine which particular speciation event "triggered" the creation of a new family?

I believe this is equivocating. I ask to see fossil evidence, any fossil evidence, that shows undoubtedly there is not just a lineup for a sequence but undoubtedly transition from one form to another form beyond mere speciation from one species to another, so that there is continuous change shown beyond what could be species of one family, thus showing macroevolution. There are millions of fossils now, there would be some case of this showing this evolution that much if it were so.

I would say that, without question, sequences typically, taxonomically, hold closer morphological relatedness than families of modern day species.

If we consider that dogs, bears and cats, as an example, are three families of the same order; with respect to fossils, it's normal to find fossil transitional species that hold more morphological similarities, in a sequence, than there are similarities between dogs and bears.

So to answer your question, I'd say, yes. Many transitional sequences are as close as families, and certainly closer as well. I'd say they more often land in the species and genus area with relation to one another. If we base our understanding purely off of morphology.

And such transition sequences also span to greater morphological differences than those observed in families of today as well ^. Such as in the case of the reptile to mammal transition, or if we look at transitional species that simply hold features of two different families, one being of the past and one being of the future. I'd say transitionals, from a purely morphological stance, certainly depict family to family evolution.

That is interesting. If they show continuous evolution from one species to another that would show enough change for them to be different enough to not be grouped in the same family, from species to species, I would like seeing such fossils showing that evidence.

 

[pitabread]

I ask to see fossil evidence, any fossil evidence, that shows undoubtedly there is not just a lineup for a sequence but undoubtedly transition from one form to another form beyond mere speciation from one species to another, so that there is continuous change shown beyond what could be species of one family, thus showing macroevolution.

What do you mean "undoubtedly transition from one form to another form"? What do you think that should look like?

 

[Speedwell]

That is interesting. If they show continuous evolution from one species to another that would show enough change for them to be different enough to not be grouped in the same family, from species to species, I would like seeing such fossils showing that evidence.

You mean that there is enough diversification shown that two new families are formed from an existing one? Nothing ever evolves from one already existing family to another already existing family.

 

[FredVB]

I ask to see fossil evidence, any fossil evidence, that shows undoubtedly there is not just a lineup for a sequence but undoubtedly transition from one form to another form beyond mere speciation from one species to another, so that there is continuous change shown beyond what could be species of one family, thus showing macroevolution. There are millions of fossils now, there would be some case of this showing this evolution that much if it were so.

If they show continuous evolution from one species to another that would show enough change for them to be different enough to not be grouped in the same family, from species to species, I would like seeing such fossils showing that evidence.

What do you mean "undoubtedly transition from one form to another form"? What do you think that should look like?

You mean that there is enough diversification shown that two new families are formed from an existing one? Nothing ever evolves from one already existing family to another already existing family.

I will go back to what I meant in posting before for what I mean to ask for. Sequences of fossil creatures lined up to show sequence of evolution seems to be connecting dots for a picture where a pattern is perceived, to me, when it is our tendency to see patterns, and we draw conclusions from patterns we see. With millions of fossils now available is there even one case where there is a sequence shown that each species evolved right from the preceding one, one after the other, going far enough to reach another separate category, say, for an arbitrary amount to determine, a separate family? If there is anything from speciation, which I do expect, reaching beyond that from species to species to a separate category, even what would get called a separate family, that can be shown, I would like to see that, because I have not. I post here to see if there is any case of that from all the fossils that there are. If there is, certainly there was diversification from another group continuing, that would make sense. If both are shown fine, but is there even one line in sequence that can be shown? I don't see my question being answered with continued questions and it would suggest there is not anything to show for an answer.

 

[pitabread]

If there is anything from speciation, which I do expect, reaching beyond that from species to species to a separate category, even what would get called a separate family, that can be shown, I would like to see that, because I have not.

I think it's important to understand that species concepts as they are defined for living species (e.g. populations that are reproductively isolated) is *not* the same as species concepts as they are defined for fossils.

In the fossil record, there aren't necessarily clean cut-offs between species over time. There categorization of fossils is based on physical characteristic differences relative to other fossil finds and living species. But there isn't really a way to test whether fossils are a true species in terms of the species concepts involving reproductive isolation.

Reading your posts on this I think you're still in the mindset of trying to impose a strict biology reality based on an inherently artificial classification system.

 

[Ophiolite]

I will go back to what I meant in posting before for what I mean to ask for. Sequences of fossil creatures lined up to show sequence of evolution seems to be connecting dots for a picture where a pattern is perceived, to me, when it is our tendency to see patterns, and we draw conclusions from patterns we see. With millions of fossils now available is there even one case where there is a sequence shown that each species evolved right from the preceding one, one after the other, going far enough to reach another separate category, say, for an arbitrary amount to determine, a separate family? If there is anything from speciation, which I do expect, reaching beyond that from species to species to a separate category, even what would get called a separate family, that can be shown, I would like to see that, because I have not. I post here to see if there is any case of that from all the fossils that there are. If there is, certainly there was diversification from another group continuing, that would make sense. If both are shown fine, but is there even one line in sequence that can be shown? I don't see my question being answered with continued questions and it would suggest there is not anything to show for an answer.

There is a great deal of material of the type you are requesting. Unfortunately thus far all I have been able to locate are behind a paywall. If you read the abstract of this example, Evolutionary tempo in Jurassic and Cretaceous ammonites, in a discerning manner you should be able to see that if offers the kind of data you are seeking (and which you seem to doubt exists).

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I will go back to what I meant in posting before for what I mean to ask for. Sequences of fossil creatures lined up to show sequence of evolution seems to be connecting dots for a picture where a pattern is perceived, to me, when it is our tendency to see patterns, and we draw conclusions from patterns we see. With millions of fossils now available is there even one case where there is a sequence shown that each species evolved right from the preceding one, one after the other, going far enough to reach another separate category, say, for an arbitrary amount to determine, a separate family? If there is anything from speciation, which I do expect, reaching beyond that from species to species to a separate category, even what would get called a separate family, that can be shown, I would like to see that, because I have not. I post here to see if there is any case of that from all the fossils that there are. If there is, certainly there was diversification from another group continuing, that would make sense. If both are shown fine, but is there even one line in sequence that can be shown? I don't see my question being answered with continued questions and it would suggest there is not anything to show for an answer.

The theory of evolution is not derived from the fossil record. The fossil record corroborates and is entirely consistent with the predictions of the ToE - broadly tree-like patterns of increasing diversity of creatures over time, with shared traits providing clear indications of common ancestry, and the observed changes and inferred relationships over time being consistent with other factors such as geographic locations and environments over time.

You could certainly hypothesise that each fossilised creature we've discovered was independently created, or each fossil was put in place independently in such a way as to be precisely consistent with the ToE, but since we already have a well-tested theory that includes a simple and elegant mechanism that explains the pattern we see in the fossil record and that we can see in operation in contemporary creatures, this alternative hypothesis is redundant; worse than that, it invokes an inexplicable force or entity, raises unanswerable questions, fails to explain why we see the particular patterns that we do, provides no unifying scope, i.e. fails to integrate with or explain all the other independent lines of evidence consistent with the ToE, is not consistent with our existing body of knowledge, and does not increase our understanding of any of the phenomena involved.

In other words, it fails all common criteria for a good explanation. As I've said before in these forums, if you can find one explanatory criterion in which the 'God-did-it' hypothesis is better than the 'It's Magic!' hypothesis, I'll concede that it's not the joint-worst explanation possible.

 

[FredVB]

"Sequences of fossil creatures lined up to show sequence of evolution seems to be connecting dots for a picture where a pattern is perceived, to me, when it is our tendency to see patterns, and we draw conclusions from patterns we see. With millions of fossils now available is there even one case where there is a sequence shown that each species evolved right from the preceding one, one after the other, going far enough to reach another separate category, say, for an arbitrary amount to determine, a separate family? If there is anything from speciation, which I do expect, reaching beyond that from species to species to a separate category, even what would get called a separate family, that can be shown, I would like to see that, because I have not. I post here to see if there is any case of that from all the fossils that there are. If there is, certainly there was diversification from another group continuing, that would make sense. If both are shown fine, but is there even one line in sequence that can be shown?"

I think it's important to understand that species concepts as they are defined for living species (e.g. populations that are reproductively isolated) is *not* the same as species concepts as they are defined for fossils.

In the fossil record, there aren't necessarily clean cut-offs between species over time. There categorization of fossils is based on physical characteristic differences relative to other fossil finds and living species. But there isn't really a way to test whether fossils are a true species in terms of the species concepts involving reproductive isolation.

Reading your posts on this I think you're still in the mindset of trying to impose a strict biology reality based on an inherently artificial classification system.

In what I have read in works on the subjects that are with the evolutionary perspective species, and genera, are discussed as lasting over some amount of time and not further, including the abstract that was linked to for me in another response. Of course the criteria of reproductive gene pools cannot be applied, but differentiated forms are expected, just as reproductive gene pools would not be so useful if they were not associated with any differentiated forms, different species are understood from that. And so it is understood that species are survived by other species in their place. Is it sequential for them? Maybe so. And genera are survived by other genera. And families are survived by other families. Are they all sequential, in any case that can be shown with it depicted? That is something I would like seeing, to understand anything differently.

Unfortunately thus far all I have been able to locate are behind a paywall. If you read the abstract of this example, Evolutionary tempo in Jurassic and Cretaceous ammonites, in a discerning manner you should be able to see that if offers the kind of data you are seeking (and which you seem to doubt exists).

I did go look at it. Perhaps I might be thought dense but I did not see it showing me there were examples of sequential species to separate genera to separate families. And I don't want to go by works either that may show me where I am wrong but can't know that. I would just want to see something for it here, where I ask, and not a sequence of very different forms being shown in a sequence.

The theory of evolution is not derived from the fossil record. The fossil record corroborates and is entirely consistent with the predictions of the ToE - broadly tree-like patterns of increasing diversity of creatures over time, with shared traits providing clear indications of common ancestry, and the observed changes and inferred relationships over time being consistent with other factors such as geographic locations and environments over time.

You could certainly hypothesise that each fossilised creature we've discovered was independently created, or each fossil was put in place independently in such a way as to be precisely consistent with the ToE, but since we already have a well-tested theory that includes a simple and elegant mechanism that explains the pattern we see in the fossil record and that we can see in operation in contemporary creatures, this alternative hypothesis is redundant; worse than that, it invokes an inexplicable force or entity, raises unanswerable questions, fails to explain why we see the particular patterns that we do, provides no unifying scope, i.e. fails to integrate with or explain all the other independent lines of evidence consistent with the ToE, is not consistent with our existing body of knowledge, and does not increase our understanding of any of the phenomena involved.

In other words, it fails all common criteria for a good explanation. As I've said before in these forums, if you can find one explanatory criterion in which the 'God-did-it' hypothesis is better than the 'It's Magic!' hypothesis, I'll concede that it's not the joint-worst explanation possible.

Okay, there is corroboration if it can be disregarded that only gaps are found throughout where any sequences are shown, so that evolution to another family of species can't be shown. I still see nonbelievers coming here to mock the faith that God did things, and there is really nothing adequately showing there is no God involved. I won't bother trying to have those of you who are not believers to believe there is God, I do not think I can do that and it might not be possible to happen at all. But you have nothing for thinking you might show God was not there doing anything. There are mysteries we cannot understand, believers understand why that is, and those of you saying there is basis to say things explain themselves without God cannot show it in all things, there all the mysteries where you would still say you don't know, and you still won't, while God is dismissed, and it is not credible to hear that faith in God is not corroborated. What I see for God's work is just that God is organized in the creation, using what works well many times in different creatures, so it won't mean to me that this only corroborates evolution with no Creator.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... there is really nothing adequately showing there is no God involved.
... you have nothing for thinking you might show God was not there doing anything.

Of course not; no-one is claiming proof or even evidence that God was not involved - it's not a falsifiable proposition.

The evolutionary claim is that the fossil record is, entirely consistent with the nested hierarchical structure of relationships and predicted by the ToE and with multiple other independent lines of evidence supporting the ToE; the position and location of previously undiscovered fossils have even been successfully predicted using the theory. The position is that God is not necessary to explain these observations.

The question for those suggesting that God-did-it is why an omnipotent entity would create something entirely consistent with the patterns that would be expected of natural evolutionary processes, from the fossil record to molecular genetics, and all the other independent lines of evidence (and including all the atavisms, vestigial organs, and oddities) that you would expect from an evolutionary process but not from a designer/creator with forethought.

Of course, there is always the GWIMW (God Works In Mysterious Ways) or HMHHR (He Must Have His Reasons) escape clauses, but they're just admissions that God-did-it is an unsubstantiated assertion lacking an explanation.

 

[Speedwell]

I still see nonbelievers coming here to mock the faith that God did things, and there is really nothing adequately showing there is no God involved. I won't bother trying to have those of you who are not believers to believe there is God, I do not think I can do that and it might not be possible to happen at all. But you have nothing for thinking you might show God was not there doing anything.

No one is trying to show that God is not there. In science, the question doesn't even come up. If anything is being mocked, it is the notion that God could only have acted in accord with a literal interpretation of Genesis.

There are mysteries we cannot understand, believers understand why that is, and those of you saying there is basis to say things explain themselves without God cannot show it in all things, there all the mysteries where you would still say you don't know, and you still won't, while God is dismissed, and it is not credible to hear that faith in God is not corroborated. What I see for God's work is just that God is organized in the creation, using what works well many times in different creatures, so it won't mean to me that this only corroborates evolution with no Creator.

And what many of us see as God's work is the marvelous process of evolution.

 

[FredVB]

"Sequences of fossil creatures lined up to show sequence of evolution seems to be connecting dots for a picture where a pattern is perceived, to me, when it is our tendency to see patterns, and we draw conclusions from patterns we see. With millions of fossils now available is there even one case where there is a sequence shown that each species evolved right from the preceding one, one after the other, going far enough to reach another separate category, say, for an arbitrary amount to determine, a separate family? If there is anything from speciation, which I do expect, reaching beyond that from species to species to a separate category, even what would get called a separate family, that can be shown, I would like to see that, because I have not. I post here to see if there is any case of that from all the fossils that there are. If there is, certainly there was diversification from another group continuing, that would make sense. If both are shown fine, but is there even one line in sequence that can be shown?"

In what I have read in works on the subjects that are with the evolutionary perspective species, and genera, are discussed as lasting over some amount of time and not further, including the abstract that was linked to for me in another response. Of course the criteria of reproductive gene pools cannot be applied, but differentiated forms are expected, just as reproductive gene pools would not be so useful if they were not associated with any differentiated forms, different species are understood from that. And so it is understood that species are survived by other species in their place. Is it sequential for them? Maybe so. And genera are survived by other genera. And families are survived by other families. Are they all sequential, in any case that can be shown with it depicted? That is something I would like seeing, to understand anything differently.

I did go look. Perhaps I might be thought dense but I did not see it showing me there were examples of sequential species to separate genera to separate families. And I don't want to go by works either that may show me where I am wrong but can't know that. I would just want to see something for it here, where I ask, and not a sequence of very different forms being shown in a sequence.

Okay, there is corroboration if it can be disregarded that only gaps are found throughout where any sequences are shown, so that evolution to another family of species can't be shown. I still see nonbelievers coming here to mock the faith that God did things, and there is really nothing adequately showing there is no God involved. I won't bother trying to have those of you who are not believers to believe there is God, I do not think I can do that and it might not be possible to happen at all. But you have nothing for thinking you might show God was not there doing anything. There are mysteries we cannot understand, believers understand why that is, and those of you saying there is basis to say things explain themselves without God cannot show it in all things, there all the mysteries where you would still say you don't know, and you still won't, while God is dismissed, and it is not credible to hear that faith in God is not corroborated. What I see for God's work is just that God is organized in the creation, using what works well many times in different creatures, so it won't mean to me that this only corroborates evolution with no Creator.

Of course not; no-one is claiming proof or even evidence that God was not involved - it's not a falsifiable proposition.

The evolutionary claim is that the fossil record is, entirely consistent with the nested hierarchical structure of relationships and predicted by the ToE and with multiple other independent lines of evidence supporting the ToE; the position and location of previously undiscovered fossils have even been successfully predicted using the theory. The position is that God is not necessary to explain these observations.

The question for those suggesting that God-did-it is why an omnipotent entity would create something entirely consistent with the patterns that would be expected of natural evolutionary processes, from the fossil record to molecular genetics, and all the other independent lines of evidence (and including all the atavisms, vestigial organs, and oddities) that you would expect from an evolutionary process but not from a designer/creator with forethought.

Of course, there is always the GWIMW (God Works In Mysterious Ways) or HMHHR (He Must Have His Reasons) escape clauses, but they're just admissions that God-did-it is an unsubstantiated assertion lacking an explanation.

Still it would always have been explainable before the interpretation for the theory of evolution came along. It is another way in which it is being looked at, not really falsifiable either. It is just not going to consider that God would be as organized and consistent with creatures made in creation, which then shows in many ways. It is not different just because the fossils were not known earlier. Yet according to Darwin there would not be such gaps to leave doubt to any when so many millions of fossils were available to show sequences. But fossils bundle up around points, and connections to others is assumed, such that there have been punctuated equilibrium and other proposals given to explain this evidence in evolution.

No one is trying to show that God is not there. In science, the question doesn't even come up. If anything is being mocked, it is the notion that God could only have acted in accord with a literal interpretation of Genesis. And what many of us see as God's work is the marvelous process of evolution.

I mainly see atheist posters join in response, what is it about any Christian joining other atheists to argue against another Christian? Is there the right perspective leading to that, to be persuading another those saying God is not needed in such things are right?

 

[Speedwell]

I mainly see atheist posters join in response, what is it about any Christian joining other atheists to argue against another Christian? Is there the right perspective leading to that, to be persuading another those saying God is not needed in such things are right?

It is in reaction to the Big Lie of creationism propounded by the founder of modern creationism, Henry Morris: "The purpose of the theory of evolution is to deny the existence of God." That kind of conspiratorial thinking ill befits any Christian. The theory of evolution is merely a scientific theory like any other, dealing with natural phenomena like any other. To complain that it says "God is not needed" is no more justified than to make the same complaint about any other scientific theory--which I notice you are not doing. God is "not needed" in thermodynamics, electromagnetism or nuclear physics. Why are you not complaining about that?