Evolution Lesson

[Loudmouth]

What's up with this evolution thing around this forum these days?

We don't have cure for common cold, yet monkey-ancestors are explaining how we can now exactly what happend millions years ago. Maybe first create a good model for weather prediction 7 days in advance.

Or better, contact police, they could use your science when they search clues for what happened in some crime scene half an hour ago. I mean, that's going to be a piece of cake for you, you can see millions of years behind.

You don't realize we are living in a scientific fake n' stall? Science is becoming a joke, which is obvious as article-readers are discussing it so pompously.

All main technologies we have and use are almost centuries old.

Phone (1880s), computer (1940s), cars/planes (around 1900s), electricity (1880s), most medicine we commonly use (before 1940s).

With all modern medicine, best thing one can do is not to overindulge in meat, dairy and oil. That's more advanced treatment for our body than all pharma combined.

Evolutionists blab about fossils yet in almost two centuries they managed to get/create/fake/ - who knows - less then thousand "hominid" fossils scattered around the world, in somewhat decent conditions as their secret guardians say, if you don't want to count a tooth as a "hominid" fossil. It is a joke.

One of the most revered current technologies is a librarian mr. Google.

But please, tell me what happend 1.5 billion years ago, mister reader of articles and books who didn't lay eyes on one "hominid" fossil let alone examined it thoroughly, and who has no absolute proof for any "science" he is saying, for you seem to know.

You are ignoring the massive amounts of DNA evidence that has been collected over the last 20 years.

"Arguments against macroevolution, based on so-called gaps in the fossil records, are also profoundly weakened by the much more detailed and digital information revealed from the study of genomes. Outside of a time machine, Darwin could hardly have imagined a more powerful data set than comparative genomics to confirm his theory."--Dr. Francis Collins, "Faith and the Human Genome"
https://tulsa.younglife.org/Documents/Francis Collins Article on Faith_Science.pdf

I would strongly encourage all christians to read that essay. It was written by the scientist who headed the NIH Human Genome Project, and he is also a devout christian.

 

[AV1611VET]

You seriously can't tell if these are the same species or not?

If not, it would be a simple matter of making them the same; since evolution only works on paper, and even then as a game of connect-the-dots.

Simply call the one on the left a Macropus sapiens and bingo: same species.

 

[HenryM]

You are ignoring the massive amounts of DNA evidence that has been collected over the last 20 years.

"Arguments against macroevolution, based on so-called gaps in the fossil records, are also profoundly weakened by the much more detailed and digital information revealed from the study of genomes. Outside of a time machine, Darwin could hardly have imagined a more powerful data set than comparative genomics to confirm his theory."--Dr. Francis Collins, "Faith and the Human Genome"
https://tulsa.younglife.org/Documents/Francis Collins Article on Faith_Science.pdf

I would strongly encourage all christians to read that essay. It was written by the scientist who headed the NIH Human Genome Project, and he is also a devout christian.

Thank you for reference, but there are other books/papers too, with opposite conclusions.

Let's take baby steps. Give me cure for common cold first, and then I'll listen to what you have to say about what happened millions of years ago.

 

[Loudmouth]

Thank you for reference, but there are other books/papers too, with opposite conclusions.

The problem is that those opposite conclusions are not backed by evidence.

Let's take baby steps. Give me cure for common cold first, and then I'll listen to what you have to say about what happened millions of years ago.

Scientists can chew bubble gum and walk at the same time.

 

[AV1611VET]

Scientists can chew bubble gum and walk at the same time.

Brag, brag, brag.

 

[HenryM]

The problem is that those opposite conclusions are not backed by evidence.

And I thought the joke wouldn't progress. Say no more, my friend. This is ideal ending to our little exchange here.

 

[Jimmy D]

Or better, contact police, they could use your science when they search clues for what happened in some crime scene half an hour ago. I mean, that's going to be a piece of cake for you, you can see millions of years behind

Have you never seen CSI?

You don't realize we are living in a scientific fake n' stall?

Yes, I've seen those creationist websites, they've got a lot to answer for.

All main technologies we have and use are almost centuries old.

Phone (1880s), computer (1940s), cars/planes (around 1900s), electricity (1880s), most medicine we commonly use (before 1940s).

And what about the wheel? That's been around for a while!

With all modern medicine, best thing one can do is not to overindulge in meat, dairy and oil. That's more advanced treatment for our body than all pharma combined.

How is that basic dietary advice more 'advanced' treatment?

Evolutionists blab about fossils yet in almost two centuries they managed to get/create/fake/ - who knows - less then thousand "hominid" fossils scattered around the world, in somewhat decent conditions as their secret guardians say, if you don't want to count a tooth as a "hominid" fossil. It is a joke.

Fossils are rare, why is that a problem? The fossil record is consistant with what we should see if evolution is a fact. It's probably a stupid question but are you a creationist? How does the fossil record fit in with that?

One of the most revered current technologies is a librarian mr. Google.

Google is a useful search engine, maybe you should use it to find out about "hominid" fossils.

But please, tell me what happend 1.5 billion years ago, mister reader of articles and books who didn't lay eyes on one "hominid" fossil let alone examined it thoroughly, and who has no absolute proof for any "science" he is saying, for you seem to know.

"Reader of articles and books"

Your coming across as someone with a dislike (or fear) of education and progress, maybe an Amish forum would be more suitable for you.

BTW Why not ask Loudmouth about his job or qualifications before making such pronouncements about him.

 

[HenryM]

maybe an Amish forum would be more suitable for you

An atheist telling Christian, on a Christian forum, that he shouldn't be there. That's rich.

Yes, scientist is not a reader of books and articles. Scientist does science, test, measures, calculates, proves beyond shadow of doubt with measurable and provable results not opinions, theories and fakes (which were used to set evolution as "fact" and might be still used today).

But you coming from a monkey seem to have figured it all out, so what can I say except congratulations.

By the way, I wasn't talking to one person in particular. You can't comprehend forms of expression, yet you talk science? Maybe congratulations was a bit premature.

 

[HitchSlap]

An atheist telling Christian, on a Christian forum, that he shouldn't be there. That's rich.

Yes, scientist is not a reader of books and articles. Scientist does science, test, measures, calculates, proves beyond shadow of doubt with measurable and provable results not opinions, theories and fakes (which were used to set evolution as "fact" and might be still used today).

But you coming from a monkey seem to have figured it all out, so what can I say except congratulations.

By the way, I wasn't talking to one person in particular. You can't comprehend forms of expression, yet you talk science?

Are you under the impression that "science" happens in a vacuum?

 

[HenryM]

Are you under the impression that "science" happens in a vacuum?

Science doesn't happen, it's a deliberate act. I don't see it as question whether it's in a vacuum or not, but whether it's scientific action or not. Testing, measuring, calculating, proving hypothesis.

 

[HitchSlap]

Science doesn't happen, it's a deliberate act. I don't see it as question whether it's in a vacuum or not, but whether it's scientific action or not. Testing, measuring, calculating, proving hypothesis.

Is this an isolated process?

 

[Loudmouth]

An atheist telling Christian, on a Christian forum, that he shouldn't be there. That's rich.

Yes, scientist is not a reader of books and articles. Scientist does science, test, measures, calculates, proves beyond shadow of doubt with measurable and provable results not opinions, theories and fakes (which were used to set evolution as "fact" and might be still used today).

Are you saying that all of the hominid transitional fossils are fake?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Here is a curious thing, don't you find it awfully convenient that all these supposed "transitional" forms for man we got, while we have zero, for gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans, and other primates?

We do have fossils that tie in to the evolution of other apes and primates, just a quick google search and I find one within a few seconds. http://anthro.palomar.edu/earlyprimates/images/Adapiforme_fossil..jpg
Also, some of the fossils commonly associated with human evolution are also tied to the evolution of chimpanzees and other apes. We share some ancestors with them. You might not hear as much about fossil finds related more to the evolution of chimpanzees than us because we're kinda a self-centered species, and the general populace doesn't find those fossils as exciting as new dinosaurs.

Also, it seems that evolutionists see problems with this evolutionary common ancestor. Is it probable, that darwinism is indeed a relic of the past and there are glaringly noticeable holes in the theory that aren't holding up with today's science?

Of course Darwin's original theory was full of holes and misconceptions; he didn't even have DNA to work with. Did you think the theory has never been amended? Most theories in science change quite a bit over time. Consider the fact that atomic theory started with presenting the atom as just a solid sphere too small to be cut up.

As for arguments about universal common ancestors, I'm not personally a supporter of that either. You do understand that very little would change in the theory of evolution if it was demonstrated that life on Earth didn't all share a common ancestor, right? All the mechanisms of change would remain, etc.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Try to focus as I honestly want to understand your reasoning behind why you think comparing a bone is evidence for evolution.
A quick google search, there are examples of man having similar bone structures. As we all know, man have a wide range of variations of bone structures, would you agree that you are not really providing adequate reasons?

Objectively, modern humans actually don't have that much variation. It only looks like we do to members of our own species thanks to a section of brain being dedicated to using the most minute differences in the human face to tell each other apart.

Aside from a difference in jaw shape for men and women, human skulls free of disease all pretty much look the same as each other, and you'll never see a human with a skull like this

 

[HenryM]

Are you saying that all of the hominid transitional fossils are fake?

Listen, I have never seen single one. If there is a deception, not only it doesn't need all of it to be fake, but rather small yet appropriate selection would suffice.

Some notable were fakes, and although not numerous they were public and they heavily "influenced" general opinion nevertheless. I say "influenced" because those fakes were propagated through media as second coming, not by accident in my opinion.

At the same time, is there an absolute undeniable scientific proof that those fossils, which we'll presume aren't fake, are what you call transitional? Is that absolutely and positively one and only one explanation for those fossils, and has that explanation been absolutely and positively proven? As I understand, that's not the case, because there are general scientists, not laymen, who's research point to other conclusions.

On top of that, whole debate about evolution means very little. I am perfectly fine with God creating us from monkeys.

Evolution, parallel universes, multiverses and other theories don't make a difference. It could have been created by God exactly the way evolutionists explain. Maybe (probably) His time is different than ours, and what we experience in decades or centuries goes by like a moment, or faster, in God's realm. Maybe where God is there is no time as we understand it. We might think something took a lot of time to develop, but we are seeing (and living) in slow-motion compared to God.

I am merely responding to pomposity, not by you, but general, when this topic is brought up. As far as I have read about it, from different views, it's a moot point, all in all. It's a theory with added facts, and those facts can be interpreted this or that way. It could be real, evolution I mean, my personal conclusion is that it isn't.

There are some aspects of our society in the last 200 years that are also to be taken account when talking about evolution. Disregarding them wouldn't be serious, but that's topic for itself.

All in all, evolution or no, it's the same thing to me. It's just that narative about it is peppered with enough shady stuff to bring suspicion. But some people are clinging to the idea that they came from monkeys by chance. Maybe one of the reason, for some of them, I am not talking anyone in particular, is that they don't want their souls exposed. So they cling to the godless world. Tough luck. And good luck, for that matter, anybody can come around.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Listen, I have never seen single one. If there is a deception, not only it doesn't need all of it to be fake, but rather small yet appropriate selection would suffice.

As evolution is a continuous process, as I have stated before in this thread, ALL fossils are transitional by definition. You and everyone in your generation is transitional too. The change never stops. Also, some fossils (If you want to see them in person, go to a museum. If you want to consider them fake, recall that people that have been found to have faked fossils, regardless as to whether or not they did so to support evolution or something else, have their careers completely destroyed when they are found out. And they are found out, because it is impossible to fake a fossil in taking account how radiometric dating will react to the material, markings for the shaping... heck, even reshaping real fossils doesn't work thanks to lost texture and color).

Some fossils for you:
https://i.stack.imgur.com/zecLF.jpg we have more than just skulls, btw, this is just some of them.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...uine_evolution.jpg/300px-Equine_evolution.jpg for horses.

http://transact.up.n.seesaa.net/transact/image/PakicetusAetiocetusWhale_Berk.png?d=a1 for whales, I could do this all day.

 

[Loudmouth]

Listen, I have never seen single one. If there is a deception, not only it doesn't need all of it to be fake, but rather small yet appropriate selection would suffice.

Some notable were fakes, . . .

No, they weren't. Piltdown man was never notable, and Nebraska man was only claimed to be from a hominid by one scientist. All other scientists rejected Nebraska man from day one. Dart's discovery of Taung child in the early 1900's was the notable discovery, and isn't a fake.

You seem like a pretty honest guy, so a word of warning. Creationist websites are lying to you. A lot.

At the same time, is there an absolute undeniable scientific proof that those fossils, which we'll presume aren't fake, are what you call transitional?

They are absolutely transitional, but probably not in the way you think. This is where there is some serious misunderstanding between creationist circles and scientific circles. This is the definition that scientists are using:

"A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group.[1] This is especially important where the descendant group is sharply differentiated by gross anatomy and mode of living from the ancestral group. These fossils serve as a reminder that taxonomic divisions are human constructs that have been imposed in hindsight on a continuum of variation. Because of the incompleteness of the fossil record, there is usually no way to know exactly how close a transitional fossil is to the point of divergence. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that transitional fossils are direct ancestors of more recent groups, though they are frequently used as models for such ancestors.[2] "
Transitional fossil - Wikipedia

When scientists say that something is transitional they are saying that it has a specific mixture of features. They are NOT saying that the fossil is a direct ancestor of any living species. When scientists say that a fossil is transitional they are describing an observation, not a conclusion. However, since we have mountains of evidence for evolution scientists tend to treat evolution for what it is, one of the most well supported theories in science.

Creationists and the public at large usually use a different and incorrect definition. They hear transitional fossil and they think that it must be in the direct line of descent. This simply isn't true.

Is that absolutely and positively one and only one explanation for those fossils, and has that explanation been absolutely and positively proven?

Nothing is every absolutely proven, so that's a bit silly.

The whole point is that the theory of evolution predicts which transitional fossils you should see and which you should not see. The theory predicts the existence of fossils with a mixture of reptile and mammal features, but not a mix of bird and mammal features. The theory predicts the existence of fossils with a mixture of human and ape features, but not dog and ape features. What the theory predicts is a nested hierarchy, and every fossil we have fits this pattern of a nested hierarchy. That is why the fossil record evidences evolution.

As I understand, that's not the case, because there are general scientists, not laymen, who's research point to other conclusions.

Again, those creationist websites are lying to you.

On top of that, whole debate about evolution means very little. I am perfectly fine with God creating us from monkeys.

Evolution, parallel universes, multiverses and other theories don't make a difference. It could have been created by God exactly the way evolutionists explain. Maybe (probably) His time is different than ours, and what we experience in decades or centuries goes by like a moment, or faster, in God's realm. Maybe where God is there is no time as we understand it. We might think something took a lot of time to develop, but we are seeing (and living) in slow-motion compared to God.

I am merely responding to pomposity, not by you, but general, when this topic is brought up. As far as I have read about it, from different views, it's a moot point, all in all. It's a theory with added facts, and those facts can be interpreted this or that way. It could be real, evolution I mean, my personal conclusion is that it isn't.

There are some aspects of our society in the last 200 years that are also to be taken account when talking about evolution. Disregarding them wouldn't be serious, but that's topic for itself.

All in all, evolution or no, it's the same thing to me. It's just that narative about it is peppered with enough shady stuff to bring suspicion. But some people are clinging to the idea that they came from monkeys by chance. Maybe one of the reason, for some of them, I am not talking anyone in particular, is that they don't want their souls exposed. So they cling to the godless world. Tough luck. And good luck, for that matter, anybody can come around.

If you don't like the shady stuff, then stay away from the creationist websites that lie about the scientific research. Again, you seem like a really nice and honest person, so don't take this as an attack on you.

 

[tansy]

That type of diagram specifically is not a good representation of evolution. Heck, a good portion of them even put humans as evolving from chimpanzees, which is incorrect.


It is explainable, and actually rather simple. Even today, there are single celled organisms that reproduce both by "splitting into two cells" by themselves, and via sexual reproduction. Many are hermaphrodites entirely, but as can be seen in other species, the split begins with populations having ones that solely produce the "male" gametes (sex cells) mixed in with the hermaphrodites. The benefit of being male is that less energy has to be used up making sex cells, as these individuals only make one type. However, as you might note, the hermaphrodites still exist to keep reproduction going. An example of populations like that are certain stages of fern life cycles. Now, with sufficient males in the population, there can be a selective force on the remaining hermaphrodites to dedicate more of their cellular function to the female sex cells rather than making both. But, there is a give and take with that, hence why the mixed hermaphrodite and male populations still exist as well as male and female. With making male gametes, it makes it easier to spread genes without expending the energy of serving as the female, even as a hermaphrodite. However, energy is conserved far more with making only one type of sex cell. So, if conditions favor reducing energy consumption, there will be selective pressure for the remaining hermaphrodites to gradually dedicate more and more to making only the female sex cells. If conditions do not favor reducing energy consumption, then the selective pressure will be for them to remain hermaphrodites.

To summarize in brief:
1. Start with asexual reproduction
2. Sexual reproduction with hermaphrodites and asexual reproduction
3. Sexual reproduction with hermaphrodites, asexual reproduction ceases (it's less effective at producing healthy offspring, but more reliable at allowing survival when very few individuals remain in a population, hence why many organisms still use asexual reproduction)
4. Sexual reproduction with hermaphrodites and males
5. Sexual reproduction with males and females.

Ok, that seems to make some sort of sense. Thanks
However, on a human level, say, going by your above explanation, (I realise this isn't exactly the same sort of thing), but what would happen if, for example, there were gradually fewer and fewer men or fewer and fewer women? Do you think that one or the other genders might evolve so that, for example, some men would start, oh I don't know, growing female sexual reproductive organs, so that they could carry on having offspring? Or maybe, even, they could develop within themselves both sperm and ova which somehow could fertilise themselves and (the man would presumably have to have some kind of womb) and each individual could produce and give birth to a baby. And if this were to happen, would those humans actually be a different spoecies then?
Sorry I'm probably not phrasing the question very well, but I'm not up on correct terminology and am trying to get my head around how these sorts of things work.

 

[tansy]

They count as hybrids.

So a hybrid is not a species? So, that would mean some creatures are not species at all?

 

[tansy]

Mules themselves are considered species hybrids, and are not functional as a species in their own right.

This classification remains for all species hybrids, even ones that can breed, because they aren't true-breeding for the hybrid traits.

OK, but do they come under some other more general umbrella then? I don't know, 'quadruped mammals' or something.