Prove that links exist

[pitabread]

If it is so easy to find these research papers, please get me one.

Why should we do your homework for you? Google Scholar exists. Go use it.

 

[Ophiolite]

If it is so easy to find these research papers, please get me one.

GM Ramirez-Guerrero, CB Cameron Systematics of pterobranchs from the Cambrian Period Burgess Shales of Canada and the early evolution of graptolites Bulletin of Geosciences96(1), 1–18

If you wish I can get you a further 10,000, for starters. If you need any help understanding them I can recommend some excellent university courses.

 

[klutedavid]

Classifications of fossils are based on physical characteristics of those fossils relative to other species. Far from grasping at straws, it's simply a matter of following the evidence where it leads.

It's also worth noting there are numerous examples of semi-aquatic hoofed mammals in contemporary times. So the idea of a semi-aquatic hoofed mammal being the ancestors of modern whales is hardly an usual idea.

Of course fossils are only one piece of the evidence for the terrestrial origins of whales. The genetic evidence is arguably even stronger, since there are numerous genetic indicators of terrestrial ancestry that just don't make sense otherwise.



It's clearly not impossible, since evolutionary trees for whales already exist.

Now granted any such tree is always going to be an approximation, since the data set is always going to be incomplete relative to the totality of reality. That's just how everything works in science. Everything is a simplification of reality; that doesn't mean it's not useful to do so, however.

An approximation you say?

Pakicetus has nothing to do with whales as far as I am concerned.

You will need to keep staring at the fossil record until you find a valid transitional species.

How a whale became a mammal is an enigma.

Ultimately, science will never know with any degree of certainty. Whether or not, Pakicetus
belongs in the whale evolutionary tree.

This issue in evolutionary science is not just about Pakicetus. Evolutionary science has many unanswered questions which the general public never knows.

I am not an advocate of generating fictional evolutionary trees. Science relies on observation, hard evidence that is beyond any debate. If the evidence is unavailable then admit that.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

An approximation you say?

Pakicetus has nothing to do with whales as far as I am concerned.

You will need to keep staring at the fossil record until you find a valid transitional species.

How a whale became a mammal is an enigma.

Ultimately, science will never know with any degree of certainty. Whether or not, Pakicetus
belongs in the whale evolutionary tree.

This issue in evolutionary science is not just about Pakicetus. Evolutionary science has many unanswered questions which the general public never knows.

I am not an advocate of generating fictional evolutionary trees. Science relies on observation, hard evidence that is beyond any debate. If the evidence is unavailable then admit that.

So a 'best guess estimate based on available evidence that we have' is... no-nevermind to you?

Though I think at the end of the day, scientists are going to be concerned with the opinions of one anonymous rando on the internet.

 

[pitabread]

Science relies on observation, hard evidence that is beyond any debate.

That's not true in the slightest. If there weren't things up for debate, there wouldn't be any reason to *do* science in the first place.

Science is all about gathering information about our natural universe in an effort to understand said universe. That we don't have all the answers yet and that are things to learn is what makes science so exciting and interesting.

Now this also does involve accepting a certain degree of uncertainty about things. For some people, that sparks curiosity. For others, fear and anxiety. So I understand that science's way of doing things is not for everyone.

 

[FutureAndAHope]

GM Ramirez-Guerrero, CB Cameron Systematics of pterobranchs from the Cambrian Period Burgess Shales of Canada and the early evolution of graptolites Bulletin of Geosciences96(1), 1–18

If you wish I can get you a further 10,000, for starters. If you need any help understanding them I can recommend some excellent university courses.

I will read it as I have time. I am a very busy person. Because of this I don't want to study at a cellular level. If evolution is true we must have visible, transitions between modern-day, and semi-modern species. Things that can be seen with the eyes.

What we do see is self-contained, perfectly formed species, no gradual change over generations.

 

[FutureAndAHope]

Why should we do your homework for you? Google Scholar exists. Go use it.

Why, because I want you to see, what I am asking for does not exist. The gradual change in modern species does not exist.

 

[Ophiolite]

I will read it as I have time. I am a very busy person. Because of this I don't want to study at a cellular level. If evolution is true we must have visible, transitions between modern-day, and semi-modern species. Things that can be seen with the eyes.

The difficulty is that to properly appreciate the reality of evolution one requires two things:

• Significant time studying the principles in some detail. Any summary will contain many statements that can be dismissed as assumptions. Only when one has read, reflected on, critiqued and absorbed many detailed aspects and examples can one expect to be properly convinced that evolutionary theory is the best current explanation for the diversity of life on the planet. There is no short cut, if the object is to understand evolution, rather than just believe it because someone with a Professorship says so.
  
• One also needs an open mind. Your early posts in this thread gave strong indications that your mind was tightly shut. I am pleased to note that you have toned down your rhetoric in the last few posts and I thank you for that. Perhaps there is hope for you yet, in the future. (See what I did there.)

 

[Yttrium]

If evolution is true we must have visible, transitions between modern-day, and semi-modern species. Things that can be seen with the eyes.

To prove the Theory of Evolution completely, you're right about that.

But it's a scientific theory, so no worries there. We don't expect to prove theories completely. We just need to get all the known evidence to fit. In the case of fossils, we need them to show clear morphologic trends. Which they do. If they didn't, we'd have a big problem.

 

[pitabread]

Why, because I want you to see, what I am asking for does not exist. The gradual change in modern species does not exist.

Sounds like you're just trying to convince yourself, not anyone else.

 

[klutedavid]

That's not true in the slightest. If there weren't things up for debate, there wouldn't be any reason to *do* science in the first place.

Zero certainty is a problem.

Science is all about gathering information about our natural universe in an effort to understand said universe. That we don't have all the answers yet and that are things to learn is what makes science so exciting and interesting.

I think your assuming that you will get the answers, in your attempt to understand the universe. The scientific event horizon, is seriously, becoming far to complex and mysterious. The scientific paradigm is too limited. I would claim that the real universe is unobservable and cannot be understood.

Now this also does involve accepting a certain degree of uncertainty about things. For some people, that sparks curiosity. For others, fear and anxiety. So I understand that science's way of doing things is not for everyone.

A degree of uncertainty?

We don't even know the confidence interval of what we are studying, let alone any degree.

Science has been at it for centuries and we are not making headway.

 

[pitabread]

Zero certainty is a problem.

I don't think so. I am comfortable with uncertainty.

I think your assuming that you will get the answers, in your attempt to understand the universe.

I don't assume this at all. I don't expect to get answers in trying to understand the universe. And I'm okay with that.

Science has been at it for centuries and we are not making headway.

Of course we've made headway. We know a lot more about things than we knew centuries ago. And centuries from now we'll know more still.

That doesn't mean we'll know everything or that the quest for knowledge will ever stop. It's just a case of endless progress, building on what came before.

 

[klutedavid]

To prove the Theory of Evolution completely, you're right about that.

But it's a scientific theory, so no worries there. We don't expect to prove theories completely. We just need to get all the known evidence to fit. In the case of fossils, we need them to show clear morphologic trends. Which they do. If they didn't, we'd have a big problem.

All I have observed is that theories get replaced by other theories. None the wiser in the end.

The scientific world is like politics, competing theories, a clash of different ideas. Who cares if the theory is correct or not? We will never know anyway.

Is the universe infinite?

Are there multiple universes?

Is our universe sitting in a test tube on the bench of some alien species?

We will never know the answers.

 

[klutedavid]

I don't think so. I am comfortable with uncertainty.



I don't assume this at all. I don't expect to get answers in trying to understand the universe. And I'm okay with that.



Of course we've made headway. We know a lot more about things than we knew centuries ago. And centuries from now we'll know more still.

That doesn't mean we'll know everything or that the quest for knowledge will ever stop. It's just a case of endless progress, building on what came before.

Your assuming of course that scientific understanding progresses. I don't see it that way. I see science as accelerating the demise of mankind.

We have different world views.

Nearly every problem we experience now has a scientific origin.

 

[pitabread]

Your assuming of course that scientific understanding progresses. I don't see it that way. I see science as accelerating the demise of mankind.

Those aren't mutually exclusive things. Improving our understanding of things could at the same time lead to our demise.

We have different world views.

Indeed.

Nearly every problem we experience now has a scientific origin.

I don't think this is strictly true. Especially in light of using scientific knowledge to also solve problems.

 

[Occams Barber]

Ok, let's start with Archaeopteryx. It is a reptilian-like creature, with a wing. Where are the transitions to birds? Or from reptile to Archaeopteryx. It is a self-contained creature, and could easily have been created the way it is. There is no reason to say it has to be the result of evolution.

As for the monkey skulls, without sitting down with an expert, and having each one assessed, I can make no comment. However there are a myriad of creationist sites willing to put up their hands to dispute the validity of the image you showed me.

Where are the transitions from mammal to monkey? We have monkeys alive today, similar to all those skulls. But for evolution to be true there must be transitions from small mammals to monkeys, etc.

There is no transition from mammal to monkey. Monkeys ARE mammals (you are also a mammal).

Mammal, (class Mammalia), any member of the group of vertebrate animals in which the young are nourished with milk from special mammary glands of the mother. In addition to these characteristic milk glands, mammals are distinguished by several other unique features.
mammal | Definition, Characteristics, Classification, Examples, & Facts | Britannica​

OB

 

[Gene2memE]

If it is so easy to find these research papers, please get me one.

Sites for open access (mostly free of charge, some requiring registration) journal articles/journal access:

Directory of Open Access Journals
JSTOR Home
Welcome to Sherpa Romeo - v2.sherpa
Home - PMC - NCBI

There are literally millions of free, open access journal articles on topics related to evolutionary biology available via the above links.

If you want to make life even easier, download 'Unpaywall' from unpaywall-search-webapp

This is a browser extension that basically finds open access/freely available versions of paywalled journal articles. And its legal too

 

[Yttrium]

All I have observed is that theories get replaced by other theories. None the wiser in the end.

The scientific world is like politics, competing theories, a clash of different ideas. Who cares if the theory is correct or not? We will never know anyway.

Is the universe infinite?

Are there multiple universes?

Is our universe sitting in a test tube on the bench of some alien species?

We will never know the answers.

The nice thing about science, though, is even if we aren't completely right, we can apply the theories. The applications can be quite useful in our lives. Including evolution.

 

[Occams Barber]

If it is so easy to find these research papers, please get me one.

The basic misunderstanding you're struggling with is the idea that there is a single blinding 'proof' that evolution is real. In reality Charlie Darwin came up with a really good idea which was published around 160 years ago. Since then scientists have, bit by bit, found evidence verifying and expanding his basic concept. By modern standards Darwin's science was primitive and yet our advanced biological sciences (like genetics and molecular biology - unknown to Darwin) have continued to add to the pile of evidence for Evolution and hugely expand our understanding of the processes involved.

Evolution is accepted by all major universities, museums of natural history and national and international scientific institutions. It ranks as the most investigated scientific theory of all time.

The opposition to Evolution as a concept is not scientific. There is no credible 'disproof' or scientifically valid alternative. What opposition there is is based on a particular interpretation of theology held by a minority group of Christians.

It's obvious from your posts that you really don't have a clear understanding of Evolution. To be honest I suspect that, even with a clear understanding, you would still want to hold on to your particular theological view of life - that's OK.

The problem is that you've arrived here demanding some ultimate form of proof and then get angry because you, I suspect, are beginning to see that you really don't understand the basics of the concept you're attacking.


OB

 

[Occams Barber]

Pakicetus has nothing to do with whales as far as I am concerned.

The Smithsonian just rang. They asked if you could come around fill them in based on your deep understanding of whale evolution.

How a whale became a mammal is an enigma.

Then let me un-enigma you. Whales didn't become mammals - they've always been mammals (Hint: they suckle their young)

Evolutionary science has many unanswered questions which the general public never knows.

Until we know everything there is to know any significant body of scientific research will have unanswered questions. This is hardly earth shattering.

In the case of Evolution, these unanswered questions are kept in a large vault in an unnamed Swiss Bank. Certain Approved Scientists may access them on an annual basis providing they swear to uphold the Code Of Silence.

OB