Fossil Challenge for Evolutionists

[GodsGrace101]

Many evolutionary biologists are looking into alternative versions of evolutionary theory. All of those versions, however, include universal or near-universal common descent, descent with modification, and a central role for natural selection in producing adaptive evolution.

By common descent, do you mean that man and chimpanzees, monkeys (whatever) come from a common descent...
or do you mean ALL life forms come from a common descent?

 

[Tinker Grey]

click to expand.

Please learn to use the quote function.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

By common descent, do you mean that man and chimpanzees, monkeys (whatever) come from a common descent...
or do you mean ALL life forms come from a common descent?

Definitely the first, and almost certainly the second - as I understand it, all existing life appears to share the most fundamental features (e.g. DNA) in a way that makes it very unlikely that that they originated from more than one earliest ancestor. However, it is possible that life arose more than once and only one original lineage survives.

 

[sfs]

By common descent, do you mean that man and chimpanzees, monkeys (whatever) come from a common descent...
or do you mean ALL life forms come from a common descent?

By "near-universal" common descent, I mean that, say, all eukaryotes descend from a common ancestor, and all bacteria descend from a common ancestor, and ditto for all archaea. I've never encountered any biologist who thinks there were entirely separate origins for these domains, but there is some thought that if you go back far enough life consists of a web of cells interchanging material, rather than a single universal ancestor.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Please learn to use the quote function.

I know how. It takes too long.
I don't know what the problem is....
The black is the other member.
The blue is me.
Scientifically proven to work....

 

[GodsGrace101]

Definitely the first, and almost certainly the second - as I understand it, all existing life appears to share the most fundamental features (e.g. DNA) in a way that makes it very unlikely that that they originated from more than one earliest ancestor. However, it is possible that life arose more than once and only one original lineage survives.

Oooooh!
I think we agree!
And "almost certainly" for the second means we're not sure yet. I'm good with that...

 

[GodsGrace101]

By "near-universal" common descent, I mean that, say, all eukaryotes descend from a common ancestor, and all bacteria descend from a common ancestor, and ditto for all archaea. I've never encountered any biologist who thinks there were entirely separate origins for these domains, but there is some thought that if you go back far enough life consists of a web of cells interchanging material, rather than a single universal ancestor.

I looked up what those words mean:
eukaryotes
archaea
(I knew baceria lol)

but I'm not sure what you mean....
do you mean that each different species or "type" of animal comes from a different ancestor?

IOW, these simple cell are from one origin,
more complex animals from a different origin?
etc....

 

[Tinker Grey]

I know how. It takes too long.
I don't know what the problem is....
The black is the other member.
The blue is me.
Scientifically proven to work....

Others manage. I'm sure you can.

 

[sfs]

but I'm not sure what you mean....
do you mean that each different species or "type" of animal comes from a different ancestor?

I don't what you mean by a "type". I mean that all plants, animals, fungi, and single-celled eukaryotes (slime mold, paramecium, malaria parasite, whatever) descend from a single ancestral species.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Others manage. I'm sure you can.

Is there a reason why you think I should not do this?
I really don't understand what the problem is....

 

[GodsGrace101]

I don't what you mean by a "type". I mean that all plants, animals, fungi, and single-celled eukaryotes (slime mold, paramecium, malaria parasite, whatever) descend from a single ancestral species.

I mean that, yes, I can agree with the above.
By agree I mean understand.
I can grasp what you're saying.

I cannot understand, however, that one of the above ends up being a human after millions or billions of years.

And isn't THIS what evolution means?
(that from a one celled life form we get a human).

 

[Shemjaza]

I mean that, yes, I can agree with the above.
By agree I mean understand.
I can grasp what you're saying.

I cannot understand, however, that one of the above ends up being a human after millions or billions of years.

And isn't THIS what evolution means?
(that from a one celled life form we get a human).

It seems preposterous if you just look at the end points... but aside from the evidence, each proposed step is well within what creationists like to label "That's Microevolution not Macroevolution".

Seeing a Neanderthal, Denesovan or Homo heidelbergensis as a different kind of human is easy enough... seeing Australopithecus as a weird upright ape is also straightforward.

Then you just take a look habilis, erectus and antecessor... suddenly you have a chain of animals between basal apes and modern humans.

Going further back it's easy to see the most ancient mammals blur together. It can be difficult to see distinguish early bears from early dogs, then further back cats get mixed in.

Before the dinosaurs you can examine the skeletons of creatures that have some traits that only mammals have... but are also similar to the ancient reptiles of that time.

Even further back you see fish get simpler and simpler till you have basically no bones or structure... and then the transition from colony of loosely cooperating cells to squidgy mess of an animal seems less absurd.

 

[Jimmy D]

FWIW, both courses and linked sites are linked sites, and as you admitted already, you already understood I want to do it here for several reasons....yet

I'm certain I explained more reasons why it needs to be done here in my very short and easy to understand last comment to you? What's wrong with you, are you now going to just pretend you didn't read, or missed the opposing sides posts?? And you accuse me of lying to myself? BTW, if you are going to accuse me of lying, I'd appreciate the citation first so we can see if i truly did so.

You've been playing this same silly game since at least 2016, and not once have you addressed any evidence presented to you, let alone shown the slightest interest in learning what it says.

eg : The evidence for evolution for Kenny'sID thread

Kenny'sID says:

"I don't and never will accept your evidence as reason to believe evolution is a fact. "

What are you hoping to achieve?

 

[GodsGrace101]

It seems preposterous if you just look at the end points... but aside from the evidence, each proposed step is well within what creationists like to label "That's Microevolution not Macroevolution".

Seeing a Neanderthal, Denesovan or Homo heidelbergensis as a different kind of human is easy enough... seeing Australopithecus as a weird upright ape is also straightforward.

Then you just take a look habilis, erectus and antecessor... suddenly you have a chain of animals between basal apes and modern humans.

Going further back it's easy to see the most ancient mammals blur together. It can be difficult to see distinguish early bears from early dogs, then further back cats get mixed in.

Before the dinosaurs you can examine the skeletons of creatures that have some traits that only mammals have... but are also similar to the ancient reptiles of that time.

Even further back you see fish get simpler and simpler till you have basically no bones or structure... and then the transition from colony of loosely cooperating cells to squidgy mess of an animal seems less absurd.

I don't know what this has to do with our discussion...but here's what came to mind:

5,000 years ago a man was going somewhere up in the Dolomite Mtns in Northern Italy, below Austria. He died for some reason and remained frozen in the snow until a few years ago.

At about the same time, China and Egypt had a civilized population and were bldg the pyramids.
4,000 years ago Abraham left his home in Ur and God began revealing Himself to the Hebrews.

If I found a dead man living in one of the civilized places, he'd look totally different to me...in the way he was dressed, the food he ate, items on his person.

In the movie 2001, A Space Odyssey, the monkeys in the first scene developed into the spaceman in the last scene which became the baby in space.

Man became more and more civilized and knowledgeable and aware of himself, but something always caused the "jump".

I do wonder if at some point God, or a great being, caused this same change, or "jump", in primitive man.

You don't think this is possible?

 

[sfs]

I cannot understand, however, that one of the above ends up being a human after millions or billions of years.

And isn't THIS what evolution means?
(that from a one celled life form we get a human).

That's one of the many things evolution means. We're mammals, and we share a common ancestor with other mammals (and with bananas and banana slugs). If you will recall, my point was to make clear to you that alternative evolutionary theories that biologists are proposing still include this idea of common descent -- it's been a settled scientific conclusion for a very long time now, and all the data we see continues to support it (especially the data from genetics).

 

[Shemjaza]

I don't know what this has to do with our discussion...but here's what came to mind:

5,000 years ago a man was going somewhere up in the Dolomite Mtns in Northern Italy, below Austria. He died for some reason and remained frozen in the snow until a few years ago.

At about the same time, China and Egypt had a civilized population and were bldg the pyramids.
4,000 years ago Abraham left his home in Ur and God began revealing Himself to the Hebrews.

If I found a dead man living in one of the civilized places, he'd look totally different to me...in the way he was dressed, the food he ate, items on his person.

In the movie 2001, A Space Odyssey, the monkeys in the first scene developed into the spaceman in the last scene which became the baby in space.

Man became more and more civilized and knowledgeable and aware of himself, but something always caused the "jump".

I do wonder if at some point God, or a great being, caused this same change, or "jump", in primitive man.

You don't think this is possible?

I can't rule it out, but I just don't see the historical need for the intervention.

Even in out own lifetimes we've seen unexpected changes from new uses of technology. That's what metallurgy, domestication and agriculture are, new uses of technology, but they changed everything.

The point I was trying to make is that the vast changes in human civilisation in thousands of years and in life over billions of years can both be broken down in a myriad of totally reasonable little steps with no miracles necessary to explain them.

(Before someone gets to it, for the origin of the substance of the Universe, I've got nothing. I don't find any of the options of popped out of nothing, always existed or creates itself back in time satisfactory for gods or universes. )

 

[Jimmy D]

Yes, I agree. The above image doesn't mean too much if I've understood anything. Maybe the middle van should just be a larger sedan?

Not only that, but what's the use of such an example?
MEN made the models. They were made, or crafted, by someone.

Fact that can't be denied is that nothing comes from nothing.

Well said. That's exactly what everyone's been telling him for years, he won't listen of course.

We'll make an evolutionist out of you yet!

 

[pitabread]

since we can also arrange designed objects in hierarchy- order doesnt prove evolution:

It's not the same thing. This has been explained to you repeatedly. Your claims that you can construct nested hierarchies of vehicles that mirror living hierarchies was repeatedly and thoroughly debunked.

Repeating a debunked argument doesn't make it any less debunked.

 

[xianghua]

Yes, I agree. The above image doesn't mean too much if I've understood anything. Maybe the middle van should just be a larger sedan?

Not only that, but what's the use of such an example?
MEN made the models. They were made, or crafted, by someone.

Fact that can't be denied is that nothing comes from nothing.

the image is just to show that no series of fossils can prove evolution since we cant prove that they evolved from each other.

 

[xianghua]

Evolution has been observed in labs.

be specific. are you talking about something like a cat evolveing into a dog or an ape evolving into human, or just variation of the same creature?