The evidence for evolution for Kenny'sID thread

[pitabread]

Deleted

 

[AV1611VET]

You believe all those skulls are from humans?

I do.

In fact, I believe all those skulls are humans.

 

[BNR32FAN]

We do.

Looking at the above picture, can you tell me where "apes" end and "humans" begin?

Where did you get that and is it substantiated? It is my understanding that many have claimed to find the remains of a missing link and after much study they come to find that it is most likely an extinct ape and not human at all.

 

[pitabread]

Where did you get that and is it substantiated?

It's a list of various skulls. I'll post the source after you answer the question, because I didn't want it to influence your response: which skulls are "apes" and which are "humans"? Where is the line between them?

It is my understanding that many have claimed to find the remains of a missing link and after much study they come to find that it is most likely an extinct ape and not human at all.

Your understanding appears incomplete. The reality is the fossil record of human evolution is quite well documented and there are patterns of transition from pre-humans to modern humans.

Back to the question: which of those skulls are humans and which are apes?

 

[AV1611VET]

Back to the question: which of those skulls are humans and which are apes?

New Piece of the puzzle of human evolution revealed

 

[BNR32FAN]

It's a list of various skulls. I'll post the source after you answer the question, because I didn't want it to influence your response: which skulls are "apes" and which are "humans"? Where is the line between them?



Your understanding appears incomplete. The reality is the fossil record of human evolution is quite well documented and there are patterns of transition from pre-humans to modern humans.

Back to the question: which of those skulls are humans and which are apes?

I don’t know I’m no expert on the subject but I did find your chart along with the article saying that 5 skulls all found to be during the same period had significant differences in their structure. It’s very possible these could’ve been extinct apes or perhaps even extinct humans. Who knows? Georgian skulls contradict theory of human evolution

 

[pitabread]

I don’t know I’m no expert on the subject but I did find your chart along with the article saying that 5 skulls all found to be during the same period had significant differences in their structure.

That's not the original source.

The original source was a TalkOrigins.org article on evidence for evolution. You can find it here: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1

It’s very possible these could’ve been extinct apes or perhaps even extinct humans. Who knows?

When examining the hominid fossil record, there is a clear pattern of change over time. So much so, that you know what really funny? Creationists can't agree on which skulls are human and which are not: Comparison of all skulls

Which is basically what you'd expect if you were dealing with a series of intermediary fossils with no clear dividing line.

 

[BNR32FAN]

That's not the original source.

The original source was a TalkOrigins.org article on evidence for evolution. You can find it here: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1



When examining the hominid fossil record, there is a clear pattern of change over time. So much so, that you know what really funny? Creationists can't agree on which skulls are human and which are not: Comparison of all skulls

Which is basically what you'd expect if you were dealing with a series of intermediary fossils with no clear dividing line.

Well in the article I presented they show 5 skulls from the same period with very significant differences in facial structure. So since the dramatic differences in skull structure appeared within the same time period it indicates that these differences may not have occurred over time and may just be an extinct species we are unaware of.

 

[AV1611VET]

Creationists can't agree on which skulls are human and which are not:

Are we supposed to?

 

[USincognito]

Well for example many scientists believed we evolved from apes and often depicted what the transformation may have looked like as apes began to evolve into humans. So why don’t we see the inbetween stages that are not exactly ape and not exactly man but somewhere in between? The absence of these “missing links” indicates that the evolution process either has ceased or never took place to begin with.

Your use of the phrase "missing link" and your allusion to finding living "ape-men" today is positively 19th Century in it's understanding of the subject.

 

[USincognito]

Where did you get that and is it substantiated?

Seriously? Because you were unaware of all the hominid fossils we've found your response is not answer his question, but to question the veracity of the skulls?

It is my understanding that many have claimed to find the remains of a missing link and after much study they come to find that it is most likely an extinct ape and not human at all.

Your "understanding" is wrong and I'll explain why in a bit.

 

[USincognito]

You believe all those skulls are from humans?

Please don't respond to his posts. I don't want his nonsense polluting my thread.

 

[Ophiolite]

Well for example many scientists believed we evolved from apes and often depicted what the transformation may have looked like as apes began to evolve into humans. So why don’t we see the inbetween stages that are not exactly ape and not exactly man but somewhere in between? The absence of these “missing links” indicates that the evolution process either has ceased or never took place to begin with.

These are interesting questions. If any of the following points are unclear please ask me for clarification.

1. From a classification point of view we are apes.
2. The other apes from which we evolved were not the same as the apes that exist today. Gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos, orangutans, gibbons and humans all evolved from an earlier common ape-like ancestor, the proto-ape.
3. The evolution of those distinct species depended mainly upon two things: the specific mutations occurring within particular populations; the characteristics of the environment in which the populations lived. Natural selection then favoured the survival of specific characteristics (some that already existed, some that arose through those mutations) that were beneficial in those environments.
4. Therefore we cannot possibly see the evolution of humans from the other apes occur today because:

• The other apes from which we evolved are no longer there
• The specific environments in which the evolving populations arose have gone
• The random mutations that occurred in the past either fail to occur, or are occurring within a quite different population or environment

If we were to actually see humans evolve from today's apes it would pretty much destroy all of evolutionary theory, apart from the observation that things evolve.

 

[pitabread]

Please don't respond to his posts. I don't want his nonsense polluting my thread.

Fair enough.

 

[AV1611VET]

Fair enough.

Methinks he hates me for this remark:

The New Answers Book - Ken Ham

 

[BNR32FAN]

Seriously? Because you were unaware of all the hominid fossils we've found your response is not answer his question, but to question the veracity of the skulls?



Your "understanding" is wrong and I'll explain why in a bit.

I did answer his question I don’t know. And yes I questioned its validity because I’ve only heard of unsubstantiated claims of finding the missing link and later they’re either found to be inconclusive or dismissed as not being human. So please excuse my hesitation to believe everything I hear on the internet.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Your use of the phrase "missing link" and you allusion finding living "ape-men" today is positively 19th Century in it's understanding of the subject.

Your use of the phrase “you allusion finding living "ape-men" today” is positivity elementary. Oh and I think the word you were looking for is illusion not allusion. I can clearly see that I’m dealing with an intellect here that is beyond my comprehension so perhaps I should just get out of this thread before my IQ drops any further. Good day friend.

 

[BNR32FAN]

These are interesting questions. If any of the following points are unclear please ask me for clarification.

1. From a classification point of view we are apes.
2. The other apes from which we evolved were not the same as the apes that exist today. Gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos, orangutans, gibbons and humans all evolved from an earlier common ape-like ancestor, the proto-ape.
3. The evolution of those distinct species depended mainly upon two things: the specific mutations occurring within particular populations; the characteristics of the environment in which the populations lived. Natural selection then favoured the survival of specific characteristics (some that already existed, some that arose through those mutations) that were beneficial in those environments.
4. Therefore we cannot possibly see the evolution of humans from the other apes occur today because:

• The other apes from which we evolved are no longer there
• The specific environments in which the evolving populations arose have gone
• The random mutations that occurred in the past either fail to occur, or are occurring within a quite different population or environment

If we were to actually see humans evolve from today's apes it would pretty much destroy all of evolutionary theory, apart from the observation that things evolve.

The thing that I find hard to believe is that these species had to survive for incredible long periods of time only to become extinct? What triggered the mutation was it purely genetic or was there a catalyst? If there was a catylist how did it effect the entire population or did the rest of the population that didn’t mutate all the sudden become extinct despite having survived long enough to mutate into what we are today. Then there’s also the question of how did the mutation process take on such a structured form? Typical virtually every mutation we see today in lifeforms are completely unstructured. Cancer and birth defects for example are two examples of this. There is no structure or design of functionality as we see in lifeforms that are not mutated in these ways. Have you seen any examples of modern day mutation where the mutation was actually beneficial to the host or more efficient than a normal healthy person? I think the idea of intelligent design is absolutely plausible no matter how improbable it may seem. The odds of everything coming together so perfectly just for this planet to be able to support life alone is overwhelmingly improbable. Combine all that with the chances of all life and a self replenishing ecosystem being structured with such complexity and balance not to mention the natural instincts needed for all life forms to survive and perpetuate itself is unbelievably improbable without intelligent design. I honestly can see how anyone can look at our world and not see intelligent design. This place is engineered to support life and we are engineered to live.

 

[pitabread]

Have you seen any examples of modern day mutation where the mutation was actually beneficial to the host or more efficient than a normal healthy person?

Oh, absolutely there are lots of examples documented in literature.

The most prominent example of beneficial mutations come from bacteria and the evolution of antibiotic resistance. Humans have invented various antibiotics to kill off harmful bacteria. However, bacteria continually evolve and give rise to strains which no longer are killed by antibiotics. One of the mechanisms by which bacteria can evolve resistance is through mutations.

In some cases, you have the appearance of so-called "superbugs"; bacteria that are extremely resistance to known antibiotics and consequently pose significant dangers to human health.

Wikipedia has an extensive article on antibiotic resistance if you want to know more :Antimicrobial resistance - Wikipedia

There are various other examples that I'm sure others will post including in human populations (HIV resistance, lactose tolerance, Bajau divers, etc).

The odds of everything coming together so perfectly just for this planet to be able to support life alone is overwhelmingly improbable.

The odds of any individual person winning the lottery is overwhelmingly improbable. But if enough people keep playing, the odds of someone winning the lottery becomes inevitable.

It's similar with planets. There are so many planets in the universe that the odds that some of them will support life doesn't seem like an improbability; it's an inevitability.

 

[Ophiolite]

The thing that I find hard to believe is that these species had to survive for incredible long periods of time only to become extinct?

I'm not sure why you think they had to survive for incredibly long periods. Rather they were likely continually changing throughout the evolution from original common ancestor to present species. Where we place the dividing line between one species and its predecessor, or follower is largely a matter of convenience.

What triggered the mutation was it purely genetic or was there a catalyst?

"the mutation". I don't know what you mean by "the mutation". It is as though you think one species is distinguished from another by the effect of "one mutation". Nothing could be further from the truth. Multiple mutations, in combination, accumulated over time are what lead to speciation.
Generally mutations are random, though exposure to natural radioactivity might increase the rate, and there may be other subtle events, but these are not significant.

If there was a catylist how did it effect the entire population or did the rest of the population that didn’t mutate all the sudden become extinct despite having survived long enough to mutate into what we are today.

One individual has a mutation. If it offers an advantage to the individual that individual is slightly more likely to survive and slightly more likely to leave offspring, some of whom will carry that mutation. The mutation then has a chance to spread throughout the population. Thus, over time, the entire population changes, the individuals without the mutation decrease from generation to generation till none remain. The populations are continuous through time, some genes and their associated features are not.

Then there’s also the question of how did the mutation process take on such a structured form? Typical virtually every mutation we see today in lifeforms are completely unstructured. Cancer and birth defects for example are two examples of this. There is no structure or design of functionality as we see in lifeforms that are not mutated in these ways.

I have no idea what you mean by a structured form. Mutations can be beneficial (in a given environment) neutral (in a given environment) or damaging (in a given environment). As you note, the damaging ones are much less likely to be passed on to offspring. The beneficial ones need only offer a very small advantage to be favoured in an environment and come to dominate in a population, over several generations.

Have you seen any examples of modern day mutation where the mutation was actually beneficial to the host or more efficient than a normal healthy person?

Certainly. One that springs to mind is a mutation that enables inhabitants of Tibet to better tolerate the low oxygen pressure at high altitudes. A different mutation, that works through a different mutation offers similar benefits to some inhabitants in the Andes. These mutations date back just a few thousand years. (That's modern in genetic terms.)

I think the idea of intelligent design is absolutely plausible no matter how improbable it may seem. The odds of everything coming together so perfectly just for this planet to be able to support life alone is overwhelmingly improbable. Combine all that with the chances of all life and a self replenishing ecosystem being structured with such complexity and balance not to mention the natural instincts needed for all life forms to survive and perpetuate itself is unbelievably improbable without intelligent design. I honestly can see how anyone can look at our world and not see intelligent design. This place is engineered to support life and we are engineered to live.

That's an argument from personal incredulity and thus not one that carries any weight with those of us who prefer facts and evidence. Please continue to express your doubts in specific terms and I shall do my best to address them.