Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You can stop acting as if we haven't shown you evidence
what evidence? not trying to be rude
but I honestly missed it or something. please be kind enough to repost.
Have we not shown you fossils? Have we not mentioned DNA, studies, etc? You can view these as not being enough to make you an evolution supporter, but don't act as if they aren't evidence.
you beg the question as to what evidence they are for. You must present your entire argument at the time of submittal.
you got two different things here. first plant evolution is another topic. which we could migrate to if you want to change the bars. secondly flies do evolve. fruit flies are still flies regardless of how their eyes evolve. thirdly, you can migrate to plants as soon as you own the fact that you dont think vertebrates share common ancestry. are you willing to do that?
I just want to be fair here, cabvet. You can change the bars as much as you like, but remember we need closure on our old topic. Are you willing to accept defeat, and be intellectually honest here? No evidence of macro evolution exists to date amongst vertebrates? If so we can move on.
you beg the question as to what evidence they are for
She is not begging the question.
Why do you keep using terms incorrectly like that?
Well as far as I have read it also applies to more advanced and complex life as well. This can be done via viruses and cross breeding.I have already addressed this multiple times now. Those scientists agree that the tree of life still applies to complex life. The tree only breaks down for the root of the eukaryote tree and for prokaryotes.
I never said there wasn't a single transitional, I said Where is the evidence for them and that its hard to tell what is a transitional and what is not. Whether its variation within a species.And yet you claim that there is not a single transitional fossil. If it isn't black and white, how can you make such a black and white judgement?
No thats what you say because you dont like the answers. All or at least most of the sites I quoted were scientific sites like the above pnas, newscientist and plosgenetics.org.The problem is that what you reference is either creationist propoganda sites, or it doesn't support what you claim.
They are variations of the same species. Just like there is variation within the dog species of a sausage dog and a great Dane. Completely different shapes and sizes. Just like there is variation within the human species of a dwarf and the Watusi tribe who are the tallest people on earth. A transitional will have variation as well but it will continue to change and morph across species barriers and then into another type of animal. Though for example dogs can vary a lot they will still be dogs. They wont change their shape and become a cat or pig. Variation within a species can be great as seen with different dogs and even to the point where you may think that it doesn't look like a dog anymore. But its still a dog.For example, placing three transitional hominid fossils in the same species does not take away their transitional status. They are still transitional. Variations of a transitional species are still transitionals. The ability to interbreed with a transitional species does not take away their transitional status.
No they are not. They are the genetics that we inherit from our parents that are already there. Transitions come from new features that were not there. Though I suppose there can be a combination but new features have to be added with new genetic info so that the creature gradually changes into something that they are not and become something that is new from the rest of the group. If you look at the variety in humans we have tall people, short people, flat noses, big noses ect ect. In a generation we can be tall but within that same line the generations can go back to be small or whatever feature they use to have if the genetics were there originally. So they can become tall in one generation and go back to small in future generations. Transitions will take on a new feature and keep it if its beneficial. Then over a very long time a creature will add more and more new changes until it is a completely different and new creature. This normally will happen when the changes are taken on by the group or they become isolated.Variations within a transitional species are still transitional.
Every species has to have variations otherwise we would all be the same. That variety is the normal variety within a group of animals and their gene pool. All the genetic info is there and it will depend on what is passed on and who the parents are. But transitions will need new genetic info to make new features that were not there from the original group. So variety is not really a transition but normal differences that can come and go depending of the parents ans line line that you inherit them from.You are arguing just the opposite. If there are gradual variations then you say they belong to the same species, and therefore can not be transitional. For any gradual series, you will draw an arbitrary line somewhere in the series and declare everything on one side to be an ape, and everything on the other side of the line to be human.
No I am questioning whether a creature can take on new genetic info and make new features he never had. If they cant breath underwater and havnt got the genetics to do so I am questioning whether they can get that from natural selection. That comes from mutations so that eventually positive mutations will give the creature the ability to breathe under water. But this is a slow and gradual process. So it wont get the ability in one go. It will get a small step towards that over thousands of years. But like I said Just like with wings if they get a bit of a wing how is that beneficial to keep on for the next generations. I think darwins evolution takes what is limited evolution within creatures like the ability to change size and color ect and says that you can extend that to changing into another new and completely different creature. Its the same sort of logic but they take it to the extreme where it hasn't been proven. This is need because they believe that all life is self creating and there is not God. So nature is the God which has the ability to do the impossible.A gradual series is exactly what we have, and exactly what you are citing as casting doubt on the fossils being transitional.
No I'm saying that some of the variation is so great within some creatures that you could mistake them for something completely different. Even though they are still the same creature but with different variations like a poodle and a great Dane.According to your logic, if we dug up dog fossils that had a lot of variation then they would be considered modern humans.
But they all still look like bats. Yet humans and chimps look so much different.There are over a 1,000 species of bats. There is way, way more genetic differences between two bat species than there are between humans and chimps. WAY MORE!!!
No this is where I believe they step outside the limits. Humans are humans and though we may have many variations even to the point where some fossil humans of the ancient world may have looked a little like apes they are still humans.So if we use bats as your limitation, then humans evolving from a common ancestor shared with chimps is well within your limitations.
Well dinos would be dinos and though there would be great variation within the dino group even to the point where some dinos have feathers. Then you would have birds and they would have great variation as well even to the point where they may have features like dinos such as their feet and claws. All animals have some similar genetics and features because the blueprint for life is basically the same. So the same basic genetics to make hair and nails is in all of us. But that doesn't mean we came from each other. That there was this bacteria that spawned all life and thats why we all have the same genetics because we grew out of each other. If you make something you can make separate creatures for each group of animals but use the same blue print over and over again and just change some of the genetics to get the different animals. If you make a cake with flour and eggs and water you would change that recipe to much to make scones and then bread and then muffins. Its basically the same just with some adjustments. But that doesn't mean the scones came from the cake or the muffins came from the scones. No you keep using the same reciepe because its was sucessful in making the cake and you just adjust it to make the other items.The problem is that you would just call those stages either dinos or birds by drawing an arbitrary line in the series. You would call transitionals on one side of the line "variations of dinos" and transitionals on the other side of the line "variations of birds". It is the same thing you are doing with hominid transitionals.
Well then how are they beneficial for one and where are the transitional fossils for creatures that have wings that are not quite wings. All we have are creatures with full wings or creatures with no wings and nothing in between.You would have a stage where the arms are functional, but don't provide fully powered flight.
Jesus did write lots of lines. His words were recorded and He made sure of that as He Himself said He would.
To back up your claim no one has seen an angel you have to prove the millions who dis wrong and know every person that lived to see who saw what. You are talking out of your depth.
Your objections read more like simple rejection of the findings based on faith instead of reasonable objections. What can one fossil have in relation to another . . . except similarities?
Ok well I keep reading over and over again how genetics is showing that the tree that darwin made is wrong. The branches of that tree are being removed and the links between some creatures is being undone. Where two animals were linked through the similarities of anatomy and bone structure it was found that they were not linked through genetics. There have been some creatures linked to a line in the tree where scientists thought they didn't belong. So groups of creatures are being lumped together with parts of their gnome when scientists said they should belong together. The tree of life that Darwin had made which showed verticle passing of genes is wrongs and genetic results are showing a more horizontal movement. HGT is more widely at play than scientists though. So changes through mutations alone is not the only way genes can be passed from one creature to another to account for changes in features.Genetics is not showing the lines and trees made in the past are coming into qeustion. Genetics is confirming the lines and trees made in the past.
Not sure what you mean here but many of the so called vestigial organs have been shown to be use for something else.And you continue to sport ear wiggling muscles that our species no longer uses at all. How many species back was it that those vestigial muscles were actually useful, do you suppose?
this is another ad hominem fallacy. But anyway, the truth is that I am providing an example of macro evolution by stating two objects and one transition between. For simplicity only, what I didn't state is that you can have as many intermediaries as you wish, but document the common ancestry as it become important the more steps you take. Thats all, thanks for the comment.
see my last post, that was one example of many, but you document no examples so I don't feel bad. thanks for the comment.
No, there isn't. None of the studies you keep pointing to have classified H. erectus skulls as H. sapiens skulls. Even the original Neanderthal specimen found in Germany was found to be genetically different than anatomically modern humans. Since then, numerous studies have demonstrated that neanderthals and humans were different species with very little cross breeding. For example, no neanderthal mitochondrial DNA lineages survive in modern human populations. If neanderthals were just a variation of modern humans then we would expect to see these lineages at the same frequencies as other mtDNA lineages, but we don't.
Well according to the latest info and discoveries thats not the case.
But, by biologists most common definitions, we, our Homo sapien ancestors, Neanderthals, and Denisovans are all part of the same species.
Neanderthals & Homo sapiens: the same species? | IFS
Were Neanderthals a different species? | Genetic Literacy Project
No scientists. Why is it that any time someone disagrees with what evolutionists say it has to be creationists. There is a lot of research going on in this area at the moment and I'm not going to make any definite statements. But as more data comes in we will see and learn more. But from what I have read there are some scientists saying that there are similarities between some of the so called different species that were made in the past. They were finding skulls that covered a few of the different shapes that were attributed to different species in the past together. This brought into question some of the skulls that were said to be a different species and a transitional. It was suggesting that they were just variations within the same species. Now they are getting some genetic evidence. Certainly some of the species have been brought together one way or the other and it has indicated that there were possibly less species going around. To me this is showing that scientists were quick to label a new species all the time because they needed to to make links with transitions.By "some" do you mean the creationists on creationist sites?
Refer top above.That is false. All of the neanderthal DNA studies have demonstrated that there is very limited interbreeding which would classify them as separate species.
Confirmed: All non-African people are part Neanderthal
The evidence has been mounting for years that early humans and Neanderthals interbred,
How did Neanderthal genes affect humanity? Here are some answers.
Is there evidence for Neanderthal life?: How did Neanderthal genes affect that of Human genes?
I am not sure. Its hard to tell and be confident. What is a variation within the same species and what is a transition.And yet creationists say that there are definitely no transitional fossils. Go figure.
That just doesn't make sense and cant be proved. They are two different things as far as I know. How do you tell the difference.Again, variations within a transitional species are still transitional.
The point is there is still conjecture. Nothing is definite. Australopithecine is definitely very ape like. They focus on a couple of features to link it to humans. One is whether it walked upright. Many say it might have but not very well. But even if it did it doesnt prove that it was a transitional to humans. Some apes can stand and walk upright with some difficulty as well and that is the problem. Is it an ape that can have a couple of human features or abilities or is it a early human.Evolution news and views is not a science site. Please reference real science and not creationist propoganda.
Few other paleoanthropologists agree with Dr. Bergers contention that the new species is the most plausible known ancestor of archaic and modern humans.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/28/s...d-forest-foods-fossil-teeth-suggest.html?_r=0
Well the point I was making is that if transitions between creatures takes thousands if not millions of years to happen and many gradual stages then we should have more transitional fossils than complete fossils of creatures that are fully formed. If it takes many stages to get a fully formed and working wing then we should have one lot of fossils with fully formed wings, one lot of fossils of that same creature when it had no wings and many fossils of it gradually getting wings. So there would be more fossils of the gradual stages in between than there would be for it when it had no wings or fully formed wings. So in that case we should have more chance finding fossils of the in between stages than the first stage and last stage.That does not stand to reasons. There were billions of passenger pigeons at one time, but we only have a handful of known fossils, and that is for a very recent species that is present in the most easy to get to sediments. The problems only get worse as we move back in time.
Well to me its got nothiong to do with creationists and Im not a creationist. Its just a simple and logical question one should ask. If changes to a creatures shape and features apart from that which is already within its genetic code are made through muataions then it would take many mutations to get the right sort of changes needed. Because the process is random and blind and the only reason oneis taken on is because it proves advantagous. But the creature doesnt know that it needs that particular change. It just happens to keep one because it proves beneficial. So to get one beneficial change from a mutation would it need many other trial and error mutations in between to get there. I mean it might fluke the right change in one or two generations but chance are it will take a long time to get all the right changes it needs. If it eventually needed say to lose its legs because it could move better down holes then at first it may get mutation that have nothing to do with losing legs. Thats because it doesn't know it needs to lose its legs. I maybe looking at it to simply or wrong but that is how I understand it.First, non-advantageous does not mean deleterious. Those include mutations that do not change anatomy or physiology in any way whatsoever. This is another example of how creationists use tactics to mislead their audience.
No, there wouldn't. That is not how genetics work. An entire generation is not suddenly born with the all individuals having the same deleterious mutation.So the generation will have many different types of muatations. The ones that are beneficial will be kept and eventually become the dominate change in the group. But would there be other mutation changes that were beneficial for a while for other reasons and taken on for a while until they didn't work.
No you are allowed to use them.'m saying because they are used to show transitions that its hard to tell whether they are just variations with a species that comes from genetics it already has or if its a transition. Its also hard because some different creatures have similarities and they are not related ie shark and dolphin. So similarities alone dont mean they are transitions.Hold on. If we aren't allowed to use physical similarities, then what in the world are you asking for with respect to transitionals.
But the platypus also has similarities of other animal's as well.Transitional does not mean ancestral. When we say that a fossil is transitional we are not saying that it must be a direct ancestor of a living species. Those are two different things. For example, the platypus is a transitional species because it has features of both placental mammals and reptiles. However, no one is claiming that the modern platypus is a direct ancestor to every living placental mammal species.
Not true in any way. Jesus promised His spirit would bring things to remembrance whatever He said! You are in NO position to deny that or disprove it, whether you are careful or not.Jesus didn't write a single line. There is no "Gospel according to Jesus". Careful now.
Using your logic, the Yeti, Leprechauns, Thor and Zeus all exist because I can't interview every single person in this planet to prove that nobody saw them.
Not true in any way. Jesus promised His spirit would bring things to remembrance whatever He said! You are in NO position to deny that or disprove it, whether you are careful or not.
Using your logic your mom or granddad didn't exist because we can't interview them. Whether spirits of various names exist is neither here nor there, and certainly above your paygrade.
To back up your claim no one has seen an angel you have to prove the millions who dis wrong and know every person that lived to see who saw what. You are talking out of your depth.
Well as far as I have read it also applies to more advanced and complex life as well. This can be done via viruses and cross breeding.
Lateral gene transfer events between bacteria and animals highlight an avenue for evolutionary genomic loss/gain of function. Herein, we report functional lateral gene transfer in animal parasitic nematodes.
Interdomain lateral gene transfer of an essential ferrochelatase gene in human parasitic nematodes
Human evolution is looking more tangled than ever. A new genetic study of nearly two thousand people from around the world suggests that some of our ancestors bred with other species of humans, such as Neanderthals, at least twice.
No thats what you say because you dont like the answers.
They are variations of the same species.
Just like there is variation within the dog species of a sausage dog and a great Dane.
A transitional will have variation as well but it will continue to change and morph across species barriers and then into another type of animal.
Though for example dogs can vary a lot they will still be dogs. They wont change their shape and become a cat or pig.
Variation within a species can be great as seen with different dogs and even to the point where you may think that it doesn't look like a dog anymore. But its still a dog.
But if a dog or any animals would change into another then would we have see or be seeing now animals that are 1/2 and 1/2 or 1/4 and 3/4. Wouldn't we see limbs and wings and other body parts in the process of forming into new creatures.
No they are not. They are the genetics that we inherit from our parents that are already there. Transitions come from new features that were not there.
If you look at the variety in humans we have tall people, short people, flat noses, big noses ect ect. In a generation we can be tall but within that same line the generations can go back to be small or whatever feature they use to have if the genetics were there originally. So they can become tall in one generation and go back to small in future generations.
Every species has to have variations otherwise we would all be the same.
That variety is the normal variety within a group of animals and their gene pool. All the genetic info is there and it will depend on what is passed on and who the parents are. But transitions will need new genetic info to make new features that were not there from the original group.
No I am questioning whether a creature can take on new genetic info and make new features he never had. If they cant breath underwater and havnt got the genetics to do so I am questioning whether they can get that from natural selection. That comes from mutations so that eventually positive mutations will give the creature the ability to breathe under water. But this is a slow and gradual process. So it wont get the ability in one go. It will get a small step towards that over thousands of years. But like I said Just like with wings if they get a bit of a wing how is that beneficial to keep on for the next generations.
I think darwins evolution takes what is limited evolution within creatures like the ability to change size and color ect and says that you can extend that to changing into another new and completely different creature.
No I'm saying that some of the variation is so great within some creatures that you could mistake them for something completely different.
Even though they are still the same creature but with different variations like a poodle and a great Dane.
But they all still look like bats. Yet humans and chimps look so much different.
Humans are humans and though we may have many variations even to the point where some fossil humans of the ancient world may have looked a little like apes they are still humans.
Well dinos would be dinos and though there would be great variation within the dino group even to the point where some dinos have feathers. Then you would have birds and they would have great variation as well even to the point where they may have features like dinos such as their feet and claws. All animals have some similar genetics and features because the blueprint for life is basically the same. So the same basic genetics to make hair and nails is in all of us. But that doesn't mean we came from each other.
Well then how are they beneficial for one and where are the transitional fossils for creatures that have wings that are not quite wings.
Well according to the latest info and discoveries thats not the case.
But, by biologists’ most common definitions, we, our Homo sapien ancestors, Neanderthals, and Denisovans are all part of the same species.
No scientists. Why is it that any time someone disagrees with what evolutionists say it has to be creationists.
But from what I have read there are some scientists saying that there are similarities between some of the so called different species that were made in the past.
They were finding skulls that covered a few of the different shapes that were attributed to different species in the past together. This brought into question some of the skulls that were said to be a different species and a transitional.
It was suggesting that they were just variations within the same species.
To me this is showing that scientists were quick to label a new species all the time because they needed to to make links with transitions.
The evidence has been mounting for years that early humans and Neanderthals interbred,
I am not sure. Its hard to tell and be confident. What is a variation within the same species and what is a transition.
That just doesn't make sense and cant be proved. They are two different things as far as I know. How do you tell the difference.
The point is there is still conjecture. Nothing is definite.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?