Macroevolution:

[OldWiseGuy]

Who programmed them? Who is this "evolution" person that did all this programming?

Why are humans.... the most intelligent of all "evolved" organisms..... the ones who have the ability to eradicate the whole planet......the ones with the very least and an absolute pathetic amount of this "evolution programmed" behavior patterns?

You don't leave home until 18 years.

Cannot walk for a year.

Cannot clean them selves after going to the washroom or even control their bladder or colon until three years.

Pretty much need our parents continually for 10 years.

Think we know everything by 18.

Sheesh.... you would have thunk we would have at least learned to fly... who would not be in a better spot if we could fly.... but no..... we cannot evolve to fly... we had to build a machine to do it for us..

Same with swimming the ocean.. that would have been nice too..

Sorry, I'll stick with the fact that God made us. Made each creature, just as He wanted it to be.. and:

Saw that it was GOOD.

True. Man is the biggest contradiction in the natural world.

 

[Speedwell]

Yea that must be the missing link , now go first claim you 1M $ reward for proving evolution so we finally can call theory of evolution a law .

"Theories" don't become "laws" they are two different epistemological categories.

 

[tevans9129]

In the case of the Wikipedia article I posted, a whole gamut of extinct species are covered, including from Kenyanthropus platyops (3.5 million years ago) to homo sapiens (present day).

However, I am sure you have a convenient pile of sand, all ready for you to bury your head in.

Thanks for clearing that up for me, it certainly answered my question...

"Great, can you provide evidence of what those images "transitioned from and to?"

[Leakey (2001) proposes that the fossil represents an entirely new hominin species and genus, while others classify it as a separate species of Australopithecus, Australopithecus platyops, and yet others interpret it as an individual of Australopithecus afarensis."

Yep, that tells me exactly what was transitioned from those skull images. Although, it seems to me that even science cannot agree..."hominin species and genus... Australopithecus...Australopithecus platyops...Australopithecus afarensis"

Apparently, everyone did not attend the same class. But we are assured that those skulls are images of transitional fossils. What was that you were saying about a sand pile?

 

[tevans9129]

how it could have happened:

There are many others that have a different answer as to "how it could have happened". I am curious as to how science knows exactly how it happened billlllions and billllions of years ago but cannot answer how it began. If someone is going to teach others how to build a house, do they start with the floor? If someone is going to teach others about evolution, should they start with the "floor" or the foundation?

 

[tevans9129]

What kind of career was that?

Microwave radio, digital radio, fiber optics transmission, electronic switching, unless of course, if a person is not a biology major it is not really science, which I have been told in the past.

 

[lesliedellow]

Thanks for clearing that up for me, it certainly answered my question...

"Great, can you provide evidence of what those images "transitioned from and to?"

[Leakey (2001) proposes that the fossil represents an entirely new hominin species and genus, while others classify it as a separate species of Australopithecus, Australopithecus platyops, and yet others interpret it as an individual of Australopithecus afarensis."

Yep, that tells me exactly what was transitioned from those skull images. Although, it seems to me that even science cannot agree..."hominin species and genus... Australopithecus...Australopithecus platyops...Australopithecus afarensis"

Apparently, everyone did not attend the same class. But we are assured that those skulls are images of transitional fossils. What was that you were saying about a sand pile?

We don't have to rely upon fossil evidence to build a faily tree of species. Today we can use modern genetics to do that, and it just so happens that the tree so constructed corresponds almost exactly with the tree which was previously constructed on the basis of fossil evidence.

 

[Speedwell]

There are many others that have a different answer as to "how it could have happened". I am curious as to how science knows exactly how it happened billlllions and billllions of years ago but cannot answer how it began. If someone is going to teach others how to build a house, do they start with the floor? If someone is going to teach others about evolution, should they start with the "floor" or the foundation?

Sophistry. You exaggerate the certainty with which scientific theories are presented and then fault science for it. You blame evolution for not being able to explain abiogenesis, but you have no explanation of your own. You whine about science not knowing what happened before the big bang when you don't know, either. What's your point?

 

[Obliquinaut]

I believe in lots of science, just not evolution

How do you choose which science you believe and which you don't?

I assume you believe in chemistry, but do you really understand quantum mechanics?

You misread. I do find medicine and biology beneficial.

So you just choose to ignore the stuff that actually informs that science because you don't have to worry about it?

I dissected a frog in HS biology but it didn't convince me of evolution. I gut deer all the time and don't see evolution. I see a wonderful well-planned system.

So you don't see any commonality in organs in those things?

Do you suppose that your uninformed view of the function of a deer liver is the same as a professional biologist's view?

It's all about how universal one believes their personal ignorance actually is I guess. If you assume that your incredulity is somehow dispositive of the value of a given science that you are not trained it it is very convenient for you that science doesn't care much about your opinion. But you should definitely hope that the scientists who serve you care about understanding that science.

 

[Obliquinaut]

Well, if your comfortable with all that.....

I've got a PhD in geology so, yeah, I'm comfortable with all that.

For me, it's simple, God did it just the way He said He did. And "it was Good".

That's fine. So long as you don't have any real curiosity about things it works. Doesn't provide any real information, but it works.

I just sat through the total eclipse here in Oregon. Pretty amazing. And more amazing because science helped us know down to the SECOND when it was going to hit totality here...and WHY. It's pretty amazing to understand why something happens, but I also understand a lot of people prefer the God-Did-It reason. Just a pro-tip, God didn't blot out the sun today, that was the moon. But I'm sure God does all the things you don't necessarily understand.

 

[Obliquinaut]

Now that I can understand...you have no answer for my question

I merely point out that you were given the exact information you requested...the fact that you don't understand that your simple request of a picture doesn't show the whole thing is the most telling.

You see Creationists always seem to think Science is like some Golden Book for Children. It isn't. It requires a lot of work to understand what's under the hood.

You asked for a picture. I gave you a picture. You will have to take a paleontology class, a biology class and spend some time READING ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE.

Five paragraphs to answer "no" to the question.

I can't make you learn anything. YOU will have to do what we all did: take classes and read science. Sorry to put it to you. You've probably been given a billion individual pieces of evidence for evolution which you blew right by (all Creationists do so) because it wasn't drawn out like a little kids book.

Here you go in case you've never actually spoken to anyone about evolution and your googling fingers are broken:

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

 

[Obliquinaut]

My entire career was in the field of "science"

Yet you've never seen any evidence for evolution? And you think that a single picture of a fossil (per your request) is going to prove evolution to you? May I ask what science specifically?

Surely it isn't related to biology, geology, paleontology, genetics, or biochemistry, right?

 

[Obliquinaut]

actually any fossil cant be evidence for evolution. because we can arrange many objects (like cars) in hierarchy.:

In evolution we arrange them according to WHEN THEY SHOW UP IN THE FOSSIL RECORD. That's, pardon the pun, "carved in stone". So, no, we can't really just move 'em around to make a nice picture.

 

[tevans9129]

Well, this certainly leaves no doubt in my mind of life evolving from nothing. An excerpt, words bolded for emphasis.

“It was first suggested in the 1920s that simple organic molecules could form and spontaneously polymerize into macromolecules under the conditions thought to exist in primitive Earth's atmosphere. At the time life arose, the atmosphere of Earth is thought to have contained little or no free oxygen, instead consisting principally of CO2 and N2 in addition to smaller amounts of gases such as H2, H2S, and CO…Although Miller's experiments did not precisely reproduce the conditions of primitive Earth, they clearly demonstrated the plausibility of the spontaneous synthesis of organic molecules, providing the basic materials from which the first living organisms arose.


The Origin and Evolution of Cells - The Cell - NCBI Bookshelf

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, this certainly leaves no doubt in my mind of life evolving from nothing. An excerpt, words bolded for emphasis.

“It was first suggested in the 1920s that simple organic molecules could form and spontaneously polymerize into macromolecules under the conditions thought to exist in primitive Earth's atmosphere. At the time life arose, the atmosphere of Earth is thought to have contained little or no free oxygen, instead consisting principally of CO2 and N2 in addition to smaller amounts of gases such as H2, H2S, and CO…Although Miller's experiments did not precisely reproduce the conditions of primitive Earth, they clearly demonstrated the plausibility of the spontaneous synthesis of organic molecules, providing the basic materials from which the first living organisms arose.


The Origin and Evolution of Cells - The Cell - NCBI Bookshelf

So you have a problem with honesty and you decided to believe a source that has been shown to be wrong and is supported by liars.

Does that make any sense to you at all?

 

[tevans9129]

We don't have to rely upon fossil evidence to build a faily tree of species. Today we can use modern genetics to do that, and it just so happens that the tree so constructed corresponds almost exactly with the tree which was previously constructed on the basis of fossil evidence.

"Great, can you provide evidence of what those images "transitioned from and to?"

How does your response have any relativity whatsoever to my question? Did I ask you about the tree, did I ask you about genetics, did I even ask you about "the basis of fossil evidence"?

Can you or can you not answer the question just as it was asked? I am not looking for a science lesson or a lecture, just a simple answer to my question.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Microwave radio, digital radio, fiber optics transmission, electronic switching, unless of course, if a person is not a biology major it is not really science, which I have been told in the past.

The reason that you were not in the field of science is because you were not learning and forming new discoveries of your own. It sounds like you had an engineering career. That is applied science. You only needed some fairly basic Newtonian physics for that. And perhaps just a touch of quantum mechanics if you want to understand how transistors work.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I assume you believe in chemistry, but do you really understand quantum mechanics?

Am I supposed to understand these things?

So you just choose to ignore the stuff that actually informs that science because you don't have to worry about it?

How much attention should I be paying to the things that inform science. Do you have a list?

So you don't see any commonality in organs in those things?

It is the commonality that supports a common design and a common creator.

Do you suppose that your uninformed view of the function of a deer liver is the same as a professional biologist's view?

Does science know the approximate distance from a tree stand a curious deer will approach, and how long it will remain before moving away? (This is important stuff.)

My knowledge of a deer's liver function is well enough informed, thank you.

It's all about how universal one believes their personal ignorance actually is I guess. If you assume that your incredulity is somehow dispositive of the value of a given science that you are not trained it it is very convenient for you that science doesn't care much about your opinion. But you should definitely hope that the scientists who serve you care about understanding that science.

Scientists are experts in their field, I in mine, and "Ne're the 'twain shall meet".

 

[tevans9129]

Yet you've never seen any evidence for evolution?

No, not from one kind to a different kind. Now, are you going to ask me for a definition of "kind" or just suggest there is no such thing in biology? I have heard both.

And you think that a single picture of a fossil (per your request) is going to prove evolution to you?

No, I have seen thousands of pictures of what some call fossils but that was not the question, was it?

May I ask what science specifically?

Certainly, but as I previously said,

"...unless of course, if a person is not a biology major it is not really science, which I have been told in the past."

Surely it isn't related to biology, geology, paleontology, genetics, or biochemistry, right?

Good guess. Do you never ask questions about a subject that you have no degree or training in?

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, not from one kind to a different kind. Now, are you going to ask me for a definition of "kind" or just suggest there is no such thing in biology? I have heard both.

"Kind" is a bogus undefined creationist word. By the way there is no "change of kind" in evolution. Take you for example. You are still an ape, you are still a mammal, you are still a tetrapod, you are still a vertebrate, you are still and animal, and you are still a eucaryote.

No, I have seen thousands of pictures of what some call fossils but that was not the question, was it?

Oh my, stuck in a river in Africa.

Certainly, but as I previously said,

Yes, but you have shown that you have no clue about science or evidence.

Good guess. Do you never ask questions about a subject that you have no degree or training in?

We all do. He asked questions that he could answer for you. You seem to simply ask questions that you cannot answer yourself.

If you don't want to learn, you should not make false claims about the sciences.

 

[lesliedellow]

"Great, can you provide evidence of what those images "transitioned from and to?"

How does your response have any relativity whatsoever to my question? Did I ask you about the tree, did I ask you about genetics, did I even ask you about "the basis of fossil evidence"?

Can you or can you not answer the question just as it was asked? I am not looking for a science lesson or a lecture, just a simple answer to my question.

That was an answer to post 225. Unless your eyesight is failing, you got an answer to the other question in 208.