The Fossil Record Proves Speciation, Not Evolution of Lifeforms Observed

[Shemjaza]

here is a transitional form:

but it doesnt prove any evolution even if those vehicles were self replicate or were made from organic components like a living thing.

(image from The Difference Between Personal and Commercial Auto Insurance)

Observation: Genes define form.
Observation: Genes are inherited.
Observation: Genes can mutate.
Observation: Species or particular forms have not always existed.

Hypothesis: Species have changed form, even to the extent of becoming one or more new species.

Prediction: Transitional forms showing connection between related species would exist.

Test: Fossils of the right age could be found or modern remnant species demonstrating the link.

Conclusion: They were found in many families and classes of life.

 

[juvenissun]

This has been demonstrated. When you induce genetic change you get morphological change.

I'm surprised that you seem to skeptical of the concept of genetics itself.

Yes. But that feature does not tell cause/consequence. It only illustrates the relationship.

Genetic change in current lives happened all the time, for example, in humans. Have we ever seen any consequential morphological change which caused a new species on any life form?

I do not doubt genetic understanding. But I feel the understanding is tooo limited to help anything in evolution. Genetics may be useful in biological engineering. But it is not that useful in biological sciences.

 

[DogmaHunter]

So much personal comments to cover the ignorance. You may walk now.

Just an observation of your very consistent behaviour.

 

[DogmaHunter]

At least, you begin to exam something you never know. That is not a bad thing.

That is the second fossil you requested and received and then subsequently failed to acknowledge.

See? Very consistent behaviour indeed.

 

[DogmaHunter]

here is a transitional form:

but it doesnt prove any evolution even if those vehicles were self replicate or were made from organic components like a living thing.

(image from The Difference Between Personal and Commercial Auto Insurance)

Biological evolution is not proven by pointing to non-biological mechanical devices?
Who would have thought.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Genetic change in current lives happened all the time, for example, in humans. Have we ever seen any consequential morphological change which caused a new species on any life form?

Yes. You should google "observed speciation".

I do not doubt genetic understanding

Clearly you do................

But I feel the understanding is tooo limited to help anything in evolution

LOL!
Maybe it is just YOUR understanding that is too limited. Ever considered that?

Genetics may be useful in biological engineering. But it is not that useful in biological sciences.

lolol!

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

here is a transitional form:

but it doesnt prove any evolution even if those vehicles were self replicate or were made from organic components like a living thing.

(image from The Difference Between Personal and Commercial Auto Insurance)

Cars and vehicles can't evolve!!!

 

[xianghua]

Observation: Genes define form.
Observation: Genes are inherited.
Observation: Genes can mutate.
Observation: Species or particular forms have not always existed.

Hypothesis: Species have changed form, even to the extent of becoming one or more new species.

Prediction: Transitional forms showing connection between related species would exist.

Test: Fossils of the right age could be found or modern remnant species demonstrating the link.

Conclusion: They were found in many families and classes of life.

the same with the cars above. lets say that they were even able to reproduce. you will conclude design or evolution in that case?

 

[stevevw]

The problem is evolution takes those very few transitions and then assumes that some random and blind process created all life from a single cell organism to complex and intelligent beings. The problem is the nostrils are already there and they are just moving around the head. That is not saying anything about how the nostrils got there in the first place.

It's like dog breeding where we see the repositioning or change of dog features ie tail, no tail, nose at end of the long snout, nose pushed up against face with no snout, short hair, long hair, curly hair, short legs, long legs, fast running and slow running dogs etc ect. They are all still dogs with dog features. How did these features get there in the first place.

How do we know that these changes in features are not just variations within the natural variation of a type of animal that can have a great variation? This is another problem with the classification of transitions and natural variations. Scientists often mistake natural variation within a type of animal as a transition and therefore create an new species when there was not one to create. There is a lot of debate about what is transitional (splitters and clumpers in taxonomy).

Speciies is a very ambigious term. It could be that there were only a few major types of creatures from which a great deal of variation has come and what is being classed as new species is just variation of the original animals. Basically what we see is small variations of existing body parts which can be the result of existing genetic info. It could be that there are other mechanisms that allow life to change besides evolution via random mutations and blind natural selection.

Considering most of the major phylum and body plans appeared from virtually nowhere in the Cambrian period points to something besides the slow and gradual process of evolution and points to most of the genetic info for further changes in features already there. Evolution is based on a lot of assumptions and I think that is why some say there is no real direct scientific testable evidence for it.

 

[stevevw]

Cars and vehicles can't evolve!!!

Yet I find that type of example with 3 or maybe 5 or 6 separate stages are used as examples for transitional evolution. Yet anyone would say for a random and blind process to produce only a few jumps in morphology would imply that there must be more going on than just blind and random evolution because evolution cannot and does not know where it's going to produce such detail. The jump is too great and would indicate more of a guided process if anything.

As Darwin said we would expect to see many graduations which would mean thousands and thousands of said type with tiny steps gradually morphing into a new feature. Not just 1000s of tiny right steps that morph a feature into functional benefit but even more tiny steps that don't produce a benefit and therefore litter the fossil record with dysfunction. Yet what we see is well defined and functional features and creatures suddenly appearing without a trace of where they came from. That's why Gould came up the idea of punctuated equilibrium but for me, this is just one of the many attempts to explain away evolutions problems that cannot be accounted for.

Just take size as an example. To jump from a rodhocetus around 1000lbs and 8 to 10 foot long to a Baleen whale which the smallest is 20ft and 6,600 lbs is a pretty big transition. There is nothing shown in between. The previous transitions between ambulocetus and rodhocetus don't have a lot of difference in size and features so there is not a great deal of transition going on and could be regarded as within the range of variation of a type of animal.

This example could also be applied to most features where there is a big difference like a simple eye to a complex or different featured eye and not just size. The examples for transition often show fairly well-defined creatures with sudden and well-defined changes without much in between. For me, this points to something else besides evolution and that are other mechanisms going on that allow creatures to make big jumps in changing features besides Darwinian evolution.

 

[xianghua]

Evolution is based on a lot of assumptions andd I think that is why some say there is no real direct scientific testable evidence for it.

we can also arrange c ats in hierarchy from the small one to the big one. but it doesnt prove they evolved from each other in such order.

 

[Speedwell]

we can also arrange c ats in hierarchy from the small one to the big one. but it doesnt prove they evolved from each other in such order.

No, it doesn't prove anything except that you can arrange cats in any order you like. Why do you keep doing it?

 

[Shemjaza]

the same with the cars above. lets say that they were even able to reproduce. you will conclude design or evolution in that case?

But your made up animal/car/transformers don't actually exist. And even if intelligently designed animals for driving around in existed, that would not demonstrate that all animals were intelligently designed.

Abraham Lincoln died... he was killed by John Wilkes Booth with a gun.
Jesus died... therefore he was also killed by John Wilkes Booth with a gun.

Can you see how vacuous your logic is?

 

[Shemjaza]

Yes. But that feature does not tell cause/consequence. It only illustrates the relationship.

Genetic change in current lives happened all the time, for example, in humans. Have we ever seen any consequential morphological change which caused a new species on any life form?

I do not doubt genetic understanding. But I feel the understanding is tooo limited to help anything in evolution. Genetics may be useful in biological engineering. But it is not that useful in biological sciences.

That is flat out false. We have inserted genetic sequences into developing life forms and the expected changes occurred.

This is pretty trivial genetics.

 

[juvenissun]

That is flat out false. We have inserted genetic sequences into developing life forms and the expected changes occurred.

This is pretty trivial genetics.

1. Genetic situation g --> Life form L
2. Genetic situation g1 --> Life form L1
This is genetic engineering. Both are true. But,

3. Life form L --> Genetic situation g
4. Life form L1 --> Genetic situation g1
The KEY is that case 4 never happened in nature (natural life L1 never exist). Since L1 must link to g1, so you do not know if it is g1 leads to L1, or L1 leads to g1.

If someone could change the genetics of a cat and let it become a dog, then I might be convinced.

 

[Shemjaza]

1. Genetic situation g --> Life form L
2. Genetic situation g1 --> Life form L1
This is genetic engineering. Both are true. But,

3. Life form L --> Genetic situation g
4. Life form L1 --> Genetic situation g1
The KEY is that case 4 never happened in nature (natural life L1 never exist). Since L1 must link to g1, so you do not know if it is g1 leads to L1, or L1 leads to g1.

If someone could change the genetics of a cat and let it become a dog, then I might be convinced.

Still not true, if you extract the genetic situation g1 from L1 and put it into a developing g and you end up with a L1.

 

[juvenissun]

Still not true, if you extract the genetic situation g1 from L1 and put it into a developing g and you end up with a L1.

Not surprising. The key is that L1 NEVER exist in nature. It is induced by g1.
If L1 existed in nature, it must have g1 and not g2.
So, we do not know which caused which.

How about this analogy:
more money --> richer, or
richer --> more money

Can you find a case:
richer --> not more money

So, is that more money makes a person rich, or a rich person has more money?

 

[Shemjaza]

Not surprising. The key is that L1 NEVER exist in nature. It is induced by g1.
If L1 existed in nature, it must have g1 and not g2.
So, we do not know which caused which.

How about this analogy:
more money --> richer, or
richer --> more money

Can you find a case:
richer --> not more money

So, is that more money makes a person rich, or a rich person has more money?

That doesn't make sense.

If the first two statement are true, then your third is false.

 

[juvenissun]

That doesn't make sense.

If the first two statement are true, then your third is false.

It does make sense.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

It does make sense.

What Shemjaza meant was "That doesn't make sense to anyone other than you, juvenissun."