The Best Evidence for Evolution (Challenge to all Creationists)

[Skwim]

Where I live, kind and species are the same. Cows and buffaloes are considered different kinds for example.

Yeah, and that would work except when it comes to Noah getting the millions of kinds (species) aboard the ark.

.

.

 

[DavidFirth]

What makes dogs and cats different kinds? Why aren't humans and apes the same kind?

How is anyone supposed to know what you'e talking about if you don't provide a proper definition? How would you feel if science operated in such a way?

That tells us practically nothing.

Then just put me on ignore. My gosh, you guys want me to be your kinder garden teacher. Please.

 

[Polymath257]

Maybe so. But you're still biased against them and everyone else who believes in the Bible. You let your bias guide you rather than the truth.

You have it backwards. Let the truth guide you rather than the bias in favor of any specific religious text. Then you will find the Bible to be false and unworthy of serious consideration (outside of a few historical references).

 

[Jose Fly]

We can prove a man raped a woman by comparing his DNA to the DNA of the sperm found in her body. That's proof if the DNA matches. You've got zero DNA matches. You've got no proof.

Well guess what? By the same methods and standards you cite for DNA testing in forensics, we can "prove" that humans and other primates share a common ancestry.

A common class of retrotransposon are SINEs (short interspersed elements). One important SINE is the Alu element. Alu elements are around 300 base pairs long, and are commonly used in paternity testing and in criminal forensics to identify individuals and establish relatedness (as in the types of case you cite DF). They are reliable identifiers because the only reason two individuals would share the exact same particular Alu sequence insertion is if they both inherited it from a common ancestor.

About 2,000 Alu insertions are specific to humans, and an even larger number are shared with other primates. But more specifically, in the human alpha-globin cluster there are seven Alu elements, and each one is shared with chimpanzees in the exact same seven locations!

Evolution of Alu family repeats since the divergence of human and chimpanzee. - PubMed - NCBI

So the same methodology that allows us to determine paternity and relatedness in courts of law also allows us to show that humans, chimpanzees, and other primates share a common ancestry. IOW, one can argue that this bit of evidence “proves” human/primate shared ancestry in the same way the same evidence “proves” paternity in courts of law.

 

[Jose Fly]

Variation in feathers, yes, but transition between scales and feathers (the topic at hand)? Please post the graphic depicting the half-scale half-feather transitionary form.

Well heck, we can even show the genetic basis for the transition.....

The anatomical placode in reptile scale morphogenesis indicates shared ancestry among skin appendages in amniotes

Here's a more layperson friendly description: Solved: the mystery of where feathers, fur and scales come from

 

[Socratic Berean]

Well heck, we can even show the genetic basis for the transition.....

The anatomical placode in reptile scale morphogenesis indicates shared ancestry among skin appendages in amniotes

Here's a more layperson friendly description: Solved: the mystery of where feathers, fur and scales come from

Interesting stuff. The fact remains that feathers appear suddenly in the geologic record and we have not found anything resembling a transitionary form between a scale and a feather (the topic of discussion at hand). Indeed, the first source cited confirms this:

"...the lack of fossil intermediate forms between scales and hairs and substantial differences in their morphogenesis and protein composition have fueled the controversy pertaining to their potential common ancestry for decades."

 

[Jose Fly]

Interesting stuff. The fact remains that feathers appear suddenly in the geologic record and we have not found anything resembling a transitionary form between a scale and a feather (the topic of discussion at hand). Indeed, the first source cited confirms this:

"...the lack of fossil intermediate forms between scales and hairs and substantial differences in their morphogenesis and protein composition have fueled the controversy pertaining to their potential common ancestry for decades."

So? We have not only very good indication that it happened, we now have a specific genetic pathway and mechanism to demonstrate how it happened.

 

[sayak83]

Then just put me on ignore. My gosh, you guys want me to be your kinder garden teacher. Please.

You got the wrong kinder garden teacher. In my kinder garden, everyone taught that kind and species are the same. So did my mom.

 

[Socratic Berean]

So? We have not only very good indication that it happened...

In the absence of even a single tangible example of a transitioning scale-to-feather skin appendage, a fossilized specimen, that we can point to as physically observable and testable data, what is the "very good indication?"

...we now have a specific genetic pathway and mechanism to demonstrate how it happened.

Homology does not demonstrate transition at a molecular level any more so than at a physiological level (as seen in fossils). You can infer transition from homology, however, and then spend time searching for forms in a true transitioning state to support that inference. (Bringing us back to the topic of discussion--the absence of a transitioning scale-feather in the fossil record and the sudden appearance of feathers.)

That the study's data confirms at a biochemical level the previously debated homology is interesting, but it does not surface a mid-stage transitioning molecule or pathway (a mechanism to produce a mid-way scale-feather), any more than the fossil record has revealed a true mid-stage transitioning scale-feather.

 

[Misunderstood]

Boy, if this isn't some the silliest stuff to pop up on RF this year I don't know what is. It certainty isn't worth further comment.

Hello Skwim, I was hoping to get one of your humorous posts or some other fun to read reply. But, I got something even better 'Silliest stuff on RF, of the year award'. Thank you, thank you, for this wonderful award given to me, it is such a wonderful honor; I would like to thank my Mom, Dad, brother and sisters, and to all the people here at RF for making this possible and I cannot forget... However, I assume it was all pretty silly, but would have hoped you would have indicated the silliest part so I could expand on it.

Actually, I do appreciate it. I do not get to many replies on here, so it is nice to know somebody is listening even if it is silly. I would have hoped though you would have pointed out what you felt was wrong, as I feel most of what I wrote was based in science, I did not feel I went into any beliefs or faith in anything, except for my last sentence

But, I think the evolution theory needs to be reworked some to make it work.

, that was my opinion.

In my only two posts in this tread, I went over the beginnings of life on earth and that science does not have a working theory yet, or at least I have not heard about it, I think that is pretty accurate.

I went over time a bit and the aging of the universe. I think what I said is fairly well supported. At time of expansion aging could have been tremendous within a split second. I think Einstein has a theory about that. Also, I think the earth is slowing slightly and a few seconds are added from time to time to make up for this slowing, our earthly time keepers I think kind of agree.

I was just trying to point out that if life started on its own on earth and evolved, it would take some time to happen. I think science supports that also. But, if a billon years or two were to be taken away it would even be harder to get done in a timely manor. I was in no way trying to imply a 6,000 year old earth, sorry if it came across that way.

So is where I am headed is that Christians believe that God created life, and life has gone from there. Evolutionists say life evolved into everything alive on earth, without knowing how it happened or how long it would take. I'm not saying we will not be able to figure it out, but do feel if we do someone will be needed to start the process, it will not start on its own (this last part is my opinion again).

I was going to start into evolution tonight, but feel I have written enough for now, so I bid you 'all a goodnight.

 

[Skwim]

Hello Skwim, I was hoping to get one of your humorous posts or some other fun to read reply. But, I got something even better 'Silliest stuff on RF, of the year award'. Thank you, thank you, for this wonderful award given to me, it is such a wonderful honor; I would like to thank my Mom, Dad, brother and sisters, and to all the people here at RF for making this possible and I cannot forget... However, I assume it was all pretty silly, but would have hoped you would have indicated the silliest part so I could expand on it.

Actually, I do appreciate it. I do not get to many replies on here, so it is nice to know somebody is listening even if it is silly. I would have hoped though you would have pointed out what you felt was wrong, as I feel most of what I wrote was based in science, I did not feel I went into any beliefs or faith in anything, except for my last sentence , that was my opinion.

I wasn't going to bother, but since you ask. The silly parts:

"I want to go back to time for a bit. One of the other things I feel that some of the sciences has wrong is some of the time lines. The time lines may be right, but it would be a different timeline than we now use our basis for time.

I have read that time is slowing down, so a billion years some time earlier would not be the same as a billion years now. Also I have read (not Christian sites) that the universe could be much younger than it is thought to be. It is thought that in just a fraction of a second the universe aged billions of years. During it initial expansion everything would have been expanding so rapidly it would have been aging, but time would be stopped. For now I will leave that part and go on.

As I mentioned last night, the earth would have had to become stable and in a condition for life. Remember the sun was much smaller 4.5 billion years ago and not nearly as hot. Then would life even be possible to start on it own as we have not be able to come up with a valid theory we can prove yet. And if it is possible for life to start on it own, when would it start since it would have been pretty cold here 4.5 billion years ago? So life does get started, and it starts evolving, would it have had time to have evolved to the point it now? Remember, science also puts in a few extinction events along the way. I guess if that is your only theory than it must be enough time, because we are here so it must be right. But, I think the evolution theory needs to be reworked some to make it work.​

.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Then just put me on ignore. My gosh, you guys want me to be your kinder garden teacher. Please.

Why would I put you on ignore? I'm trying to get clarification from you about what you're talking about.

My gosh, why is it so difficult to answer a simple question? You say it's so simple that a child could understand it, and yet post after post you refuse to give a definition of what it is you are talking about? If you don't know what you're talking about, how is anybody else supposed to know?

 

[DavidFirth]

Why would I put you on ignore? I'm trying to get clarification from you about what you're talking about.

My gosh, why is it so difficult to answer a simple question? You say it's so simple that a child could understand it, and yet post after post you refuse to give a definition of what it is you are talking about? If you don't know what you're talking about, how is anybody else supposed to know?

All dogs are like kinds. They're all dogs.
All cats are like kinds. They're all cats.
Apes and orangutans are like kinds. They're all monkeys.

Cats and dogs are not like kinds.
Apes and humans are not like kinds.

There is nothing hard about it.

 

[Jose Fly]

In the absence of even a single tangible example of a transitioning scale-to-feather skin appendage, a fossilized specimen, that we can point to as physically observable and testable data, what is the "very good indication?"

Wait, wait, wait......the sentence you pulled from the abstract was "However, the lack of fossil intermediate forms between scales and hairs and substantial differences in their morphogenesis and protein composition have fueled the controversy pertaining to their potential common ancestry for decades."

Notice how that's talking about scale-hair transitions, not scale-feather. We do have very good morphotypes of the stages of feather evolution. So we have very good data showing that it did happen, and very good data showing how it happened. That a handful of Christians in an internet forum refuse to accept this reality isn't at all surprising.

Homology does not demonstrate transition at a molecular level any more so than at a physiological level (as seen in fossils). You can infer transition from homology, however, and then spend time searching for forms in a true transitioning state to support that inference.

Done.

 

[DavidFirth]

Wait, wait, wait......the sentence you pulled from the abstract was "However, the lack of fossil intermediate forms between scales and hairs and substantial differences in their morphogenesis and protein composition have fueled the controversy pertaining to their potential common ancestry for decades."

Notice how that's talking about scale-hair transitions, not scale-feather. We do have very good morphotypes of the stages of feather evolution. So we have very good data showing that it did happen, and very good data showing how it happened. That a handful of Christians in an internet forum refuse to accept this reality isn't at all surprising.


Done.

"Homology does not demonstrate transition at a molecular level any more so than at a physiological level (as seen in fossils). You can infer transition from homology, however, and then spend time searching for forms in a true transitioning state to support that inference."

Inference is inconclusive. Generalizations are inconclusive.
You can't show exactly how and why it happened so I can only infer that it most likely never happened.

Inference can work both ways.

 

[Jose Fly]

"Homology does not demonstrate transition at a molecular level any more so than at a physiological level (as seen in fossils). You can infer transition from homology, however, and then spend time searching for forms in a true transitioning state to support that inference."

Inference is inconclusive. Generalizations are inconclusive.
You can't show exactly how and why it happened so I can only infer that it most likely never happened.

Inference can work both ways.

Thanks for your input.

 

[sayak83]

"Homology does not demonstrate transition at a molecular level any more so than at a physiological level (as seen in fossils). You can infer transition from homology, however, and then spend time searching for forms in a true transitioning state to support that inference."

Inference is inconclusive. Generalizations are inconclusive.
You can't show exactly how and why it happened so I can only infer that it most likely never happened.

Inference can work both ways.

Gentle reminder regarding my reply.
The Best Evidence for Evolution (Challenge to all Creationists)

 

[SkepticThinker]

All dogs are like kinds. They're all dogs.
All cats are like kinds. They're all cats.

Okay, so what makes them like kinds, specifically? Are a lion and a house cat like kinds?

Apes and orangutans are like kinds. They're all monkeys.

They're not monkeys though, they're apes.

Why don't you consider humans to be ape "kinds" as well?

Cats and dogs are not like kinds.
Apes and humans are not like kinds.

Why not?

There is nothing hard about it.

Apparently it is, because you still haven't given me an actual definition - still just examples.


Is a kind the same thing as a species:

"A biological species is a group of organisms that can reproduce with one another in nature and produce fertile offspring. Species are characterized by the fact that they are reproductively isolated from other groups, which means that the organisms in one species are incapable of reproducing with organisms in another species. The term species can also be defined as the most basic category in the system of taxonomy. Taxonomy is a scientific system that classifies organisms into categories based on their biological characteristics. Species can also be defined based on a shared evolutionary history and ancestry. This method of defining species is called phylogenetics, which is the study of the evolutionary relationships among organisms. The evolutionary process by which a new species comes into being is called speciation."

species | Learn Science at Scitable

 

[DavidFirth]

Okay, so what makes them like kinds, specifically? Are a lion and a house cat like kinds?



They're not monkeys though, they're apes.

Why don't you consider humans to be ape "kinds" as well?


Why not?



Apparently it is, because you still haven't given me an actual definition - still just examples.


Is a kind the same thing as a species:

"A biological species is a group of organisms that can reproduce with one another in nature and produce fertile offspring. Species are characterized by the fact that they are reproductively isolated from other groups, which means that the organisms in one species are incapable of reproducing with organisms in another species. The term species can also be defined as the most basic category in the system of taxonomy. Taxonomy is a scientific system that classifies organisms into categories based on their biological characteristics. Species can also be defined based on a shared evolutionary history and ancestry. This method of defining species is called phylogenetics, which is the study of the evolutionary relationships among organisms. The evolutionary process by which a new species comes into being is called speciation."

species | Learn Science at Scitable

Now you're trying to complicate it. Keep it simple. And no, it is not the same thing as a species.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Now you're trying to complicate it. Keep it simple. And no, it is not the same thing as a species.

Wow, this is like pulling teeth. You know what would be nice and simple? A basic definition.

Can you please just answer the questions I've had to ask over and over? Why don't you want me to understand what you're talking about? I don't get it.