Evolution Lesson

[John Hyperspace]

We do know how to define species, and we have shown you how it is done.

In relation to past 'species' you seem to be defining the word as a 'morphology' which is going to need to be defined by criteria. If you don't define morphological criteria for distinguishing between different 'species' then all past organisms are all the same 'species' since they all have morphology. If you define the morphological criteria for distinguishing between 'species' as 'I look at them and decide based on my subjective decision' then your morphological definition is circular and becomes "It is because I say so" which is not evidenced data at all, but a personal opinion. In this case, your hypothesis that 'one species turned into another species' has no evidential support and should be rejected.

 

[Loudmouth]

In relation to past 'species' you seem to be defining the word as a 'morphology' which is going to need to be defined by criteria.

I also defined morphology.

If you don't define morphological criteria for distinguishing between different 'species' then all past organisms are all the same 'species' since they all have morphology.

I also did that with respect to H. erectus and H. sapiens.

If you define the morphological criteria for distinguishing between 'species' as 'I look at them and decide based on my subjective decision' then your morphological definition is circular and becomes "It is because I say so" which is not evidenced data at all, but a personal opinion. In this case, your hypothesis that 'one species turned into another species' has no evidential support and should be rejected.

I can show you that the eye brow ridges on H. erectus are larger than those on H. sapiens. It is an objective measure that even you can verify.

 

[John Hyperspace]

Morphology is the observation. Morphology is the shape of organisms body.

Yes, morphology is shape. Morphology doesn't evidence that one thing has become another 'morphology'; based upon your criteria, morphology may be able to disntiguish between two different 'species/shapes' but evidences no process of 'one shape turning into another shape'

I have also given you the example of H. erectus and H. sapiens (post 80). I pointed to the morphological differences. Perhaps you could address that post.

I'll go back and look at it.

I think I already covered that in post 60:

You can't, unless you can extract DNA from the fossils. Only DNA can give you direct evidence of ancestry and relatedness.

What we can do is test hypotheses.

You can't test a hypothesis until the terms are defined. So far 'species' is neing defined as 'shape' which is a general definition that applies to everything in existence.

Darwin put it a bit differently:

In looking for the gradations by which an organ in any species has been perfected, we ought to look exclusively to its lineal ancestors; but this is scarcely ever possible, and we are forced in each case to look to species of the same group, that is to the collateral descendants from the same original parent-form, in order to see what gradations are possible, and for the chance of some gradations having been transmitted from the earlier stages of descent, in an unaltered or little altered condition.
The Origin of Species: Chapter 6

Before we can "look for lineal ancestors" we have to first have evidence that such a concept is actually viable. The book is called "origin of species" but so far I'm not sure anyone knows what a 'species' actually means in relation to the hypothesis in the book itself. "Origin of shapes"?

 

[John Hyperspace]

I also defined morphology.

Yes, you defined morphology as 'looks different'; I'm not sure this is a good way to reason. I know people who look different, does that make them different 'species' by morphological definition? Are the two people in my profile picture different 'species'?

I also did that with respect to H. erectus and H. sapiens.

I can show you that the eye brow ridges on H. erectus are larger than those on H. sapiens. It is an objective measure that even you can verify.

Okay I look at the post and they look different. Most things do. So you've supported that things look different; i.e. there are different 'species/shapes': I don't really think anyone with vision would disagree there are different shapes in reality. Now about the hypothesis 'one shape turned into another shape' is what we're really wanting to evidence, true?

 

[Abraxos]

I can show you that the eye brow ridges on H. erectus are larger than those on H. sapiens. It is an objective measure that even you can verify.

Obviously you haven't seen Steven Adams brow. Apparently, it is prominent with some ethnic groups and depends on the growth hormones as seen in dwarfism. But why is this evidence for evolution? It is a normal and often seen variation of peoples bone structures.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes, morphology is shape. Morphology doesn't evidence that one thing has become another 'morphology';

However, it does establish that they are different species, which is what you have been asking for.

You can't test a hypothesis until the terms are defined. So far 'species' is neing defined as 'shape' which is a general definition that applies to everything in existence.

In general, you already categorize things into categories based on their shape. When you organize a silverware drawer I bet you put similarly shaped objects in the same slot in the drawer, don't you? When we characterize the types of teeth in our mouth we categorize them by their shape. When we categorize cookware we categorize them by their shapes, be it pans, pots, or dishes.

You asked for the definition, and it has been given. It would seem that you are just determined to be believe that there is no definition for species, even in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary.

Before we can "look for lineal ancestors" we have to first have evidence that such a concept is actually viable. The book is called "origin of species" but so far I'm not sure anyone knows what a 'species' actually means in relation to the hypothesis in the book itself. "Origin of shapes"?

Yep, no definition of species in this thread . . .

 

[Loudmouth]

Obviously you haven't seen Steven Adams brow. Apparently, it is prominent with some ethnic groups and depends on the growth hormones as seen in dwarfism. But why is this evidence for evolution? It is a normal and often seen variation of peoples bone structures.

Please show us a skeleton with these ridges alongside an H. erectus skull. Also show us the height of the cranium and forehead, the chin, and the prominence of the jaw. Last I checked, Steven Adams has the same chin process that all anatomically modern humans have, and that no H. erectus has.

 

[John Hyperspace]

However, it does establish that they are different species, which is what you have been asking for.



In general, you already categorize things into categories based on their shape. When you organize a silverware drawer I bet you put similarly shaped objects in the same slot in the drawer, don't you? When we characterize the types of teeth in our mouth we categorize them by their shape. When we categorize cookware we categorize them by their shapes, be it pans, pots, or dishes.

You asked for the definition, and it has been given. It would seem that you are just determined to be believe that there is no definition for species, even in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary.



Yep, no definition of species in this thread . . .

You're entirely misunderstanding, I'm not saying there is no definition of 'species' being given; I am saying there is no definition of 'species' being given that allows us to meaningfully determine differences in relation to the proposition. Imagine me saying to you "Go get me a trionel" and you ask "What is the definition of a trionel?" and I reply "A trionel is a shape; now you have your definition, go and find one": is the definition a definition? It is, but it is not a meaningful definition. The fact that you offer a meaningless definition, and then seem to believe it is an adequate definition for a scientific term, is, specious understanding at best.

 

[Abraxos]

Please show us a skeleton with these ridges alongside an H. erectus skull. Also show us the height of the cranium and forehead, the chin, and the prominence of the jaw. Last I checked, Steven Adams has the same chin process that all anatomically modern humans have, and that no H. erectus has.

All you need are photos.

Again, why is a protruding brow ridge evidence for evolution in your mind?

 

[Loudmouth]

You're entirely misunderstanding, I'm not saying there is no definition of 'species' being given; I am saying there is no definition of 'species' being given that allows us to meaningfully determine differences in relation to the proposition.

I have already given you that very definition. Go look at the post on H. erectus and H. sapiens.

 

[Loudmouth]

All you need are photos.

None of which meet the criteria.

None of the photos you have given match H. erectus. All of the photos of modern humans have the chin process. All of the photos of modern humans have a high forehead. None of them match H. erectus.

 

[John Hyperspace]

I have already given you that very definition. Go look at the post on H. erectus and H. sapiens.

Well you won then. There are different shapes and things look different, and so things with different shapes turned into one another. Makes perfect sense. Why did I ever question anything? Apologies. But the good news is that my hypothesis that people emerged from rocks is verified by the fact that they have different shapes. See you in the science journals.

 

[Loudmouth]

Well you won then. There are different shapes and things look different, and so things with different shapes turned into one another. Makes perfect sense. Why did I ever question anything? Apologies. But the good news is that my hypothesis that people emerged from rocks is verified by the fact that they have different shapes. See you in the science journals.

I am still left wondering what creationists are asking for when they ask for a transitional fossil. Could you help me with that?

 

[Abraxos]

Yep, no definition of species in this thread . . .

'Species' is a manmade word, and boundaries between species is often blurry.

Charles Darwin even said, "I was much struck how entirely vague and arbitrary is the distinction between species and varieties."

The word is used in multiple ways. Geologists they tend to separate fossils into different species based on the way they look, but biologists sometimes say it's the same species if they can interbreed regardless on how they look.

One example we have is the Land Iguanas and Marine Iguanas. They look different, act different, they live in different environments, they eat different things; they have been labeled two distinct different species by evolutionists and they claim that they have been separated for millions of years - yet they can interbreed.

None of which meet the criteria.

None of the photos you have given match H. erectus. All of the photos of modern humans have the chin process. All of the photos of modern humans have a high forehead. None of them match H. erectus.

Though I do not put much stock into an artist's illustration as evidence for anything (and neither should you), the picture I had provide of the H. Erectus was from a rather well known source: the Smithsonian National Museum of History. Are there now different interpretations on the H. Erectus? Because this picture you have shown are remarkably and radically different.

You still haven't provided an answer to my question on comparative anatomy.

 

[John Hyperspace]

I am still left wondering what creationists are asking for when they ask for a transitional fossil. Could you help me with that?

You'd have to ask them that question. I have no idea how they define it. Does it matter though? Since now I know people came right out of rocks, there should be no transition from one to the other: it was straight from rock to people.

 

[Loudmouth]

One example we have is the Land Iguanas and Marine Iguanas. They look different, act different, they live in different environments, they eat different things; they have been labeled two distinct different species by evolutionists and they claim that they have been separated for millions of years - yet they can interbreed.

1. Why can't two species separated by millions of years be capable of interbreeding?

2. Just because they can interbreed does not mean they do interbreed. The absence of gene flow is what defines species, not the possibility of gene flow.

Though I do not put much stock into an artist's illustration as evidence for anything (and neither should you), the picture I had provide of the H. Erectus was from a rather well known source: the Smithsonian National Museum of History. Are there now different interpretations on the H. Erectus? Because this picture you have shown are remarkably and radically different.

The model is based on the actual fossil. We can use the fossil if you like, but it shows the same thing. It shows a forehead that slopes straight back from the brow ridges. The modern human photos you showed us have high foreheads. All of the modern humans have jaws almost directy below their nose. H. erectus does not. Modern humans have a "scoop" on their chin that shoots forward. The chin of H. erectus is smooth and lacks this process. All of the photos of modern humans have this forward jutting process on their chin.

You still haven't provided an answer to my question on comparative anatomy.

A strong brow ridge is a feature found in other apes, but not in modern humans. A mixture of ape and human features is what evidences evolution.

 

[Loudmouth]

You'd have to ask them that question. I have no idea how they define it. Does it matter though? Since now I know people came right out of rocks, there should be no transition from one to the other: it was straight from rock to people.

It is true. Creationists do think that people came from rocks.

However, evolutionists propose that humans evolved from a common ancestor shared with other apes.

 

[Loudmouth]

You'd have to ask them that question. I have no idea how they define it. Does it matter though? Since now I know people came right out of rocks, there should be no transition from one to the other: it was straight from rock to people.

I forgot one question. Are you capable of determining if these are two different species?

What criteria do you use to determine if these are different species?

 

[John Hyperspace]

It is true. Creationists do think that people came from rocks.

However, evolutionists propose that humans evolved from a common ancestor shared with other apes.

Well it would seem both hypothesis are actually theories since both share the exact same evidenced data of "different things have different shapes" and you've confessed that this fact allows the evidenced conclusion that "different things with different shapes became the other different shape" - unless, you're having second thought on that logic?

Obviously, I would call this blatant illogic; but if we go by your system of deduction, it's now theory for both parties, and we can't discern which is the stronger theory since both have the evidence of "different shapes"

 

[Speedwell]

​

So there's no concrete proof that any species has ever evolved into another species? We only have observations that these fossils look similar so it's deemed that one is evolving into the other? Interesting.

​

You keep going back to that--it's become something of a straw man for you. No, it's not just "looking similar" with fossils--as has been explained to you. And, no, speciation has been observed in living creatures as well as being imputed to fossilized creatures.

So why is this important to you? Do you believe that speciation cannot occur?