Evolution - the illusion of a scientific theory

[Paul of Eugene OR]

And yet every frame you find is a repeat of the same frame over and over. You should indeed marvel that that is the case!

Instead you imagine that all those missing frames are somehow different, when you only see the same frame from the very oldest one found to the last one found.

So frame 1 shows an A.

Frame 250 shows an A.

Frame 500, 2500, 6000, 50,000, etc, etc, shows an A.

You then imagine some of the others show B, and that you just can't find them.

Go figure.

Huh? You think all the fossils are the same species?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Huh? You think all the fossils are the same species?

It is a common argument made by people who have no idea about physiology

 

[Justatruthseeker]

What features would a fossil need in order for you to accept it as being transitional between modern humans and a common ancestor shared with chimps?

You could start by showing just one link between actual humans and apes.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/images/evograms/hominid_evo.jpg

Not the gap game with not named or hypothetical intermediaries. Nor misclassifying different "breeds" of humans as different species.

Just as there are many variations of cats and dogs, I have no doubt there were many variations of humans. I no more expect we appear exactly the same as the first than a poodle looks like a wolf.

But you can't throw in your imaginary missing links in cats and dogs because we know their true lineage. We know they are of the same kind, just different "breeds" or variations thereof.

I only expect the application of direct observation, to other kinds in the past, instead of imaginary processes never once observed.

 

[PsychoSarah]

You could start by showing just one link between actual humans and apes.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/images/evograms/hominid_evo.jpg

Not the gap game with not named or hypothetical intermediaries. Nor misclassifying different "breeds" of humans as different species.

Just as there are many variations of cats and dogs, I have no doubt there were many variations of humans. I no more expect we appear exactly the same as the first than a poodle looks like a wolf.

But you can't throw in your imaginary missing links in cats and dogs because we know their true lineage. We know they are of the same kind, just different "breeds" or variations thereof.

I only expect the application of direct observation, to other kinds in the past, instead of imaginary processes never once observed.

Comment, chimps and humans never directly split from each other, there were intermediate species that did that.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Huh? You think all the fossils are the same species?

Show me a cat that isn't a Felidae, despite the myriad of "breeds" that exist??????

Show me a dog that isn't a Canidae, despite the myriad of "breeds" that exist?

Show me an E. coli that isn't an E. coli, despite the myriad "strains" that exist?

I think it is you that confuses the same species with other species.

Just the tip of the proverbial iceberg is all.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Comment, chimps and humans never directly split from each other, there were intermediate species that did that.

Then show em, don't ask me to pretend they exist. Are you asking me to have "faith" in something never once observed???? Are you relying on the imaginary gap game for that claim?

 

[Loudmouth]

No, you found different "breeds" of humans (just like cats and dogs), with some chimp, ape and orangutang skulls thrown in to boot. Gotta make it look good after all.

None of those are chimps or orangutans, and none of them are within the variation of H. sapiens. You fail on both accounts.

Half of them you need to remove anyways. You of course misclassified them, just like you did with the dinosaurs.

Multiple individuals from the same transitional species are still transitional. H. erectus is a transitional species. Adding more individuals to the species does not stop them from being transitional.

More than "species" does, since you can't seem to get things right,

Already got it right. Separate species are populations that do not interbreed.

And still list two Felidae as separate species even when they interbreed and produce fertile offspring.

They don't interbreed in the wild at a rate needed to significantly change the gene pool of either species. They are separate species because their gene pools are isolated from one another.

A totally arbitrary classification that has nothing to do with one animal evolving from another, even in your theory. After all, did not mammals evolve from fish? Or are all the links just unknown, just lines on a piece of paper and not named?

Mammals evolved from jawed vertebrates, and they are still jawed vertebrates.

Also, there are several known transitional tetrapods.

The origin of tetrapods

http://genome.cshlp.org/content/17/6/760/F1.large.jpg

No, the name game, that's your game.

Every time you say, "It's still a ___blank____" you are playing the name game.

Humans don't share ancestry with any mammals, but humans. Cats only with Felidae, Canidae only with Canidae. You can't find a cat or dog skeleton that isn't a cat or dog. And then the waving of hands, and the imaginary gap game will begin.

We have already seen what you do when you are shown the fossils that do fill the gaps.

"No, you found different "breeds" of humans (just like cats and dogs), with some chimp, ape and orangutang skulls thrown in to boot. Gotta make it look good after all."

Except you have never observed anything but turning on or off what was already there, or re-arranging what was already there.

All you need is re-arranging to produce both the chimp and human genomes from a common ancestor.

All you have ever observed is variation amongst the same kind.

And there is the name game.

It produces the "illusion" of a nested hierarchy, easily mistaken by some as meaning evolution when applied to non-living fossils of which nothing is known. Hence the original OP.

It isn't an illusion. The nested hierarchy is real.

Why would being made out of the same elements from the periodic table cause life to fall into a nested hierarchy? Please explain. Why would it cause the distribution of orthologous ERV's to produce a nested hierarchy?

So why wouldn't using what already existed show a hierarchy, when it is clearly evident in the different breeds of dogs and cats, that are each and every one of them still Felidae and Canidae?

You do realize that they form that nested hierarchy because they share a common ancestor, right?

 

[Loudmouth]

Show me a cat that isn't a Felidae, despite the myriad of "breeds" that exist??????

Show me why evolution would cause a new species to not be in the Felidae clade.

Do you know how cladistics and evolution works? You never evolve out of your ancestry. If evolution is true, then new species will stay in the Felidae clade, and if that clade is successful then it will increase in the number of species and variation between those species over time.

 

[Naturalism]

You could start by showing just one link between actual humans and apes.

They have shown you ERV's. To which you spat out totally unrelated statements about electrons, or something.

Just as there are many variations of cats and dogs, I have no doubt there were many variations of humans. I no more expect we appear exactly the same as the first than a poodle looks like a wolf.

So creationist goes like this.

We know there is some intrinsic variation in species and thus we can observe this as many variations of cats and dogs exist now. More importantly though these modern variations are derived from basal forms (ancestors) where they share a common ancestry (e.g wolves > dogs).

This sort of derived variation however is not allowed for humans as although you see humans have a lot in common genetically and morphologically with other Primates & there is fossil and genetic evidence supporting their shared ancestry, it just cannot be for the consequence of faith wont let it be so!

But you can't throw in your imaginary missing links in cats and dogs because we know their true lineage. We know they are of the same kind, just different "breeds" or variations thereof.

Yes, H. Sapiens are basically a different breed of Great Ape.

 

[Loudmouth]

You could start by showing just one link between actual humans and apes.

You need to define what you require of that link before I can look for one.

You need to list criteria that you use to differentiate between a transitional and a variation of a living species.

Not the gap game with not named or hypothetical intermediaries. Nor misclassifying different "breeds" of humans as different species.

Why would multiple examples from the same transitional species stop them from being transitional?

 

[justlookinla]

Comment, chimps and humans never directly split from each other, there were intermediate species that did that.

Prove it.

 

[Naturalism]

None of those are chimps or orangutans

no, A is a chimpanzee dude.

29 Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1

 

[Loudmouth]

Prove it.

What features would a fossil need to have in order for you to accept it as being transitional between modern humans and a common ancestor shared with apes?

 

[Loudmouth]

no, A is a chimpanzee dude.

29 Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1

That is true. I guess I should have been careful to say that none of the proposed transitionals are chimps.

 

[Naturalism]

Show me a cat that isn't a Felidae, despite the myriad of "breeds" that exist??????

Show me a dog that isn't a Canidae, despite the myriad of "breeds" that exist?

Snipped nonsense...

You're really not making any sense.

Asking for a dog that is not a canidae is literally like asking for a dog that is not a dog. Or even a dog that is not a mammal, or a dog that is not a mammal and vertebrate, or a dog that is not a mammal, and a vertebrate.

 

[Naturalism]

Some vids I made back a few years ago on some of the fossils for hominids at the time.

Evidence for Evolution - Hominid Fossils Pt.1 - YouTube

Evidence for Evolution - Hominid Fossils Pt.2 - YouTube

 

[USincognito]

Huh? You think all the fossils are the same species?

Show me a cat that isn't a Felidae, despite the myriad of "breeds" that exist??????

Show me a dog that isn't a Canidae, despite the myriad of "breeds" that exist?

Show me an E. coli that isn't an E. coli, despite the myriad "strains" that exist?

Non sequitur.

I think it is you that confuses the same species with other species.

Horner's opinion on Triceratops isn't held by all paleontologists. You have been corrected on that previously, but just as with the mutation breeding paper you keep spamming, you don't understand the objections nor wish to acknowledge their existence.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Prove it.

-_- I just stated the position evolution takes on the matter, do you want me to prove that this is the current position the theory has?

 

[Mediate]

Show me a cat that isn't a Felidae, despite the myriad of "breeds" that exist??????

Show me a dog that isn't a Canidae, despite the myriad of "breeds" that exist?

Show me an E. coli that isn't an E. coli, despite the myriad "strains" that exist?

I think it is you that confuses the same species with other species.

Just the tip of the proverbial iceberg is all.

If you're unwilling to accept categorization of different species, and have no problem changing goalposts between species and family (several steps apart), then let's look at this from a purely genetic standpoint.

Humans and certain apes share 96% of the same genetic code, with chimps it's 90%, with mice, 88%, with cows, 85%, with dogs, 84%, with zebra fish, 74%, with platypi, 69%, with chicken, 65%, with fruit flies, 47%, with honey bees, 44%, with round worms, 38%, with wine grapes, 24%, and with yeast 18%.

If I were to say to you, that which shares 96% of human DNA is the same as that which shares 88% percent of human DNA, that would be something like what you're saying. 'Show me a human that isn't a human'.

The facts are these. From apes, through the various species that came after them, but before modern homo-sapiens, the gene commonality between them and homo sapiens increases with time. In otherwords, as certain apes genetic code (but not all apes') changed to bring Sahelanthropus, and certain Sahelanthropus (but not all Sahelanthropus) changed to bring Aripithicus, the same to the Austrelopithicines, to Homo Habilis, branching to Homo Erectus, branching to Homo denisova, Homo floresiensis and Homo neanderthalensis, and other isolated groups of Homo heidelbergensis, Homo rhodesiensis and Homo antecessor coming together, interbreeding, leading to the evolution of small groups of early Homo Sapiens who interbred with the most modern Neanderthals and possibly Denisovans, leading to further increased gene pools, leading to eventual brain mutations that led to the extinction of other human species because of the arrival of us, Homo Sapiens Sapiens, there is an increase in the genetic commonalities. As time progressed, homonid genes became more and more like anatomically modern humans'.

Some of these species in close geological layers look very similar, but others in further apart geological layers look much more different. Those closer to the geological columns of the earliest apes look more like apes, those closer to today look more like humans. And ape skeletons, geologically, in layers, come before Homo Erectus, who come before Homo Sapiens, etc. So we know that humans didn't exist at the time of the first apes.

I challenge you to explain all that with a 6000 year old Earth and a creation model wherein only days separate humans and apes.

Not even all humans share the same genetic code. We classify humans in one species because we are sufficiently similar in physical characteristics to be grouped as a similar species able to breed with one another, but our code is on average around 99.5%, with similar races in similar geographical locations sharing more similar genes than different races on different continents.

Chinese share a considerably larger amount of their genetic code with Desonivans than European Caucasians, who share a considerably larger amount with Neanderthals than African natives. Our intelligence is varied, our genes, antibodies, immunities are varied, our intelligence, at least academically, is varied. We are all unique and ever evolving and changing.

Look at the growth in human intelligence in only the last 200 or so years. We generally don't run around burning witches any-more, yet in the til-recently-isolated gene pools of New Guinea, a practically lawless state, many humans still run around burning witches.

 

[StormanNorman]

No, you found different "breeds" of humans (just like cats and dogs), with some chimp, ape and orangutang skulls thrown in to boot. Gotta make it look good after all.

Several of those skulls have brain cases that are at most half the size of a modern human's; they are not different breeds of humans. Find me a "breed" of human today that has half the brain size of another human.