You still did not present what has been requested - the specific evidence that one lifeform changing into another lifeform over time in the fossil record, showing the morphological details.I don't know what you mean by "morphologically detailed fossil record".
Regardless, the fossil record shows the history of life on Earth; different organisms existed in the past compared to now. And there are patterns showing morphological change over time with respect to older to newer forms of life.
On top of that, it still doesn't address the fact that modern evolutionary theory is an applied science. It's the elephant in the room no creationist wants to touch.
1. Benign mutations measurably occur, estimated to be 1-5% of mutations overall (variation in that with different species). An example in our own species that is becoming more common is one that reduces the amount of sleep a human requires every night by about 2 hours. Not only that, but the vast amount of examples seen in plant breeding for crops alone makes the presence of benign mutations indisputable.As per OP, conjecture + conjecture + conjecture .......... does not equal proof and evidence.
I actually performed an evolution experiment that resulted in the population visually changing, so I don't really see what I need to "face up" to.When will those promoting evolution to face up to this? How about you? I have in times past. When evolution was finally seen within me as a faith, not evidence based science.
It is quite remarkable the continuing replies I get but nothing on what I have clearly stated - where is the morphologically detailed fossil evidence of one lifeform changing into another lifeform over time.How many times do you have to be told that science is not in business of proving anything? Was your scientific education of such a poor standard that this point was not made? Have you failed to read and to understand the many posts, by many members, in many threads, who have made that very point? Here it is again - I've emboldened it as a hint to you that it is important - Science is not in the business of proving things.
Science seeks plausible explanations, supported by evidence and structured reasoning, for observations of events, processes, objects and entities in the world. These are then accepted as the most likely explanation for such events, etc. until such times, should they occur, that contrary information, or more informed reasoning becomes available.
The issue is one based upon your flagrant, bizarre, egregious denial of the raft of evidence that does exist. i.e. The issue is an imaginary one, formed out of your Nelsonian approach to the unwelcome. So, I have no intention of parading example after example just to have you ignore them as you have ignored, repeatedly, my request that you explain why you reject the progressive complication of ammonite sutures as evidence of evolution. (I see you have managed to ignore it again. Even those who support your views must be getting a little supsicious of your approach.)
Im not entirely sure what your getting at here, is the weird cow picture the result of a single mutation? It's been a while since I tracked down the myocine gene but an improved jaw is not the same thing as an enlarged brain. At least 60 unique brain related genes not found in chimpanzee genomes. HAR 1f allows 15 substitutions after only allowing 2 the previous 300 million years. That is not nearly as bad as the fact that there is no hominid line until 2 mya and the only transitional the previous million years is an obvious transitional to gorilla from the more gracial chimpanzee line. Then Turkaa boy shows up 100% anatomically human with a skull within the range of human variation.Hi Mark,
I was just using some of that fancy "logic" back at him.
I had asked you earlier in this thread about this - maybe you missed it (or maybe I missed your reply):
Hi Mark - hoping you can address this:
Curious as to what you expect in terms of a molecular mechanism in terms of the human brain expansion.
That is, what do you think would have been required and why do you draw that conclusion.
I have come across these sorts of debates for literally decades. And without fail, regardless of the amount of apparent scientific reasons the creationists present, it ultimately comes down to their simple refusal to accept it - they just don't believe it. But that is not an argument.
I want to know, as do, I think, all of the evolution understanders here, what, exactly, you think would have had to happen is the "naturalistic view" were accurate.
For example - there is a mutant allele for the myostatin gene that produces, naturally, giant muscles:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-jp7ZiewdHdY/TdogQbnTONI/AAAAAAAAABw/lOiFnKoV3qs/s1600/belgianblue.jpg
While I am not claiming this to be the case, why do you pre-reject something like this (I am assuming you would) in the case of human brain expansion?
That tremendous skeletal muscle expansion is the result of a single mutation. There are many known mutations/duplications and such associated with brain size. According to you, how many must there have been and how do you, especially in light of the fact that there are cases of single mutations causing pronounced changes in morphology (another example is the mutation causing familial dwarfism - and please do not complain that dwarfism and muscular cows are not evolution - that is not my point, my point is the effects of mutation on phenotype are not as 1-to-1 as so many layfolk seem to think).
-_- it's just caused by deposition of sediments on inclined surfaces like dunes by wind or water.In geology, the sedimentary structures known as cross-bedding are the (near-) horizontal units that are internally composed of inclined layers. This is a case in geology in which the original depositional layering is tilted, and the tilting is not a result of post-depositional deformation.
Did Noah's flood cause cross bedding????
View media item 60560View media item 60559
I'm just curious how young earthers explain it?-_- it's just caused by deposition of sediments on inclined surfaces like dunes by wind or water.
But they've connected the dots.Conjecture-based conclusions. Right before your eyes.
Its all very puzzling and the history of TOE as it's developed over the decades since Darwin is the stuff of conspiracy theories.
Esoteric on so many levels, profoundly philosophical in its orientation and most of you act like you've never heard of Charels Darwin or the Modenr Synthesis.
Typical, you dont know your own history. Google the Modern Synthesis and get back to me. Then you might want to read the first few paragraphs of the, 'initial Sequence of the Human Genome" 'because if you dont know Darwin and Mendel you have no clue what this is aboutUh... what?
Curious, because I find it's the opposite with creationists. They dwell on Charles Darwin and not much else in biology; especially from the 21st century.
Typical, you dont know your own history. Google the Modern Synthesis and get back to me. Then you might want to read the first few paragraphs of the, 'initial Sequence of the Human Genome" 'because if you dont know Darwin and Mendel you have no clue what this is about
I took a Biology 101 class, and you?Out of curiosity, have you ever formally studied the subject of biology and/or evolution (e.g. college)? I'd be interested to know your formal background in this.
I took a Biology 101 class, and you?
We have the fossilized remains of the different life forms preserved in the stratified layers which occurred at different eras on the timeline. It would be impossible to find the fossil of a mutated form next to it's parent.You still did not present what has been requested - the specific evidence that one lifeform changing into another lifeform over time in the fossil record, showing the morphological details.
Many on CF are failing to realize the dilemma evolution is in - lack of observable historic evidence that proves it has occurred.
Actually it's easy as Pi.It would be impossible to find the fossil of a mutated form next to it's parent.
We have the fossilized remains of the different life forms preserved in the stratified layers which occurred at different eras on the timeline. It would be impossible to find the fossil of a mutated form next to it's parent.You still did not present what has been requested - the specific evidence that one lifeform changing into another lifeform over time in the fossil record, showing the morphological details.
Many on CF are failing to realize the dilemma evolution is in - lack of observable historic evidence that proves it has occurred.
That isn't true, we have the fossils not grains of sand. You suffer from contempt prior to investigation which guarantees a life of perpetual ignorance. But we also have the graves of ancient humans.Actually it's easy as Pi.
We have what's called "graveyards" that do that very thing.
The problem is, evolution doesn't have graveyards; it has an ocean basin.
With a grain of sand here and a grain of sand there, a hundred miles away, and so on.
Then they draw lines between the grains (called "missing links"), and assume everything is interconnected.
What's an "ancient human"?But we also have the graves of ancient humans.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?