What does having 96% chimp dna mean to you?

[sfs]

And after many generations, not one single moth evolved. The traits are still there. That is why they go from predominantly dark, to light and back to dark again. The ones with the traits that survive are more successful at procreating. Sure, an attribute can go away completely over time, but that is different from something brand new coming into existence that was not there before, and becoming a dominant trait in the species.

The dark form of the moth almost certainly was the result of a recent mutation. The mutation introduced a new trait to the species that had previously been absent. That trait happened to be favorable for survival at the time, and so it spread rapidly through the population. That's evolution. It's only the evolution of a single trait caused by a single mutation, but the same process is going on constantly. No species remains the same.

 

[xianghua]

That's evolution. It's only the evolution of a single trait caused by a single mutation

a better term will be variation rather then evolution. such variation can heppen even in a non-living object such as car, that can change its color during the time.

 

[rjs330]

Clearly we are not on the same page as to what a transitional fossil is. In particular, I am not sure what you mean by "fully formed." Are not all living creatures fully formed?

Yes they are. And they were created that way. There are no transitional fossils. No evidence of a common ancestor and no observation of anything as proposed occurring. All things remain in their same group no matter what the changes may occur due to micro changes.

 

[rjs330]

As I have pointed out many times, every living thing has or had parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, and so on in an unbroken lineage extending indefinitely far back in time. This is simply the law of biogenesis, 'All life comes from life'. Living things come from parents of the same kind; they don't appear by spontaneous generation from water or from dirt.

As DogmaHunter explained,


Nevertheless, mammals must have had ancestors that lived at the same time as trilobites, but these ancestors were not themselves mammals. In other words, the fossil record shows that mammals must be descended from non-mammalian vertebrates, which did live at the same time as the trilobites.



But we must have had ancestors that lived during the Miocene and Oligocene and earlier epochs, where there are no fossils of human beings. Therefore our Miocene and earlier ancestors were not humans; since anatomy and genetics show that our closest affinities are with the Primates, these ancestors were almost certainly Primates. As G.G. Simpson said, if we could meet our Miocene and earlier ancestors, we should certainly call them apes or monkeys.

Or maybe no fossils were created at the time. You know as well as I do the fossil record does not show all creatures that may have lived during the time. The record is sparse when it come to how many or what existed. I am using the same argument you like to use. You say since we have no mammals in the fossil record they didn't exist. Then you say we have no evidence of evolution from a common ancestor in the fossil record but it still happened. You can't have it both ways.

If humans have existed for millions of years as you believe then trillions of people have died during all those years. Where are all those fossils?

 

[Speedwell]

Yes they are. And they were created that way. There are no transitional fossils. No evidence of a common ancestor and no observation of anything as proposed occurring. All things remain in their same group no matter what the changes may occur due to micro changes.

You still didn't answer my question, What do you mean by "fully formed?" So I will provide the answers, all you have to do is say yes or no.


According to the theory of evolution, each and every creature is fully formed and functional in its environement, including transitionals. If you imagine that a "transitional" is partly or incompletely formed, you won't find such a specimen, and if you did it would cause considerable trouble for the ToE.

According to the theory of evolution, if you hypothesize that species A is the common ancestor of species B and C, then you would expect to find two lines of transitional fossils, one from species A to species B and another from species A to species C. If you imagine that there should be a "transitional" part way between species B and species C you won't find such a specimen, and if you did it would cause considerable trouble for the ToE

 

[Speedwell]

a better term will be variation rather then evolution. such variation can heppen even in a non-living object such as car, that can change its color during the time.

the "variation" that we are talking about is not a change in the creature during its lifetime, but the variation of a trait from that of the creature's parents.

 

[rjs330]

You still didn't answer my question, What do you mean by "fully formed?" So I will provide the answers, all you have to do is say yes or no.


According to the theory of evolution, each and every creature is fully formed and functional in its environement, including transitionals. If you imagine that a "transitional" is partly or incompletely formed, you won't find such a specimen, and if you did it would cause considerable trouble for the ToE.

According to the theory of evolution, if you hypothesize that species A is the common ancestor of species B and C, then you would expect to find two lines of transitional fossils, one from species A to species B and another from species A to species C. If you imagine that there should be a "transitional" part way between species B and species C you won't find such a specimen, and if you did it would cause considerable trouble for the ToE

What you don't have is transitional fossils from species A to species B or species A to species C. All you have is fully formed species A,B, and C and nothing in between.

 

[xianghua]

Or you can simply stop repeating the same faulty analogy over and over.
You know what they say: Insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result.

since i talke about a self replicating object its not a faulty analogy at all. read again what i said.

 

[Speedwell]

What you don't have is transitional fossils from species A to species B or species A to species C. All you have is fully formed species A,B, and C and nothing in between.

So we don't have any? OK. So the ones that appear to be "in between" what are we to make of them? That God created one species after another, each sightly different such as there appears to be a progression of types? First species A was created and allowed to become extinct, then another species, slightly different than A and closer to B was created and allowed to become extinct, then another even more like B and less like A and so on. Is that what you think happened?

 

[sfs]

a better term will be variation rather then evolution.

No, we're quite happy with the terms we've got now. Evolution is not mere variation, and using one term would only confuse people.

such variation can heppen even in a non-living object such as car, that can change its color during the time.

Exactly! That's exactly the kind of confusion people will get into if you start changing terminology for a technical subject without any reason.

 

[pitabread]

Yes they are. And they were created that way. There are no transitional fossils.

Transitional fossils are those with intermediary characteristics between two or more taxa. And given that we have found fossils that have characteristics between two or more taxa, by definition transitional fossils exist.

Now if you prefer to believe they were magically created that way, that's your call. But those transitional fossils still exist and will continue to exist regardless of your belief.

 

[Skreeper]

since i talke about a self replicating object its not a faulty analogy at all. read again what i said.

It is a faulty analogy. Your self replicating X argument is straight out of fantasy land. But this has been explained to you time and time again so I won't hold my breath that you'll eventually grasp it.

 

[pitabread]

since i talke about a self replicating object its not a faulty analogy at all. read again what i said.

There is a reason no one else uses that analogy. Machines are not analogous to living things.

 

[Almost there]

The dark form of the moth almost certainly was the result of a recent mutation.

That is an hypothesis.

 

[doubtingmerle]

a better term will be variation rather then evolution. such variation can heppen even in a non-living object such as car, that can change its color during the time.

Cars change because engineers change the drawings.

Species change because mutations change the DNA.

See the difference?

 

[Almost there]

Cars change because engineers change the drawings.

Species change because mutations change the DNA.

See the difference?

Here is one we agree on. This may also explain why cars evolve, but life often "de-evolves". i.e. the mutation is WORSE.

Well, the Ford Thunderbird notwithstanding...

 

[doubtingmerle]

What you don't have is transitional fossils from species A to species B or species A to species C. All you have is fully formed species A,B, and C and nothing in between.

Ever hear of a ring species? The members in the middle are precisely that, intermediates in between what would otherwise be two species. See Darwin was Right | Ring Species

 

[sfs]

That is an hypothesis.

No, that's a conclusion based on the genetic data for the moths in question. See here for a description of one study, and this paper for another study:

van’t Hof, A. et al. 2016. The industrial melanism mutation in British peppered moths is a transposable element. Nature 534:102-105.

 

[Almost there]

No, that's a conclusion based on the genetic data for the moths in question. See here for a description of one study, and this paper for another study:

van’t Hof, A. et al. 2016. The industrial melanism mutation in British peppered moths is a transposable element. Nature 534:102-105.

Until it is proven through scientific experimentation it is a theory. If one can't come up with an experiment to prove or disprove it, it is an hypothesis. The key is that they didn't "prove" mutation took place. Rather, they concluded that it "almost certainly" must have.

Scientific rules are really, absurdly simple. If you don't follow them, what you are doing may be really cool and useful (like a lot of stuff Tesla did), but if you don't follow the scientific method, it's not science.

 

[xianghua]

No, we're quite happy with the terms we've got now. Evolution is not mere variation, and using one term would only confuse people.

Exactly! That's exactly the kind of confusion people will get into if you start changing terminology for a technical subject without any reason.

so you consider any change as evolution basically?