Evolutions "transitional forms"

[KGirl]

Now, I heard an Evolutionist say "We don't believe that humans evolved from apes anymore, what's wrong with you?". Then later another one said they did believe we evolved from them. Let me make a point..

Let's say we did evolve..
We start out
ape.. evolving ape 1.. evolving ape 2.. evolving ape 3, and 4.. evolving human.. evolving human.. then human.
(now I wouldn't know an exact number of these, but you get the idea.

Let's look at the ratio here. For every one human, you'd have to have that many more transitional forms. People may have found some fossils that resemble transitional forms, but you'd need so many more of them then the apes and people combined. Where's the evidence?

 

[Jet Black]

one doesn't need an example of every single generation. It is like join the dots... you don't need to know every point on the line in order to figure out what the picture is. one can tell from looking at the fossil record that there has been a change in (a) species over millions of years, into something that now exists.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Now, I heard an Evolutionist say "We don't believe that humans evolved from apes anymore, what's wrong with you?". Then later another one said they did believe we evolved from them. Let me make a point..

Let's say we did evolve..
We start out
ape.. evolving ape 1.. evolving ape 2.. evolving ape 3, and 4.. evolving human.. evolving human.. then human.
(now I wouldn't know an exact number of these, but you get the idea.

Let's look at the ratio here. For every one human, you'd have to have that many more transitional forms. People may have found some fossils that resemble transitional forms, but you'd need so many more of them then the apes and people combined. Where's the evidence?

Two reasons:

(1) We do not have every fossil that exists. Indeed, we probably only have only a tiny proportion. There's a lot of rock out there, much of it deep underground and unsearched.

(2) Only a tiny proportion of all the organisms that exist form fossils.

So there is no dictate about how many fossil intermediates we should find. What is devastating for creationism is that we find any at all.

 

[pureone]

For every one human, you'd have to have that many more transitional forms. People may have found some fossils that resemble transitional forms, but you'd need so many more of them then the apes and people combined. Where's the evidence?

The Humans inbetween are also transitional forms (except the lines that died out.) There is an endpoint, and a starting point. A line. each transition species is a point on that line. It only takes two points to make a line, but they now have many points. there are a few lines that come off that line as well, in other directions at different points on the line. sometimes those sidelines went somewhere, sometimes they didnt.

Oh, and there's no such thing as "evilution".

 

[ajmjforever]

Well, first of all, evolutionists certainly do not believe that humans evolved from apes, but rather that all primates including apes and humans have a common anscestor. I personally do not remember all of the information, but I studied it a few years ago because I began to see that the weight of evidence was on the side of evolution and not creation.

I can understand the deep desire to be a seperate and unique creation, because that is what makes it possible for us to have a relationship with God. However a realization that humans are an evolved species does not have to change our uniqueness. The overall message in Scripture is about a God of justice and love who brings the reconcilliation of those two characteristics in the sacrifice of His Son.

I know it is difficult to understand at what point people became creatures that have a relationship with God, but our responsibility is to understand the science that we have, which is not religious, and to have a child-like understanding of our relationship with God. Science can only produce facts, not spiritual truth. Science cannot explain to us what God was doing during evolution, but I have seen the evidence, and one of two things is true. We either evolved or God created the world to look like we did. We have found enough and seen enough, and have enough current microevolution going on around us to support the theory. This is why it is accepted among the majority of scientists around the world.

I find nothing wrong with admitting to a lack of understanding about God's original plan, but I do not find that lack of understanding important, because Scripture does not make it important. The importance of Genesis is obviously the uniqueness of man and God's special relationship with him. Scripture does not spend a great deal of time focusing on creation other than to say that God did it, and that we are the part of it that has a special relationship with him. God does not go into details about the creation of angels, other planets, start, asteroids, meteors, and other astrological and spiritual creations, yet they are. That means that its not the point. The point is the relationship.

However, I understand the need for proof, so I found a website that has a listing of all found fossils, the research behind them, and the creationists objections to them. I thought you might find it interesting.
It's called talkorigns dot org forward slash faqs forward slash homs forward slash specimen dot html.

they don't let us post websties, so I tried to put it in this way

 

[ajmjforever]

I just realized that the hosts expressed a wish not to quote talk origins. I did not realize this, however, I am not quoting the website to prove a point, because the focus of my point of view was the seperation of the spiritual with science. The information about fossil evidence is widely published enough that everyone that wishes to study it at any depth level can do so freely.

 

[Jet Black]

oh you can post talkorigins, basically it just means don't start a conversation with "lol you're all wrong and here is the proof: www.talkorigns.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html"

basically they want you to come up with arguments yourself. It isn't a very rigid rule though, since people break it all the time and get away with it.



(you can't post links because you are too new. you have to get a few posts in first, I think 15)

 

[wblastyn]

The Evolution of man:

 

[Jet Black]

Oh, and there's no such thing as "evilution".

yes there is, it is one of the opposing theories to cretinism.

 

[MartinM]

Let's say we did evolve..

We did evolve.

There, that wasn't so hard, was it?

 

[Arikay]

also another thing to point out, besides very few organisms ever becoming fossils, not all mutations or transitions deal with things that can fossilize.

 

[pureone]

I just realized that the hosts expressed a wish not to quote talk origins. I did not realize this, however, I am not quoting the website to prove a point, because the focus of my point of view was the seperation of the spiritual with science. The information about fossil evidence is widely published enough that everyone that wishes to study it at any depth level can do so freely.

Talkorg is sorta allowed because it does have a condensation and collection of things. If people need to know something or ask for info, you can send them there. people also get sent to AIG and even dr.dino and other quack sites. the arguments usually are good around here.

 

[Vance]

Just one quick point on the "evolved from apes" bit. It is true that humans did not evolve from any modern ape, but from a primate from which both modern apes and modern man descended. BUT, as one paleantologist pointed out, this is a bit disengenuous since the primate from which we involved would be described by most of us as very "ape"-like.

 

[Drotar]

Let me make a point..

Let's say we did evolve..
We start out
ape.. evolving ape 1.. evolving ape 2.. evolving ape 3, and 4.. evolving human.. evolving human.. then human.
(now I wouldn't know an exact number of these, but you get the idea.

Let's look at the ratio here. For every one human, you'd have to have that many more transitional forms. People may have found some fossils that resemble transitional forms, but you'd need so many more of them then the apes and people combined. Where's the evidence?

Hi, I'll be your strawman for this evening. Might I interest you in our special today? Jk...



Why should we expect that many more fossils from millions of years ago than there are humans alive today? On top of that we populate faster than any austrilopithecine ever could or would have, so there probably wasn't a great civilization of them anyways. Remember also that fossilization of mammals is much harder than that of aquatic creatures, simply by the issue of how fossilization occurs.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

The Evolution of man:

(Sad but true.)

 

[Jet Black]

(Sad but true.)

it misses putting on the 200 pounds and the burger boxes.

 

[Cantuar]

Now, I heard an Evolutionist say "We don't believe that humans evolved from apes anymore, what's wrong with you?".

Really? Which one, and on what basis? What did he think humans DID evolve from?

 

[Data]

Just one quick point on the "evolved from apes" bit. It is true that humans did not evolve from any modern ape, but from a primate from which both modern apes and modern man descended. BUT, as one paleantologist pointed out, this is a bit disengenuous since the primate from which we involved would be described by most of us as very "ape"-like.

Exactly. We DID evolve from a common ancestor, but that ancestor would probably have been classed as an ape.

Put it this way. If we are an ape, and chimpanzees are an ape, then surely the common ancestor between us had to be an ape? Unless miraculous convergence happened of course, but due to our genetic similarity i think we can cut that out.

 

[Vance]

Except that, depending on how you define things, we are not really an "ape". Most define hominids as something distinct from "apes" due to our bipedalism (according the recent Scientific American and Discover magazines).

 

[revolutio]

(Sad but true.)

*straightens up self-consciously*