Quick question on evolution

[Loudmouth]

How can we take someone seriously when they demand evidence for evolution, but refuse to accept fossils, DNA, or comparisons of living species as evidence?

When they ask for evidence, what in the world are they asking for?

 

[Loudmouth]

Oh it's like a transition form...

Can you explain to us why transitional fossils are not evidence in support of evolution?

When you ask for evidence that supports evolution, what are you asking for?

 

[loveofourlord]

Similar DNA is not solid evidence for common ancestor. Similar DNA just means all animals had the same Creator.

But have we SEEN a something change into a seal? Or have seals always been seals? Are they in the fossil record? Do we find them in there?

WRONG, not even close, being all from god doesn't explain not just simularities, but nonsensicle simularities. Again there are parts of the DNA that show their history, why do dolphins have genes for scent when they don't smell using them, the genes for smelling under water are unrelated to above water. Why do we just happen to see atavism and DNA vestigal parts and so on that fit what evolution would expect?

You can't just hand wave everything without making god look incompetent or a liar, and frankly I don't like either idea. It be like a engineer building a car using a truck and any left over parts, he just welds to the underframe even if they don't have any uses, because well same creator same design.

They make no sense.

 

[Loudmouth]

But we as humans can not trace ourselves with the animals back to a common ancestor...

We can do exactly that, using genetic markers such as endogenous retroviruses (ERV's).

Given the size of vertebrate genomes (>1 × 10^9 bp) and the random nature of retroviral integration (22, 23), multiple integrations (and subsequent fixation) of ERV loci at precisely the same location are highly unlikely (24). Therefore, an ERV locus shared by two or more species is descended from a single integration event and is proof that the species share a common ancestor into whose germ line the original integration took place (14).
http://www.pnas.org/content/96/18/10254.long
​

We share over 200,000 ERV's with chimps at the same location in each of our genomes. That is 200,000 pieces of genetic evidence.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

How can we take someone seriously when they demand evidence for evolution, but refuse to accept fossils, DNA, or comparisons of living species as evidence?

When they ask for evidence, what in the world are they asking for?

Amittedly this goes for a lot of people, on a lot of subjects. It usually takes more than a few posts from random strangers online to make us change our (often) life-long beliefs and opinions.

 

[Armoured]

How can we take someone seriously when they demand evidence for evolution, but refuse to accept fossils, DNA, or comparisons of living species as evidence?

When they ask for evidence, what in the world are they asking for?

In all seriousness, I think what they are demanding is crocoducks, or some other such hybrid.

Whether they realise that this is completely the opposite of what evolutionary theory is based on or not is a potentially interesting discussion.

 

[loveofourlord]

Ah yes, the mitochondrial Eve, you do realize it isn't human DNA we use to do that, right?

Well of course we have the same DNA if we were in the family, but guess what? We are still humans!

Did you know men can trace back their DNA to a common man a few thousand years ago?

Same with women and their mitochondria can be traced to 'eve'?

But how do you link different species of animals and the DNA similarities?

I LOVE when creationists use evidence that debunks them, to try to support their beliefs.

Y chromosone adam, and mitochondria eve lived dozens of thousands of years apart, and both of them long before you guys think the earth was created.

 

[loveofourlord]

Yes, I understand the time factor. But have we seen any changes in seals before or after now? Humans have been around since a few thousand years..

That is definitly more than one generation of seals...

Look up italian wall lizard, has something creationists claim can't happen, brand new information even by their false idea of it. Cecal valves, which isn't in their ancestors who are still alive. Many examples of changes, were not going to see the equivalent of ancient apes to modern apes like humans in our life times, but we do see many things that do show how much can change in short periods of times.

 

[Loudmouth]

In all seriousness, I think what they are demanding is crocoducks, or some other such hybrid.

I don't think so. Anya has already said that she rejects any shared features between species as evidence of common ancestry. She also rejects shared DNA, and fossils.

It's almost like a jury asking for evidence in a trial, as long as it isn't eye witness testimony or forensic evidence. What do they want?

 

[Armoured]

Can you explain to us why transitional fossils are not evidence in support of evolution?

When you ask for evidence that supports evolution, what are you asking for?

Because "evolution is about change in populations, not individuals" is beyond some people.

After being told by authority figures for so long that evolution predicts crocoducks, maybe they just can't get past it.

I'm sure you've played this game before.

"There are no transitional fossils"
"Here *examples of transitionals*"
"But where's the transitional fossils between those?"
"Here *further examples of transitionals*"
"But where's the transitional fossil between THOSE?"

Until the extant fossil record fails, at which point you get a smug, "see? there are no transitional fossils, only fossils of fully independent species"

 

[loveofourlord]

In all seriousness, I think what they are demanding is crocoducks, or some other such hybrid.

Whether they realise that this is completely the opposite of what evolutionary theory is based on or not is a potentially interesting discussion.

Need we point out we did find the crocoduck? :> Of course they still don't accept it heh.

 

[Armoured]

It's almost like a jury asking for evidence in a trial, as long as it isn't eye witness testimony or forensic evidence. What do they want?

Good analogy.

Plus they claim that anyone gathering the evidence is biased in the first place, and therefore inadmissible.

 

[Simmeh]

Because "evolution is about change in populations, not individuals" is beyond some people.

After being told by authority figures for so long that evolution predicts crocoducks, maybe they just can't get past it.

I'm sure you've played this game before.

"There are no transitional fossils"
"Here *examples of transitionals*"
"But where's the transitional fossils between those?"
"Here *further examples of transitionals*"
"But where's the transitional fossil between THOSE?"

Until the extant fossil record fails, at which point you get a smug, "see? there are no transitional fossils, only fossils of fully independent species"

Also known as moving the goalposts.

 

[Seipai]

Also known as moving the goalposts.

Actually that seems more to be "God of the Gaps". Saying that God did his work in the gaps between the fossils.

It seemed to take a pretty big jump to tie humans to other apes. That jump got smaller and smaller in the 20th century, especially in the latter half as more and more hominid species were discovered. The "miracle" needed got smaller and smaller until now it seems there were no miracles needed.

 

[Simmeh]

Actually that seems more to be "God of the Gaps". Saying that God did his work in the gaps between the fossils.

It seemed to take a pretty big jump to tie humans to other apes. That jump got smaller and smaller in the 20th century, especially in the latter half as more and more hominid species were discovered. The "miracle" needed got smaller and smaller until now it seems there were no miracles needed.

I'd still say it's moving the goalposts:

"There are no transitional fossils" (goalpost position 1)
"Here *examples of transitionals*" (GOAL!)
"But where's the transitional fossils between those?" (goalpost condition 2)
"Here *further examples of transitionals*" (GOAL!)
"But where's the transitional fossil between THOSE?" (goalpost condition 3)

 

[HitchSlap]

Can you explain to us why transitional fossils are not evidence in support of evolution?

When you ask for evidence that supports evolution, what are you asking for?

It would appear they prefer ancient sources with unknown and pseudonymous authors written in languages they don't speak.

Seems legit.

 

[Loudmouth]

I'd still say it's moving the goalposts:

"There are no transitional fossils" (goalpost position 1)
"Here *examples of transitionals*" (GOAL!)
"But where's the transitional fossils between those?" (goalpost condition 2)
"Here *further examples of transitionals*" (GOAL!)
"But where's the transitional fossil between THOSE?" (goalpost condition 3)

In graphical form . . .

 

[Armoured]

Thinking about Loudmouth's question a little more. It occurs to me that what creationists REALLY want is for the ToE to be false. WHY they want this is a fascinating subject in itself, but that's a different discussion. The fact is that while some people are open to learning new things and changing their position, others will play endless silly semantic games and use fallacy after fallacy to argue why they don't have to accept whatever evidence you provide.

 

[[serious]]

I mean all changes that would be needed to make this animal be able to swim, breath in the water, grow in tremendous size, change physical features, etc.

... whales don't breath in water.

 

[Shemjaza]

... whales don't breath in water.

Wait!? Didn't this happen last time? (Maybe it was Justathruthseeker or ED).