Why Evolution is True (3)

[createdtoworship]

Definitions are not a replacement for evidence.

Please demonstrate that CSI can not evolve.

please see my last post, I address this thoroughly

 

[Loudmouth]

please see my last post, I address this thoroughly

No you don't. You simply assert it. No evidence is given as to why CSI in DNA can not evolve.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

Is atheistic evolution any different from atheistic gravitation?

Sorry, my question was/is directed at one poster, not you.

Thanks

 

[createdtoworship]

No you don't. You simply assert it. No evidence is given as to why CSI in DNA can not evolve.

again please see my last post, if you have questions on any of it reply to that post, thanks.

 

[dad]

I already gave you the fossil evidence.

You refuse to define what features a transitional fossil should have. All you have is denial.

Name the letter for the first skull you claim is really human? If you don't know, then pick one you feel safe is fully human. The rest of course don't matter.

 

[dad]

What does this have to do with macroevolution?

Dizredux

Although I don't much go wiith the micro macro thing, do you have several actual creatures that you claim macro evolved?

 

[createdtoworship]

What does this have to do with macroevolution?

Dizredux

I was just making conversation, and It seems that you are too afraid to answer.

 

[createdtoworship]

I already gave you the fossil evidence.

You refuse to define what features a transitional fossil should have. All you have is denial.

easy, I have rebutted this a million times already. Ape like creatures have what is called a "shovel face, " while human like creatures have what is called a "nose ridge". Conversely, apes will lack a nose ridge, and humans will lack the shovel face look. Given this explanation the top is obviously ape like families, while the bottom is human like, and there is even a pretty yellow line to differentiate.

 

[dad]

I am just imagining the pelvis found in australopithecines? I am just imagining the brow ridges on H. erectus?

What are brow ridges needed FOR? Could it be that man and other creatures needed to adapt to something new in our world? If a monkey and a man squinted, for example, because the light was now somewhat different, and adapted brows that helped in that dept, why would they both not have adapted brows? Do we even know why brows adapted? Certainly a monkey with big brows does not mean it is our grandparent!!! That is truly foolish. We might consider why pelvises adapted also? Do you know why? If you offer that as evidence we came from monkeys, I say you have bad religion.

We don't need to know the difference since sister taxa can still be used to inform us on the evolutionary transition.

Well, I take that with a grain of salt -- what you decide to think a sister of something informs us of!

If we see hominid transitionals become more and more human-like over time, isn't that what we should see if evolution is true?

The issue is not what we should see if a belief is true. The issue is does what we see prove that only evolution could have been responsible. Homonid transitional!!!?? You can't declare a monkey a transitional just because it started to evolve some bone feature as man may have had to do. Conversely, we should also wak if there is some reason God may not have created creatures with somewhat similar features!? The thing is, how in blazes would you know either way!!?

It is a theory backed by evidence. No need for faith.

So far you display only fanatical faith disguised as evidence.

Cars are created with various different traits, and yet they don't fall into a nested hierarchy. Obviously, you don't understand what a nested hierarchy is.

Man created cars. God created creatures and angels. He uses a nested hierarchy.

" Nested
(of an ordered collection of sets or intervals) having the property that each set is contained in the preceding set and the length or diameter of the sets approaches zero as the number of sets tends to infinity. "
"1. a system of persons or things arranged in a graded order



--- ... 1. any system of persons or things ranked one above another. "

hierarchy - definition of hierarchy by The Free Dictionary

Why isn't it evidence? If we see the exact hierarchy of characteristics that evolution would produce, why isn't that evidence?

Who says it is not also the exact order creation and subsequent changes produced?? You just want to steal the evidence for you belief! No. No. No.

 

[dad]

Since when are you concerned with the laws of physics?

Science is concerned with them. Yet they are most concerned with waving off God and keeping Him out of their knowledge, to the point they will violate all laws to do it. Hypocrites.

 

[bhsmte]

Science is concerned with them. Yet they are most concerned with waving off God and keeping Him out of their knowledge, to the point they will violate all laws to do it. Hypocrites.

Ah come on, you are just ticked off because the evidence doesn't point your way.

Get over it.

 

[createdtoworship]

We don't know if any fossil is our direct ancestor, as discussed before. We can dig up a modern human fossil and not know if that individual has descendants based on morphology alone. Only through genetics can we determine direct relatedness, and the hominid transitionals do not have any DNA (except for Homo neanderthalensis).

As for a list of the fossils, wiki has a decent page:

List of human evolution fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The major evolutionary trends are found in the skull and pelvis. Starting with the Australopithecines, you see a pelvis very much like ours, and unlike other apes. This is a great image for a comparison of the pelvis:

On the far right you have a chimp pelvis. You will notice that the iliac blade is turned towards the back (i.e. dorsal). In humans (on the far left), the iliac blades are turned towards the side. The middle two pelvises are australopithecus and ardipithecus, both of which have iliac blades on the sides as is the case in humans. Auastralopithecines also have an inward angled femur, just like humans. These are all adaptations for bipedality. A short, squat pelvis with iliac blades on the side with inward angled femurs is what allows us to balanc our weight over our feet, and we find that very thing in hominid transitionals.

At the same time, the skull of australopithecines if very ape like. They have large brow ridges, a jaw that juts forward, a more narrow pallete, and a larger lower jaw. Here is a nice comparison of many transitional skulls, including a chimp skull at A for comparison.

These are arranged in chronological order, and what you will see is a gradual increase in cranium size, a reduction of brow ridge size, and a reduction in the prognathus of the jaw (prognathus = jaw juts forward).

As to how humans evolve, that would be through evolutionary mechanisms which include random mutation, selection, and speciation.

I already answered the pictures of the apes, and humans, but the other picture of lucy's hip looks fake, do you have any CT scans or other photographs, I like using actual photos of the fossils, so we know it can't be faked, like the very clean and obviously modified picture.

here is some actual replicas of fossils (blue means reconstruction)

here is LUCY

http://www.efossils.org/page/boneviewer/Australopithecus afarensis/AL 288-1

even here:

http://www.efossils.org/page/bonevie...sis/AL 288-1

note how Lucy is forward facing on the lobes of the hip

and note below how a human like hip wraps around for 360 degree balance for walking upright (not knuckle dragging)

http://www.stoneageinstitute.org/media-center.html

do you see the same bone configuration of the ilium (specifically) in actual photos of fossils, or CT scans?

 

[dad]

Ah come on, you are just ticked off because the evidence doesn't point your way.

Get over it.

It does point my way, all of it, including God's word. If I claimed God use present state laws to create the universe, or that our laws are the be all end all, I too would be a hypocrite.

 

[createdtoworship]

Species do exist in nature. There are populations that do not interbreed so that different mutations accumulate in the different populations.

Also, you have done nothing to rebuff my posts demonstrating the genetic differences between chimps and humans. I showed you the chimp genome paper, and you still refuse to accept it. You are still trying to claim that chimps are 30% different than humans. You are still trying to claim that cats are more closely related to humans than chimps are, even though I showed you that this was false.

You haven't rebuffed anything. You have only repeated the same creationist lies.

what you are talking about is populations, thats all. Species as a term was invented with all the other taxonomy. So no, you do not have the privilege of using that term either. (as you believe all arbitrary classifications are false because they were invented by man)

 

[Dizredux]

I was just making conversation, and It seems that you are too afraid to answer.

Grady do you even try to be honest?

We were discussing macroevolution and suddenly you changed the subject to my religious beliefs

I told you that I would respond in a few day but then you said you were not going to respond to me on macroevolution unless I answered your question about my beliefs first. At that point, there was no way I was going to answer you and told you so.

You then carry on that I will not answer your question about my beliefs on Genesis.

It appears that you did not like the direction the discussion on macroevolution was going and took this method of bugging out.

Apparently you and Hovind make a good team, you both seem to operate a lot alike.

Dizredux

 

[createdtoworship]

Grady do you even try to be honest?

We were discussing macroevolution and suddenly you changed the subject to my religious beliefs

I told you that I would respond in a few day but then you said you were not going to respond to me on macroevolution unless I answered your question about my beliefs first. At that point, there was no way I was going to answer you and told you so.

You then carry on that I will not answer your question about my beliefs on Genesis.

It appears that you did not like the direction the discussion on macroevolution was going and took this method of bugging out.

Apparently you and Hovind make a good team, you both seem to operate a lot alike.

Dizredux

I adressed this in my last post....

 

[createdtoworship]

over a week ago I asked this question of Dizredux
http://www.christianforums.com/t7834960-6/#post66208491


, and he resultantly dodged for about three days on the thread. It was only a few days ago he reappeared hopping I had forgot the question.

Now he is dodging by saying it has nothing to do with macroevolution, however that is dependent on our interpretation of genesis. Some believe evolution to be imbedded in the text, so I simply am asking a question of him. Perfectly okay to try to logically justify evolution with the Bible, they are called Theistic evolutionists. ( I personally don't agree with it) So again dizredux here is my question, lets see if you can answer it this time:

Do you believe Genesis is the word of God, Do you believe it is literal?

if not, then how can people be called sinners if adam was never there to begin the process of "the fall". Without being called sinners, how can someone be forgiven of sin by Christ's sacrifice, and lastly, how can one be saved with no theological roots to the fall. Granted one may in fact come upon the doctrine of original sin, and depravity by other means, but what is the ultimate point if the original sin, did not sin, because He didn't exist?

 

[Dizredux]

over a week ago I asked this question of Dizredux
http://www.christianforums.com/t7834960-6/#post66208491


, and he resultantly dodged for about three days on the thread. It was only a few days ago he reappeared hopping I had forgot the question.

Now he is dodging by saying it has nothing to do with macroevolution, however that is dependent on our interpretation of genesis. Some believe evolution to be imbedded in the text, so I simply am asking a question of him. Perfectly okay to try to logically justify evolution with the Bible, they are called Theistic evolutionists. ( I personally don't agree with it) So again dizredux here is my question, lets see if you can answer it this time:

Do you believe Genesis is the word of God, Do you believe it is literal?

if not, then how can people be called sinners if adam was never there to begin the process of "the fall". Without being called sinners, how can someone be forgiven of sin by Christ's sacrifice, and lastly, how can one be saved with no theological roots to the fall. Granted one may in fact come upon the doctrine of original sin, and depravity by other means, but what is the ultimate point if the original sin, did not sin, because He didn't exist?

Again, what does this have to do with the scientific concept of macroevolution which you say does not exist? The definition and existence of macroevolution is what I am discussing. You are rapidly losing focus, try to stay on track.

Dizredux

 

[bhsmte]

Grady do you even try to be honest?

We were discussing macroevolution and suddenly you changed the subject to my religious beliefs

I told you that I would respond in a few day but then you said you were not going to respond to me on macroevolution unless I answered your question about my beliefs first. At that point, there was no way I was going to answer you and told you so.

You then carry on that I will not answer your question about my beliefs on Genesis.

It appears that you did not like the direction the discussion on macroevolution was going and took this method of bugging out.

Apparently you and Hovind make a good team, you both seem to operate a lot alike.

Dizredux

That's just typical grady.

 

[Dizredux]

Although I don't much go wiith the micro macro thing, do you have several actual creatures that you claim macro evolved?

Diz

Dad, you post in interesting question that I want to research a little in order to give you a good response. I did some work on it last night and learned some interesting stuff but it will probably be this weekend before I can continue.

Thanks for the question, I have never had to articulate this and like the chance to research something I am interested in.

Did some work on it and here is a short essay. (Arthritis does not allow me to write long ones, hurts too much to type.)

Scientists define macroevolution at or above species level. Microevolution is change within a single species and Macroevolution refers to changes in more than one species. When you have speciation, you have macroevolution.

There are many of examples of this is the fossil record and with plants it is viewed as common because plants can spectate in one generation.

I don't think that is what you are after though so I am going to give you two examples and discuss a third. I was looking for living examples to make things easier.

The first example is discussed at National Geographic. They talk about two species of squirrels on different sides of the Grand Canyon that have become to fairly different populations.

There is their discussion

When Arizona's Grand Canyon formed, squirrels and other small mammals that had once been part of a single population could no longer contact and reproduce with each other across this new geographic barrier. They could no longer interbreed. The squirrel population underwent allopatric speciation. Today, two separate squirrel species inhabit the north and south rims of the canyon. On the other hand, birds and other species that could easily cross this barrier continued to interbreed and were not divided into separate populations.

speciation - National Geographic Education


Another one is the London Underground Mosquito which is a new species which developed in the underground structures and may have developed in the last century or so.

Heredity - Culex pipiens in London Underground tunnels: differentiation between surface and subterranean populations


One that caught my interest the most was the polar bears. They branched off from brown bears and over time have become more and more different, not just in color but other characteristics. The interesting part is with these, you can see the process of macroevolution in process of happening. Really a neat thing in my opinion.

The polar bear and brown bear can, at least in some circumstances, breed resulting in hybrid polar/brown bears. That mix is rare since they do not operate in the same range of environments and not many have been spotted. There is some possibility that with climate warming, their ranges may overlap more and you may see more of these hybrids. I don't know if the hybrid offspring are interfertile though.


http://www.cell.com/abstract/S0092-8674(14)00488-7
•Polar bears and brown bears diverged only ca. 400,000 years ago
•Genes on the polar bear lineage have been under stronger selection than brown bears
•Strong selection in polar bears restructured metabolic and cardiovascular function

If there are any questions on the definition of macroevolution I use here are some university science sites explaining this.


http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/pap.macroevolution.pdf
https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Macroevolution.html
Reproductive Isolation
What is macroevolution?
Macroevolution FAQ
BIO 304. Ecology & Evolution: Macroevolution
really good one with Texas examples


Dizredux