Evolution?

[CraigBaugher]

Natural Selection, Evolution... I keep thinking, why do we never find the transitions between one form to the next. Take man... Why dont we find the transition bones of the narrowing of the hips and ribs? The slow change in skulls?

Natural selection, if a modern man was born of an neanderthal, would they not be considered a freak? Of course they would, and are not freaks out casted, of course they are... and the human baby or even child cannot survive on its own, so the freak would die, would it not?

Are we changing? Is there an evidence of change? I know we are mixing the races - white with black, with yellow, with brown, with red... But are we changing, is natural selection at work? For I still see beautiful marrying ugly, skinny with fat, tall with tiny, weak with strong, smart with dumb... Where is the natural selection?

I'm not against evolution if I could see it, but I don't see it... For me to believe in evolution, I would have to see the slow progression from one form to the next. The transitions in skull, hips, ribs, etc... All I see are big jumps, and freaks would be rejected, would they not?

 

[pgp_protector]

Why is their no transition between your parents and you ?

 

[Jester4kicks]

Natural Selection, Evolution... I keep thinking, why do we never find the transitions between one form to the next. Take man... Why dont we find the transition bones of the narrowing of the hips and ribs? The slow change in skulls?

You mean something like this?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/hominids2_big.jpg

Yeah, I don't know why we don't have anything like that.

Natural selection, if a modern man was born of an neanderthal, would they not be considered a freak? Of course they would, and are not freaks out casted, of course they are... and the human baby or even child cannot survive on its own, so the freak would die, would it not?

You might want to do some more reading on the subject before you try to use arguments like this to discredit it. You seem to be under the impression that the evolution of man occured in giant steps and produced "freak babies."

Are we changing? Is there an evidence of change? I know we are mixing the races - white with black, with yellow, with brown, with red... But are we changing, is natural selection at work? For I still see beautiful marrying ugly, skinny with fat, tall with tiny, weak with strong, smart with dumb... Where is the natural selection?

Once again, you seem to have quite a warped view of natural selection.

I'm not against evolution if I could see it, but I don't see it... For me to believe in evolution, I would have to see the slow progression from one form to the next. The transitions in skull, hips, ribs, etc... All I see are big jumps, and freaks would be rejected, would they not?

One cannot see if they refuse to open their eyes. Some reading would do you good... if for no other reason than to allow you to actually make an informed decision on the subject.

 

[Ectezus]

Hello Craig,
Good to see you want to learn more on the subject.
For starters, here's a good video explaining the ToE in just under 10 minutes.

YouTube - 7 -- The Theory of Evolution Made Easy

It lists 7 number of points. Please tell us which one (and why) you're having difficulty with or don't understand and we'll be glad to help you.

1. The Fossil Record
2. Changing morphology
3. Inherited morphology
5. Speciation
6. DNA similarities
7. Remnant genes

I await your reply.

- Ectezus

 

[AV1611VET]

Natural selection, if a modern man was born of an neanderthal, would they not be considered a freak? Of course they would, and are not freaks out casted, of course they are... and the human baby or even child cannot survive on its own, so the freak would die, would it not?

The "freak" would not necessarily die.

Back in the Old Testament times, people left their tribes for a variety of reasons:

1. Birth defects
2. Anti-social
3. Diseases
4. Lazy
5. To avoid the "draft"
6. On the run from the law
7. Old Testament "hippies"

They went and lived in caves and other communes --- just like they did in the 1960's.

Over time, and due to lack of proper medical treatment, some would develop bone diseases, and would tend to "flock together", since they had the same ailments.

Imagine an archaeologist today digging up a whole commune of those with osteolysis or melorheostosis.

 

[Ectezus]

So basically every fossil ever found that supports common ancestry is some creature with a bone disease?
If those animals with bone diseases can get fossilized you would expect to find a lot more normal fossils without bone diseases. And guess what...

- Ectezus

 

[AV1611VET]

So basically every fossil ever found that supports common ancestry is some creature with a bone disease?

I'll bet you could put every human fossil ever found in a tool shed --- a very small tool shed.

If those animals with bone diseases can get fossilized you would expect to find a lot more normal fossils without bone diseases.

Your blind spot is showing --- you're looking for animals, not humans.

And guess what...

You found a tooth and are claiming you found a whole civilization?

Complete with modern (for its time) plumbing and advanced (for its time) dentistry (since the tooth was filled in)?

 

[Ectezus]

You found a tooth and are claiming you found a whole civilization?

Lying for Jesus now? You know we've found more. And so far your only explanation is they were normal humans but with a bone disease? lol
Like I said, the percentage of bone diseases is small, if they can get fossilized we would also find many times more normal fossils of the same age without those deformities. We don't. Your idea is lacking and doesn't match reality.

- Ectezus

 

[AV1611VET]

Lying for Jesus now?

...

Like I said, the percentage of bone diseases is small...

Lying for Darwin now?

 

[Cabal]

It's funny how according to creationists, it's invariably the human mutants that get fossilised.

 

[Cabal]

Lying for Darwin now?

No.

Oh look, another one.

 

[Ectezus]

Lying for Darwin now?

According to you the percentage of bone diseases is 100% of the fossils we find. I'm pretty sure it's lower than that.

- Ectezus

 

[AV1611VET]

It's funny how according to creationists, it's invariably the human mutants that get fossilised.

You mean make the news?

Why would they put a Homo sapien sapien in lights, if they dug one up?

It's the ones they can claim they "discovered" and/or put their name on that make the news.

When was the last time someone discovered an "Aunt Suzie" and made their name in Nutional Geographic or Scientific Americant?

 

[AV1611VET]

According to you the percentage of bone diseases is 100% of the fossils we find.

I disagree --- the Homo sapien sapiens you find don't make the news --- in my opinion.

I'm pretty sure it's lower than that.

Me too.

 

[LightHorseman]

Natural Selection, Evolution... I keep thinking, why do we never find the transitions between one form to the next. Take man... Why dont we find the transition bones of the narrowing of the hips and ribs? The slow change in skulls?

Far out dude... how many examples of transitions do we have to show you and people like you before the Creationists will stop saying "there are no transitional forms ever been discovered!"

 

[LightHorseman]

You mean make the news?

Why would they put a Homo sapien sapien in lights, if they dug one up?

It's the ones they can claim they "discovered" and/or put their name on that make the news.

When was the last time someone discovered an "Aunt Suzie" and made their name in Nutional Geographic or Scientific Americant?

tty often actually...

Otze is a good one, Toland man is another... the Hegstead girl, Tut Ankh Amun, of course... how many examples of really really famous purely Homo sapiens sapiens would you like me to cite?

 

[MrGoodBytes]

The "freak" would not necessarily die.

Back in the Old Testament times, people left their tribes for a variety of reasons:

1. Birth defects
2. Anti-social
3. Diseases
4. Lazy
5. To avoid the "draft"
6. On the run from the law
7. Old Testament "hippies"

They went and lived in caves and other communes --- just like they did in the 1960's.

Over time, and due to lack of proper medical treatment, some would develop bone diseases, and would tend to "flock together", since they had the same ailments.

Imagine an archaeologist today digging up a whole commune of those with osteolysis or melorheostosis.

Except archeologists can actually differ between a non-human skeleton and a human with osteolysis. So, you're wrong.

 

[Hespera]

Craig. this is your thread. Do you want it to be about people trying to address your questions about evolution? As it is, it looks like its just another thread being hijacked into the swamp of stale recycled avquips.

 

[Cabal]

You mean make the news?

No, I meant "fossilised." Encased in sedimentary layers over long geological periods. Heard of it?

NOT making the news.

Why would they put a Homo sapien sapien in lights, if they dug one up?

It's the ones they can claim they "discovered" and/or put their name on that make the news.

New information being newsworthy? Say it ain't so!

Honestly AV, if you're going to arbitrarily claim conspiracy, at least TRY and have some evidence to back it up.

When was the last time someone discovered an "Aunt Suzie" and made their name in Nutional Geographic or Scientific Americant?

If people were discovering modern humans in ancient fossil layers, it WOULD make the news. So far, they haven't. Go figure.

By the way, making stupid puns to insult what you don't like is working about as well for you as it did for Kent Hovind. I recommend you drop it.

ETA: This thread isn't worth the derail. Bye now.

/avBSderail

 

[AV1611VET]

tty often actually...

Otze is a good one, Toland man is another... the Hegstead girl, Tut Ankh Amun, of course... how many examples of really really famous purely Homo sapiens sapiens would you like me to cite?

Fair enough then ... that further pwns Ectezus' point:

According to you the percentage of bone diseases is 100% of the fossils we find.

I'm sure though that you don't find these Homo sapien sapiens like King Tut, then call them Cro-Magnon, do you?