This is a little weird, but if Evolution is true,, shouldn't it be evolving simultaneously?

[loveofourlord]

But they do not, and this is why the shift to cladograms. They tend to hide the fact that common descent not supported by evidence.

3 taxa have been recognised.

thats not the question, how many kinds? And what would you hve said without looking it up?

We shift as our knowledge gets better, but where they shift, is on the morphology side like with the vultures, where they look simularly but arn't, we still havn't found anything that massivly contradicts evolution, no true chimera, or as kirk cameron said a crocoduck, though we did find hilariously enough a duckcroc :> Plus every fossil fits within what we know geneticly, when we find tikalh, the chinese feathered dinosaurs, and others they fit what we had already figured out previously. Give a example of something that we've found that doesn't fit within evolution.

 

[Anguspure]

thats not the question, how many kinds? And what would you hve said without looking it up?

Clearly all of us (including those called Scientists from other specialties) would need to read something about a topic before giving a response. Without "looking it up" anybody would have had to have become a specialist in the field and spent time researching the topic myself before they could perhaps give a definitive answer.

I have not studied birds and so I could not tell you off the top of my head how many kinds there are within the avian kingdom.

We shift as our knowledge gets better, but where they shift, is on the morphology side like with the vultures, where they look simularly but arn't, we still havn't found anything that massivly contradicts evolution, no true chimera, or as kirk cameron said a crocoduck, though we did find hilariously enough a duckcroc :> Plus every fossil fits within what we know geneticly, when we find tikalh, the chinese feathered dinosaurs, and others they fit what we had already figured out previously. Give a example of something that we've found that doesn't fit within evolution.

The fossil record provides no evidence of common descent. Common origin, perhaps, but the assertion of descent is based upon some very imaginative hypothesizing.

"it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way.....To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story - amusing perhaps, even instructive, but not Scientific. Henry Gee (In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life)

Looking at things on a genetic level is even more problematic (for common descent).

"different phylogenetic analyses can reach contradicting inferences with [seemingly] absolute support." Sean B Carroll

The massive contradiction of evolution is the complete lack of a mechanism capable of producing novel invention. The insistence that everything developed from a single biological form (the aoutoinvention of which in itself is a highly absurd assertion), by means of a series of small intermediate steps is simply not feasible, nor is it borne out by the historic record.

 

[Anguspure]

thats not the question, how many kinds? And what would you hve said without looking it up?

We shift as our knowledge gets better, but where they shift, is on the morphology side like with the vultures, where they look simularly but arn't, we still havn't found anything that massivly contradicts evolution, no true chimera, or as kirk cameron said a crocoduck, though we did find hilariously enough a duckcroc :> Plus every fossil fits within what we know geneticly, when we find tikalh, the chinese feathered dinosaurs, and others they fit what we had already figured out previously. Give a example of something that we've found that doesn't fit within evolution.

“The sequence begins,” Coyne writes, “with the recently discovered fossil of a close relative of whales, a raccoon-sized animal called Indohyus. Living 48 million years ago, Indohyus was… probably very close to what the whale ancestor looked like.” In the next paragraph, Coyne writes, “Indohyus was not the ancestor of whales, but was almost certainly its cousin. But if we go back 4 million more years, to 52 million years ago, we see what might well be that ancestor. It is a fossil skull from a wolf-sized creature called Pakicetus, which is bit more whalelike than Indohyus.” On the page separating these two paragraphs is a figure captioned “Transitional forms in the evolution of modern whales,” which shows Indohyus as the first in the series and Pakicetus as the second.Coyne, Why Evolution Is True, pp. 49-51.

But Pakicetus—as Coyne just told us—is 4 million years older than Indohyus. To a Darwinist, this doesn’t matter: Pakicetus is “more whalelike” than Indohyus, so it must fall between Indohyus and modern whales, regardless of the fossil evidence.

(Coyne performs the same trick with fossils that are supposedly ancestral to modern birds. The textbook icon Archaeopteryx, with feathered wings like a modern bird but teeth and a tail like a reptile, is dated at 145 million years. But what Coyne calls the “nonflying feathered dinosaur fossils”—which should have come before Archaeopteryx—are tens of millions of years younger. Like Darwinists Kevin Padian and Luis Chiappe eleven years earlier, Coyne simply rearranges the evidence to fit Darwinian theory.)Kevin Padian & Luis M. Chiappe, “The origin and early evolution of birds,” Biological Reviews 73 (1998): 1-42. Available online (2009)

 

[loveofourlord]

Clearly all of us (including those called Scientists from other specialties) would need to read something about a topic before giving a response. Without "looking it up" anybody would have had to have become a specialist in the field and spent time researching the topic myself before they could perhaps give a definitive answer.

I have not studied birds and so I could not tell you off the top of my head how many kinds there are within the avian kingdom.

The fossil record provides no evidence of common descent. Common origin, perhaps, but the assertion of descent is based upon some very imaginative hypothesizing.

"it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way.....To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story - amusing perhaps, even instructive, but not Scientific. Henry Gee (In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life)

Looking at things on a genetic level is even more problematic (for common descent).

"different phylogenetic analyses can reach contradicting inferences with [seemingly] absolute support." Sean B Carroll

The massive contradiction of evolution is the complete lack of a mechanism capable of producing novel invention. The insistence that everything developed from a single biological form (the aoutoinvention of which in itself is a highly absurd assertion), by means of a series of small intermediate steps is simply not feasible, nor is it borne out by the historic record.

you guys keep repeating the lie about no mechanism and yet we keep telling you it, and you've shown no magickal wall that stops evolution from progressing beyond a point, other then to point to things that were not intended to do that and claim it some how shows it's impossible.

 

[loveofourlord]

“The sequence begins,” Coyne writes, “with the recently discovered fossil of a close relative of whales, a raccoon-sized animal called Indohyus. Living 48 million years ago, Indohyus was… probably very close to what the whale ancestor looked like.” In the next paragraph, Coyne writes, “Indohyus was not the ancestor of whales, but was almost certainly its cousin. But if we go back 4 million more years, to 52 million years ago, we see what might well be that ancestor. It is a fossil skull from a wolf-sized creature called Pakicetus, which is bit more whalelike than Indohyus.” On the page separating these two paragraphs is a figure captioned “Transitional forms in the evolution of modern whales,” which shows Indohyus as the first in the series and Pakicetus as the second.Coyne, Why Evolution Is True, pp. 49-51.

But Pakicetus—as Coyne just told us—is 4 million years older than Indohyus. To a Darwinist, this doesn’t matter: Pakicetus is “more whalelike” than Indohyus, so it must fall between Indohyus and modern whales, regardless of the fossil evidence.

(Coyne performs the same trick with fossils that are supposedly ancestral to modern birds. The textbook icon Archaeopteryx, with feathered wings like a modern bird but teeth and a tail like a reptile, is dated at 145 million years. But what Coyne calls the “nonflying feathered dinosaur fossils”—which should have come before Archaeopteryx—are tens of millions of years younger. Like Darwinists Kevin Padian and Luis Chiappe eleven years earlier, Coyne simply rearranges the evidence to fit Darwinian theory.)Kevin Padian & Luis M. Chiappe, “The origin and early evolution of birds,” Biological Reviews 73 (1998): 1-42. Available online (2009)

for the 5993131 time, this is the, "If we evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys." argument, and just as stupid here as it is there.

 

[Anguspure]

for the 5993131 time, this is the, "If we evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys." argument, and just as stupid here as it is there.

I don't see any monkeys mentioned here, far less 5993131 of them. Do they have typewriters?

 

[Anguspure]

you guys keep repeating the lie about no mechanism and yet we keep telling you it, and you've shown no magickal wall that stops evolution from progressing beyond a point, other then to point to things that were not intended to do that and claim it some how shows it's impossible.

What mechanism? It is a complete absurdity to suggest that Natural Selection acting on random mutation is capable of invention, particularly at the level called for (and that has been obseved many more than 5993131 times) , if that is what you are on about.
So, apart from Darwins molecular fiddler, what mechanism do you propose?

 

[loveofourlord]

What mechanism? It is a complete absurdity to suggest that Natural Selection acting on random mutation is capable of invention, particularly at the level called for (and that has been obseved many more than 5993131 times) , if that is what you are on about.
So, apart from Darwins molecular fiddler, what mechanism do you propose?

it's the only one needed not our fault that you guys don't understand it, your incredulity isn't evidence or science.

I don't see any monkeys mentioned here, far less 5993131 of them. Do they have typewriters?

Actually it is, all your arguring is, "If birds evolved from archeopteryx like animals why are there still archeopteryx" that explain why it's dumb?

 

[Gottservant]

I think part of the problem, is that I just do not put enough value on being human: I have never been so intent on being human, that I have been willing to consider having come from an ape (as being advantageous, to being that "human" later on). Do you see what I am saying? Like if I wanted to be more human, I would choose an elephant for an ancestor, not an ape.

I suppose that means I am post-human, so Evolution doesn't apply to me: I am never going to want to change my relationship to God or Man, so the notion of "progression" just gets "der..." from me. It doesn't mean I am going to devolve, it doesn't mean I am going to miss out. All it means is that I am going to see species for what they are, and learn from them, as teaches me about God.

Learning from other species, is basically the best we can hope for - if we evolve, we will benefit in the next life, if we stay Created, we will benefit now, but in no sense will we miss the mark. Rather species will be able to learn from us, and survive better themselves. This is the calling of God, for Mankind to be stewards of what God has Created. It is important that we do not mistake this!

Perhaps in time we will understand why Mankind decided to crucify the Creator - but for today it is enough, to honour His crowning Himself with the joy in what He had Created gave Him. There is only One God!

 

[The Barbarian]

Hi there,

So naturally I can't post this in the Evolution forum just yet - they are just not mature enough to handle a concept like this - but I need to develop the "thought": if you could bear with me, a little, here.

The idea is this "Evolution is often described as uni-directional (a species sets out to have a certain number of offspring, some of them are similar, some of them are different), each generation setting out to make the same changes as their parents, and a little bit more", but there are interactions better one generation to the next, in the sense that some developments are more "conditional" than others - a very real threat to the species, will be anticipated and its similarities and differences will vary accordingly. This is to the strength of the species, that things like "balance", "perception" and "instinct" get given special treatment. So I say again, some developments are more conditional: a perceptive generation might decide to train its balance more deliberately, a generation with a lot of instinct, might stay "instinctive", instinct being a more versatile trait.

Over the generations then, the line between inherited and conditional, will blur and reshape - one generation might succeed at overcoming a predator through instinct, another might amass great numbers by remaining perceptive: these things do not write in stone, what the Evolutional direction will be, it may inform something - but not everything! This is basically the point I was trying to make, but there is a step further that you can take it: a predator may be conditional, about its prey species being conditional! If a predator finds prey after prey is relying on "perception" to add to its numbers, the appetite of the predator may increase - essentially wiping a species out, because of an Evolutional vulnerability... predators like variety in their meals!

The point of the idea then, is this: what will happen to the offspring of the predator that preys upon predictable conditionality? Initially, the offspring will benefit just as the parent benefits, and there will be much slaughter; then, down the track, the offspring of the offspring will find there is less conditionality in the prey species and it will cease to hunt on this basis, on this hunger. But it will have developed a narrow conditionality of its own, disaster for the offspring of the offspring! It behoves the later generations to be creative about their conditionality, at least to a degree, to ensure that the hunt is not becoming a trivialized pursuit.

So that is it: we must consider that conditionality can be refined, as much as Evolution can be driven full steam ahead. It is a difficult concept, why would a species avoid developing in the way that seems most obvious? But there are aesthetic quallities at play here, and the prospering of the species, is not limited to the predation of the past - the predation of the past may indeed be far more conditional than is sustainable! That really is the word for it, I think: Evolution must primarily be "sustainable", before it can be secondarily expressed. And that is the struggle for our time: how do we approve the sustainable, how do we nurture it? Nurtured sustainability, is greater than survival!

I welcome your most ardent reprove!

Two observations:
1. evolution has indeed evolved. For example, while prokaryotes of different taxa can conjugate and share genes, eukaryotes generally do not. The genetic code is not quite universal,and differs slightly among kingdoms. And there actually seems to be some genes that allow a limited amount of adaptive mutation.

2. Your ideas are somewhat like the "Red Queen" hypothesis:
Red Queen hypothesis - Wikipedia