Prove that links exist

[Shemjaza]

You can present a handful of things that could possibly be a transition. But you can not produce evidence of the evolution of the species currently on the earth.

You claimed they didn't exist... then they were trivially presented.

Why don't you explain what you mean by "evidence of the evolution of the species currently on the earth"?
Because genetic and fossil evidence of the historical continuation of a demonstrable physical process, seems to me to be exactly that.

As a side note Ambukocetes, was not found with a blowhole (like a whale), that part of the skull was missing. But it was added in reconstructions so because of evolutionary thinking and bias alone.

And as for the comment that Dolphins grow legs, that also is not true, some Dolphins have a rear fin, not leg structures.

Dolphins have switched off genes for four limbs structured like land tetrapods using the same genetics. They have a vestigial hip that these lost limbs can grown from.

Genetically and structurally they are more like land mammals than other sea creatures.

Evolution can explain all these traits. It's excellent evidence.

How do you justify ignoring it?

Just bravado, or do you actually have any evidence for another mechanism and explanation?

 

[klutedavid]

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

I have already invited them to an inquisition I'm running.

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

AGES after some adventurous (or misadventurous) fish left the sea and planted the flag of vertebrate animal life on land, their descendants had it both ways as amphibians and then completed the epic transition, evolving into terrestrial reptiles, mammals and birds. But something about the water must have kept beckoning, until a few irredentists among the mammals did eventually reclaim a place in the sea. (NY times)

Whales originally left the ocean and dwelt on land. On land they developed the ability to suckle their young. Then tiring of walking here and there. They slipped gently back into the ocean.

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

Until we know what?

Absolute knowledge?

That's the scientific dream.

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

I once worked for that bank, shhhh.

 

[FutureAndAHope]

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.

In Hitlers Germany, it was thought ok to treat Jews like second-rate citizens, allowing the Holocaust. Just because an opinion is popular does not make it right. Evolution is fueled as much by ideology than true proof. People don't want to believe in God so they have to have an alternative. In my younger years, I spent much time reading books refuting evolution, to this day I still see that knowledge as soundly scientific.

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.

No, I come to science with the knowledge of God, and can see His hand at work in nature. I can see proof of it on many levels.

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.

No I have purposefully kept my responses simple for I don't want this discussion to descend into some study of microbiology, as not everyone has studied at a cellular level. I want to use, just one of the sense's sight, as they say "seeing is believing".

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.

Wrong again, I was angry at the closed-mindedness of the responses in this thread. There are millions of creatures alive today, there should be millions of transitional forms. The best so far is a bit of whale evolution, which is tattered at best. 1,2 or 3 examples. The numbers just don't add up.

Evolution should be observable in the fossil record, but there are just not the examples out there. All I have ever seen is what a creationist would call variation within a species. Take the dog species as an example, we know that their DNA is not being mutated to give us a wide variety of dogs. Breeding can give, large breeds, small breeds, with many different coloured coats, even different shaped snouts. Many people go to the fossil record see a few minor variations, and attribute those variations to evolution. But variation within a species is not evolution. Evolution requires intermediate forms, a mix of dog/rat, even forms that make no logical sense.

 

[Occams Barber]

@FutureAndAHope

While you're looking up dolphin legs here's a few more vestigial bits and pieces you might like to explain.
Top 10 Useless Limbs (and Other Vestigial Organs) | Live Science
The list includes vestigial hind legs on whales (dolphins are a small type of toothed whale)

By the way - whales are also a close cousin to hippos.
Hippos and Whales: Unlikely Cousins | Royal Ontario Museum (rom.on.ca)

OB

 

[Occams Barber]

Whales originally left the ocean and dwelt on land. On land they developed the ability to suckle their young. Then tiring of walking here and there. They slipped gently back into the ocean.

Sort of right.

It wasn't whales that originally left the ocean. That critter was a fish like animal who crawled out of the ocean shallows some 400 million years ago and became the great grandaddy of us all including you and me and whales.

By 50 million years ago the fish critters had spread out and evolved into a range of land based animals including the early mammals. It was one of these mammals, possibly indohyus, which was the forerunner of the animal which eventually went back to the water and gradually evolved into whales.

Evolution: Out Of The Sea - Scientific American Blog Network
Whales: From So Humble A Beginning… (nationalgeographic.com)
OB

 

[FutureAndAHope]

You claimed they didn't exist... then they were trivially presented.

Think for a moment what you have presented, as the bastion of all evolution on earth, a few whale-like creatures. You can expect me to bend so easily.

Why don't you explain what you mean by "evidence of the evolution of the species currently on the earth"?
Because genetic and fossil evidence of the historical continuation of a demonstrable physical process, seems to me to be exactly that.

As I explained in one of my more recent posts, there is no (apart from flimsy whale evolution) demonstratable proof of evolution in the fossil record, no gradually changing creatures. All the creatures are fully functional, with no growing appendages, no slowly evolving limbs. Minor variations within a species are not evolution. As I mentioned with my Dog example, there are various sizes of dog, different colours, different tail lengths, different snouts, but they are all the same base DNA no evolution is occurring within the species to have that variation. Slightly different shapes of fish, or lizards, prove nothing.

Dolphins have switched off genes for four limbs structured like land tetrapods using the same genetics. They have a vestigial hip that these lost limbs can grown from.

You need to look up the photos of these dolphins, they don't have limbs, just fully functional rear fins.

Genetically and structurally they are more like land mammals than other sea creatures.

Evolution can explain all these traits. It's excellent evidence.

How do you justify ignoring it?

Just bravado, or do you actually have any evidence for another mechanism and explanation?

I am ignoring it because a fin on a dolphin is not proof that it once had a leg there.

 

[Occams Barber]

In Hitlers Germany, it was thought ok to treat Jews like second-rate citizens, allowing the Holocaust. Just because an opinion is popular does not make it right.

There 's a saying suggesting that if you need to mention the Nazis you've already lost the argument.

Scientific agreement on topics like evolution is the result years of research and debate by highly qualified specialists. It is not a popularity contest.

Evolution is fueled as much by ideology than true proof. People don't want to believe in God so they have to have an alternative. In my younger years, I spent much time reading books refuting evolution, to this day I still see that knowledge as soundly scientific.

Evolution belongs to Christians, Hindus, Atheists, Moslems, Bahai's, Jews, Zoroastrians etc. etc. etc. Evolution is not an ideology - it's a collection of facts with an explanatory Theory.

For the views of some of your, scientifically qualified, fellow Christians go to
BioLogos - God's Word. God's World. - BioLogos

Evolution requires intermediate forms, a mix of dog/rat, even forms that make no logical sense.

This sentence confirms that you are not familiar with the basics of Evolution. A dog/rat mix or a similarly illogical mixture would be taken as proof that Evolution was incorrect.

OB

 

[FutureAndAHope]

@FutureAndAHope

While you're looking up dolphin legs here's a few more vestigial bits and pieces you might like to explain.
Top 10 Useless Limbs (and Other Vestigial Organs) | Live Science
The list includes vestigial hind legs on whales (dolphins are a small type of toothed whale)

By the way - whales are also a close cousin to hippos.
Hippos and Whales: Unlikely Cousins | Royal Ontario Museum (rom.on.ca)

OB

I can't reply to each of your Vestigal Organs, as I don't know enough about the animals, or organs mentioned. But as for the appendix in humans. More recent research suggests that it does have a purpose. I just did a quick search on this, this article should help. If not do some research into the modern purpose of the appendix. Appendix May Actually Have a Purpose.

 

[FutureAndAHope]

This sentence confirms that you are not familiar with the basics of Evolution. A dog/rat mix or a similarly illogical mixture would be taken as proof that Evolution was incorrect.

You are really clutching at straws here, you did not take note of my example, but rather called out, an analogy I used to show what you need to present. Which could have been better mentioned as things like an Archaeopteryx , a cross between a dinosaur and a bird. What I was suggesting is if we are to go from single cell to dog, there must be some rat-like creature, in the early history of Dog evolution. Even creatures with totally unfunctional appendages/or unfunctional complete forms.

 

[Occams Barber]

I can't reply to each of your Vestigal Organs, as I don't know enough about the animals, or organs mentioned. But as for the appendix in humans. More recent research suggests that it does have a purpose. I just did a quick search on this, this article should help. If not do some research into the modern purpose of the appendix. Appendix May Actually Have a Purpose.

I don't really expect you to do a blow-by-blow refutation each of these things. It's also possible that the vestigial human tail does double duty as an anchor point for musculature in the lower back. The point is, that it was once a tail. Body parts often cover several different functions or act as a backup for other functions.

The point I'm really trying to make is to introduce you to a range of things you may not have come across before. For the whale leg stuff, for instance, there really are actual vestigial bones buried in the whale's lower body which are the leftovers of what once were legs.

In an earlier post you mentioned spending time reading material refuting evolution. This is a common claim from many of the people who argue against Evolution. The problem is, that you can't readily argue against Evolution without first understanding Evolution. Many of your comments make it very clear that you do not understand Evolution.

As Sun Tzu is alleged to have said:

Know thy enemy​

OB

 

[FutureAndAHope]

I hope this helps you see what I am saying we need.

 

[Occams Barber]

You are really clutching at straws here, you did not take note of my example, but rather called out, an analogy I used to show what you need to present. Which could have been better mentioned as things like an Archaeopteryx , a cross between a dinosaur and a bird. What I was suggesting is if we are to go from single cell to dog, there must be some rat-like creature, in the early history of Dog evolution. Even creatures with totally unfunctional appendages/or unfunctional complete forms.

Here you go;
40 Million Years of Dog Evolution (thoughtco.com)

I have no idea what you mean by this:

Even creatures with totally unfunctional appendages/or unfunctional complete forms
​

OB

 

[Occams Barber]

You are really clutching at straws here, you did not take note of my example, but rather called out, an analogy I used to show what you need to present. Which could have been better mentioned as things like an Archaeopteryx , a cross between a dinosaur and a bird. What I was suggesting is if we are to go from single cell to dog, there must be some rat-like creature, in the early history of Dog evolution. Even creatures with totally unfunctional appendages/or unfunctional complete forms.

The transition you're looking for involves much more than just external appearance. Also remember that although we see "transitional forms", each animal is a separate creature type in its own right. We see 'transitional' based on the discrete animal categories we're used to.

This article on bird origins also looks at the internal and behavioural evidence.

Origin of birds - Wikipedia

OB

 

[FutureAndAHope]

The transition you're looking for involves much more than just external appearance. Also remember that although we see "transitional forms", each animal is a separate creature type in its own right. We see 'transitional' based on the discrete animal categories we're used to.

This article on bird origins also looks at the internal and behavioural evidence.

Origin of birds - Wikipedia

OB

Ok I have had a look at your links. But let's return to my picture of Archaeopteryx, tell me how that wing evolved? With fossil evidence.

 

[Shemjaza]

Think for a moment what you have presented, as the bastion of all evolution on earth, a few whale-like creatures. You can expect me to bend so easily.

Dishonest and ridiculous.

Genetic evidence is a much stronger source of evidence for evolution than fossil evidence.

However, despite that, what I presented to you a picture of a series of skulls demonstrating a smooth transition from basal ape to modern human. This picture was not the totality of the evidence they represent, but it was indicative.

There is no hard line between what is colloquially called an ape and what could be described as human.

It's interesting that you pose this situation as if you are bravely standing in defiance of us trying to "bend" you. You are clearly ignorant about science and proud of it. You've made no attempt to do any research before this

As I explained in one of my more recent posts, there is no (apart from flimsy whale evolution) demonstratable proof of evolution in the fossil record, no gradually changing creatures. All the creatures are fully functional, with no growing appendages, no slowly evolving limbs. Minor variations within a species are not evolution. As I mentioned with my Dog example, there are various sizes of dog, different colours, different tail lengths, different snouts, but they are all the same base DNA no evolution is occurring within the species to have that variation. Slightly different shapes of fish, or lizards, prove nothing.

False on every level.

If there aren't gradual changes what's the difference between an ape and a human? Specifically.

Dogs do not have identical DNA to each other or to wolves. They are similar to be able to produce viable, fertile offspring, but the variations in dog breeds are the result of mutations and genetic differences not found in the parent population.

Have you ever heard of the Tiktaalik roseae? It's a transitional form in between the first land animals and fish. It was discovered by scientists searching the fossil sites of material from the right era and the right environment. This is a fish, but with rudimentary legs, a neck and snout; found right when and where it should have been given evolutionary history.

You need to look up the photos of these dolphins, they don't have limbs, just fully functional rear fins.

Why would a two finned animal have the genes of a land walking creature to grow a second set of fins?

I am ignoring it because a fin on a dolphin is not proof that it once had a leg there.

Do some research about the skeletal structure of sea mammals. They have contained flippers, but the underlying skeleton has independent bones that line up with fingers on land creatures... completely unlike the structures found in fish.

 

[Skreeper]

I hope this helps you see what I am saying we need.

You are asking for things that don't exist because that's not how evolution works.
I recommend that you first learn the basics of evolution and how it works before you try to engage in specific details about it.

But from your posts here it is quite apparent that you are not interested in learning, you are just here to argue about things you know nothing about. Typical for a fundagelical boomer.

 

[Shemjaza]

Ok I have had a look at your links. But let's return to my picture of Archaeopteryx, tell me how that wing evolved? With fossil evidence.

The way it works is discovering that feathers predate flying birds. If you look at some of the evidence for non flying dinosaurs like Velociraptor and Zhenyuanlong you can see that they had feathers on their fore limbs.

If the species has wing like structures for some other reason and they habitually climb, jump through trees it's straight forward for very gradual changes from assisted falling, to gliding to true flying to be broken down into small beneficial steps.

The interesting thing is that each point along this chain is clearly demonstrable in different species in modern ecology.

 

[Occams Barber]

Ok I have had a look at your links. But let's return to my picture of Archaeopteryx, tell me how that wing evolved? With fossil evidence.

I'll ignore the demanding tone of your post - for now. Politeness does not appear to be your strong suit given the lengths I've gone to to provide you with information.

You've had a look at my links and...? As an observation, that was a real quick read.

By the way - not everything is "fossils".

The evolution of digits and the origin of the bird wing | Nature Portfolio Ecology & Evolution Community
OB

 

[Shemjaza]

I hope this helps you see what I am saying we need.

Wings are a modified arm... not a new limb.

They are connected to the skeleton in the same way as a fore limb of a mammal or reptile.

Some birds even still have a little clawed finger on their wing.

 

[FutureAndAHope]

You are asking for things that don't exist because that's not how evolution works.
I recommend that you first learn the basics of evolution and how it works before you try to engage in specific details about it.

But from your posts here it is quite apparent that you are not interested in learning, you are just here to argue about things you know nothing about. Typical for a fundagelical boomer.

What? How does evolution work then, it must not be a gradual change over time then. You have no interest in learing if you can't understand that picture. Where did the wing come from? Come on man.