Macroevolution:

[Obliquinaut]

Interesting, almost 2k years ago the Scriptures foretold of people scoffing at the idea of Jesus' return in the latter day.

"Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." (Matt 16:28)

 

[DogmaHunter]

Thanks for the graph, interesting. What proof, if any, of the graph sequence being exactly as projected?

It is a graphical representation of real-world data points coming from a great many independent lines of evidence / fields of science:
- fossil records
- comparative anatomy
- geological distribution of species
- genetic record
- ...

It's literally a graphical representation / summary of the evidence and data that we have.
This tree is not some type of hypothesis or wild guess or even theory...

It's a collection of facts, represented on a graph.

To give you perhaps a better idea....
On smaller scale, consider grabbing a DNA sample of all extant people in your family and having geneticist draw a family tree based on those samples.

That's what it is.... A graphical representation of collections of DNA etc.
Using DNA, one can tell your sister from your cousin, without knowing your parents.
So we can identify "nodes" which represent common ancestors.

It's really just taking real-world data points and plotting them on a graph.

Are there any unaltered images of one species (kind) evolving into a different species (kind)?

Considering that speciation is a long-term event where populations gradually evolve over time, and not something that happens overnight, how could there be any "images" thereof?

If so, could you provide a link as I have been unable to find one?

You can't find such, because that's not how it works. You're looking for something supposedly in support of evolution that, if found, would actually refute evolution.

You seem to be asking for a picture of a crocko-duck or something similar.
Evolution doesn't work that way. Every individual that was ever born, was of the same species as its direct parents.

Just like every human ever raised, spoke the same language as the people that raised said human. So no latin speaking mother ever raised a spanish speaking child.

Yet, the ancestors of spanish speaking folk, spoke latin.
Gradualism, is what it is called. Accumulation of small changes over generations.

Species - "Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species."

Google "ring species".

 

[DogmaHunter]

Great, then it should present no problem, with billions of fossils and untold number of photographs, that are available to find an unaltered image of one "kind" evolving into a different "kind" so do you have a link for that?

I will, as soon as you show me a photograph of Pluto completing an orbit.


(I wonder if you'll realise by yourself how bizar such a question is)

 

[tevans9129]

The Jews have always insisted that Genesis 1-3 was not to be taken literally but allegorically and since they WROTE the book, I think we need to pay attention to them.

Really, could you provide verifiable evidence of that assertion? I would really like to read it. There are over 800 quotes of the OT in the NT, can you quote one that does not use a literal interpretation?

[New Testament References to the Book of Genesis
• The Creator and the Creation: Mt 13:35; Mk 13:19; Jn 1:3; Acts 4:24; Acts 14:15; Rom 1:20; 2 Cor 4:6; Col 1:16; Heb 1:10; 11:3.
• Allusions to the Creation: Rom 1:25; 16:25; Eph 3:9; 1 Tim 4:4; Heb 2:10; 4:10; 9:26; Jas 3:9; Rev 3:14; 4:11; 10:6; 14:7.
• Creation of Man and Woman: Mt 19:4-6, 8; Mk 10:6; Acts 17:26; 1 Cor 6:16; 11:8,9; Eph 5:31; 1 Tim 2:13, 14; Rev 2:7; 22:2, 14.
• The Fall: Rom 5:11, 14, 17, 19; 8:19-20; 1 Cor 15:21-22; 2 Cor 11:3; Rev 20:2.
• The Flood: Mt 24:37; Lk 17:26; 1 Pet 3:20; 2 Pet 2:5; 3:5-6.
• The Patriarchs: Mt 23:35; Lk 3:34-38; 11:52; Heb 11:4-7, 23; 12:24; 1 Jn 3:12; Jude 11, 14.

Every New Testament writer refers to the early chapters of Genesis: portions of Chapters 1 – 11 (except 8) is referred to in New Testament.]

Do you believe Jesus and the writers of the NT did not take Genesis literally and if so, can you prove it?

 

[tevans9129]

"Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." (Matt 16:28)

One can prove most anything they wish by cherry picking scripture and taking them out of context, or, just misunderstood as you have suggested with v28.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Yes, I have seen that image, a few thousand times, more or less, so how does that provide proof of one "kind" evolving into a different "kind"?

You asked for a picture of a transitional fossil. I gave you a picture depicting several.
Perhaps you should first learn what makes a fossil transitional, before objecting, because it's kind of obvious that you have no clue.


ps: this is where you explain what a "transitional fossil" is, because it looks like when you use the term, you're talking about something very different from what the rest of the world understands by it.

As an example, I can find numerous images such as this one. What I would like to see is an image of a fossil that immediately preceded this subject (fish) and then the transition of what evolved from the fish, can you provide a link that would have that information?

Define "immediately" in this context.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Interesting, almost 2k years ago the Scriptures foretold of people scoffing at the idea of Jesus' return in the latter day

Yeah, people have been saying that to skeptics for 2000 years now.

 

[DogmaHunter]

"Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." (Matt 16:28)

A religion that speaks ill of those that aren't willing to follow it? Shocking!

 

[Speedwell]

Do you believe Jesus and the writers of the NT did not take Genesis literally and if so, can you prove it?

Too many variables to answer that question; it depends on what you mean by "literal."

Did NT authors believe that Genesis was based on events which actually happened? Very likely, although you can't really tell by the way they used the stories. Figurative interpretations of the stories have always been contemplated and reference to the stories by an author would be the same in either case.

Assuming that the authors believe that the stories depicted or were based on real events and persons, did they believe the text of the stories to be 100% accurate literal history? That is, did they believe that the stories were written as historical-positivist narrative, like modern creationists believe? Almost certainly not. No one wrote historical narrative in that way in those days; they wouldn't have known what it was.

But do define your terms a little better; it's an interesting subject for discussion.

 

[tevans9129]

Considering that speciation is a long-term event where populations gradually evolve over time, and not something that happens overnight, how could there be any "images" thereof?

Let me see if I understand this correctly...there are a plethora of images of fossilized, recognizable, animals supposedly over billions of years and there are millions, if not billions, of one species evolving into something completely different but none of those were ever fossilized, is that what you want me to believe? Is that not exercising much faith?

 

[Speedwell]

Let me see if I understand this correctly...there are a plethora of images of fossilized, recognizable, animals supposedly over billions of years and there are millions, if not billions, of one species evolving into something completely different but none of those were ever fossilized, is that what you want me to believe? Is that not exercising much faith?

Some series, like that of the horse, are represented by reasonably complete succession of fossils--which is what leads us to believe that you may mean something different by "transitional" than the rest of us.

 

[tevans9129]

ou can't find such, because that's not how it works. You're looking for something supposedly in support of evolution that, if found, would actually refute evolution.

Now that I can agree with 100%. IOW, that is why those who believe life came from nothing are never interested in discussing, and providing proof, of how an intelligent being evolved from nothing. They have no answers, only speculation and conjecture, would you agree?

You seem to be asking for a picture of a crocko-duck or something similar. Evolution doesn't work that way. Every individual that was ever born, was of the same species as its direct parents.

I can accept that, so, what species did the first born come from? Do you have verifiable evidence for your answer or is it, "not known"?

 

[lesliedellow]

But if we are to go by what the stereotypical brit says, then Brittain isn't really Europe, but rather it's own proper continent, so maybe we can let that slide

It is true. We feel superior to the French as well, but they tend to return the compliment.

https://archive.cartoons.ac.uk/GetMultimedia.ashx?db=Catalog&type=default&fname=28063.jpg

The caption reads, "Oh dear, Rodney is expounding on his theory that now we're in the United States of Europe all the blighters should learn to speak English."

 

[tevans9129]

I will, as soon as you show me a photograph of Pluto completing an orbit.

Some unnecessary words but I got the answer, you cannot because there are not any. Have I ever made the assertion that Pluto completes an orbit, if not why would you ask me the question? Is that not rather "bizar"?

(I wonder if you'll realise by yourself how bizar such a question is)

I have no doubt that it is...for some folks, especially those who do not want to start, "in the beginning".

 

[Speedwell]

I have no doubt that it is...for some folks, especially those who do not want to start, "in the beginning".

"Do not want to..." is inaccurate. "Unable to at present..." is closer to the mark.

 

[Obliquinaut]

One can prove most anything they wish by cherry picking scripture and taking them out of context, or, just misunderstood as you have suggested with v28.

And one can produce exegetical explanations after the fact especially when a prophecy goes unfulfilled.

I'm certain I am misreading it because the words so seldom mean what they say explicitly....unless it's Genesis at which point the words are explicitly and perfectly crystal clear as to exactly what happened as perfectly described.

Did I cover everything?

 

[Obliquinaut]

And you never answered my question but that is not surprising either.

Yesterday I was in the path of totality of the Eclipse. I had my NASA approved viewing glasses and a 35mm DSLR (with a proper filter) and a pinhole camera. I watched the progression. Even got some good pictures!

Yet for the entirety of the time I never saw the moon move with my own eyes! I did not see the shadows moving ever so slowly as the pin-hole camera image changed.

How did that happen? How did the sun go to total eclipse while I stood there but didn't see it move???

Could it be that I was unable to see a very slow movement on the time frame of my measuring equipment?

OR was it that the ECLIPSE WAS A LIE and the sun just went dark for about 2 minutes?

Hmmmmm.....

 

[tevans9129]

You asked for a picture of a transitional fossil.

Really, I asked you that? I do not believe I did so can you quote my exact words or the post number where I asked you that?

Although I did make this statement, some posts back. Do you notice that "transitional fossils" were in quotes?

"Can you provide a link that has unaltered photographs of "transitional fossils"? That means one that is not an artistic rendering. There are millions, perhaps billions, of fossils and many photographs of them so out of those numbers should there not be a least a few hundred thousand "transitional fossils"?

I also posted this since that post.

Yes, I have seen that image, a few thousand times, more or less, so how does that provide proof of one "kind" evolving into a different "kind"?

Species - "Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species."

As an example, I can find numerous images such as this one. What I would like to see is an image of a fossil that immediately preceded this subject (fish) and then the transition of what evolved from the fish, can you provide a link that would have that information?

 

[Obliquinaut]

Really, I asked you that? I do not believe I did so can you quote my exact words or the post number where I asked you that?

You quoted your post. It was the one where you asked me for an un-interpretted, un-artistically altered photograph of a transitional fossil.

Then you requested a photograph of a fossil of an animal turning into another "kind" of animal. Which, in a sense, is exactly what a transitional fossil is (which you were shown).

It is unclear exactly what you want but it sounds a lot like you want a "freeze frame photograph" of an animal literally morphing in real time from one species to another.

That sounds like a nearly impossible request (certainly in the fossil record) but as another poster (Dogmahunter?) provided there are instances of "observed speciation" events.

Observed Instances of Speciation

At this point you are down to arguing that the data is not exactly what you want so it is not data. Similar to your repeated insistance that you have seen microwaves because you saw an oscilloscope signal of them. Of course that is incorrect, you saw the SIGNAL of the microwaves. NOT the actual microwaves.

Why is ONE form of data (which is in your area of expertise and doesn't threaten your faith) OK while the same form of data in another setting is NOT ok (data which you may perceive threatens your faith, an incorrect assumption, IMHO, but that is another discussion point)

 

[OldWiseGuy]

1



No, it does not.

In any case... the human and chimp genome are seperated by some 40-million-ish genetic differences.

The number that it took to get from the common ancestor to both us and respectively chimps, is probably less, as today's difference is the result of 2 independent evolutionary lines.

To illustrate... take a string, for example "abcdef" and reproduce it in 2 strings.
In both strings, introduce 1 change. For example:
- "bbcdef"
and
-"abcddf"

=> both are now seperated by 2 differences

So what you said about the "trillions" of required changes, is as false as it gets.
That there isn't enough time, is false as well.

There's a timespan of millions of years (good for hundreds of thousands of generations) and furthermore, changes occur in individuals and population sizes typically number in the hundreds of thousands or even millions as well, per generation.

Given an average mutation rate of some 40-ish per newborn (a conservative average estimate), that results in millions of mutations in individuals per generation. These millions of mutated genes serve as the set on which natural selection then acts. Some of them will be beneficial (higher chance of survival), some will be harmfull (these die), most will be neutral (they'll just tag along with whatever happens).

Those that reproduce, then carry on their mutated genes to the next generation, where they then accumulate with the new changes of that generation, etc.

It's not rocket science.

So there's no changes at the atomic level in evolution?