Who knows about the "Taung child" fossil?

[SkepticThinker]

Once again, and I repeat, even after I managed to read many of the references you all provided, while there are fossils, and much research is done pertaining to gametes and genetics, there is nothing to support the idea that the life we see around us and came about is the result of natural evolutionary processes. But thank you for your (1) continued insulting of me because this only proves you are blustering, and (2) there is nothing to bear up contentions about the real process as surmised via fossil and dna findings that it means these organisms evolved by natural processes. While I can understand why and how you surmise this about these pieces being pushed into the idea that they support the theory of evolution, I no longer go along with the conjecture.

Then explained nested hierarchies.

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evol...ings,shared traits increases with relatedness.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Nope, they don't. What they do prove is that some scientists and researchers try hard to push the findings into places they have already manufactured by guesswork..

No, that's what you're doing.

Scientists are more honest than that.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Texts on evolution do not prove evolution. They can report findings and examine what is perhaps unearthed and then make decisions as to what, when, where, and how. Those decisions do not conclude conclusively (yes, by showing proof) how, what, and when, except by conjecture, but more importantly, they do not really know the 'how' in substance, even if there is a nice discussion of gametes and germ cell modification. Therefore they do not know the transference from what to what regarding a different organism coming from another. in reality. I am not talking of inheriting or mutating blue eyes and blonde hair. I am talking of the possibility of evolution from the beginning on up, down, or sideways on the descent tree.

Well that's weird because it's based on the exact same science you'd use to trace your ancestry back through time to find your great-great-great-great grandparents.
Funny how you agree with the science when it comes to tracing family lineages but reject and ignore that exact same science when it tells you that you're closely related to the other great apes.

How do you justify that obvious contradiction in thinking?

 

[YoursTrue]

How many times have you been told science doesn't prove theories? Why do creationists refuse to even learn the simplest of things? What the passage says, and you quoted it, is that there is evidence from many disciplines.

That would be the evidence you said didn't exist.


And there you go again with stating something that is simply false (ignoring the silliness about 'proof' again). There is evidence. The article outlines a lot of said evidence, as do the other four. You just ignored all of it. You can't claim something doesn't exist just because you won't look at it.

Do you want another go? Here is evidence you have said doesn't exist:
What is the evidence for evolution? - Common-questions
The Evidence For Evolution: A Succinct Introduction For Denialists
Evidence for evolution (article) | Khan Academy
Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Evolution from DNA Sequences
Evidence of common descent - Wikipedia

Here is another link from Biologos (actually a Christian site):
Common Descent vs. Common Design: 4 Examples Explained Better by Descent - Articles

And here is a honest creationist:

"Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution."

-- The truth about evolution [my underline]​

Here is a quote from a source you provide above, as if proving (yes, proving) that there is no escape from the theory called evolution
:So---
"Forms and structures point to common ancestors
When we examine the bodies of today’s animals in detail, we find some remarkable similarities. For example, the skeletons of four-limbed creatures (what scientists call “tetrapods”) are only slight variations on the same body plan. The bones are longer in some animals, and in others they are fused together, but they are arranged in the same pattern. Skeletons don’t have to be this way for animals to function, and in fact they result in some inefficiencies (how many people do you know with lower back or knee problems?). But this is the sort of pattern we would expect if the body plans of tetrapods changed slowly and diversified over many generations.

We can also look at the bodies of animals today and find features that are similar to what other animals have, but which no longer seem to function (or have different functions). Scientists call these vestigial traits. Some classic examples are non-functioning eyes in blind cave fish, the hip bones on whales, and leg bones buried in the muscles of some snakes. In our own bodies, we can point to the appendix, wisdom teeth, goosebumps, and many other features. These are more clues that today’s animals have a history that extends back to ancestors that were quite different."

My comment: the example about the fish with non-functioning eyes does not make them into non-fish. That they genetically developed into blind fish to me does not mean evolultion of the Darwinian kind. It means that genetically they reproduced to the point that the population somehow became blind on a continuous basis with no variation and managed to survive, continue as a fish type of sorts. That does not mean evolution of the Darwinian kind. It means transference of a trait that was not counteracted by genes that enabled the fish to see.
Next point I considered is that of what are called vestigial organs, first off the appendix. The appendix in humans used to be considered by scientists as unnecessary, a kind of leftover from something else. And useless in humans, a sort of holdover. But that opinion is changing. Notice one reference alluding to this from Kooij IA, Sahami S, Meijer SL, Buskens CJ, Te Velde AA (October 2016). "The immunology of the vermiform appendix: a review of the literature". Clinical and Experimental Immunology. 186 (1): 1–9. doi:10.1111/cei.12821. PMC 5011360. PMID 27271818, showing that the scientific view is changing based on the biologic circumstances of the human appendix, quite fascinating to say the least. This shows that the previously popular idea that the appendix was a useless holdover organ is certainly diminishing in scientific research circles.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, that's what you're doing.

Scientists are more honest than that.

Well as I am seeing, the opinion about the appendix is being revised. Thus that piece may be put back in the box of pieces not fitting in the previous notions of what constitutes the outline of pattern of considered evolution. Actually, what I see are the pieces. Then the pattern is made up and changed according to thought (conjectural thought). Go back to the appendix, fascinating research done on the necessity of that which was once considered by scientists as *factual* inference of evolution re:leftover somehow of an unneeded organ currently. No longer deemed by the later findings to be true.

 

[YoursTrue]

How many times have you been told science doesn't prove theories? Why do creationists refuse to even learn the simplest of things? What the passage says, and you quoted it, is that there is evidence from many disciplines.

That would be the evidence you said didn't exist.


And there you go again with stating something that is simply false (ignoring the silliness about 'proof' again). There is evidence. The article outlines a lot of said evidence, as do the other four. You just ignored all of it. You can't claim something doesn't exist just because you won't look at it.

Do you want another go? Here is evidence you have said doesn't exist:
What is the evidence for evolution? - Common-questions
The Evidence For Evolution: A Succinct Introduction For Denialists
Evidence for evolution (article) | Khan Academy
Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Evolution from DNA Sequences
Evidence of common descent - Wikipedia

Here is another link from Biologos (actually a Christian site):
Common Descent vs. Common Design: 4 Examples Explained Better by Descent - Articles

And here is a honest creationist:

"Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution."

-- The truth about evolution [my underline]​

OK, let's go back to something quoted at the beginning:

"organisms has been discovered by scientists researching in a variety of disciplines over many decades, demonstrating that all life on Earth comes from a single ancestor."

It does? Where? And how? "demonstrating that all life on earth comes from a single ancestor"? It does? Please show evidence, thank you.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, that's what you're doing.

Scientists are more honest than that.

What is the evidence for the following assertion, particularly for the assertion that "all life on earth comes from a single ancestor." Remember that it says the research DEMONSTRATES that all life comes from a single ancestor. So what is the evidence DEMONSTRATING this claim?
"organisms has been discovered by scientists researching in a variety of disciplines over many decades, demonstrating that all life on Earth comes from a single ancestor. This forms an important part of the evidence on which evolutionary theory rests, demonstrates that evolution does occur, and illustrates the processes that created Earth's biodiversity"

 

[Deeje]

What is the evidence for the following assertion, particularly for the assertion that "all life on earth comes from a single ancestor." Remember that it says the research DEMONSTRATES that all life comes from a single ancestor. So what is the evidence DEMONSTRATING this claim?
"organisms has been discovered by scientists researching in a variety of disciplines over many decades, demonstrating that all life on Earth comes from a single ancestor. This forms an important part of the evidence on which evolutionary theory rests, demonstrates that evolution does occur, and illustrates the processes that created Earth's biodiversity"

Scientists are honest about what they "believe"....but so are we. Just as our "beliefs" cannot be proven, neither can theirs. These elusive "common ancestors" are always floating about in the background, but there is not a single shred of concrete evidence that they have ever existed. Why can they not admit that?

The conclusions these scientists reach are the ones that must conform to their pet theory because none would be accepted outside of it. Its not the science where adaptation is clearly involved.....but their first premise that holds no water......they must believe that first premise in order to build their impressive edifice....which to me is nothing more than a house of cards.....a castle built on matchsticks.

We don't pretend that God reveals the true science behind his creation......only that we trust the Creator to know what no human, (regardless of their scientific credentials) can possibly know....how to create and manipulate matter using his boundless energy, and to follow proven models in the creation of other creatures. Like an architect can create different buildings from the same materials using the same engineering principles, yet each can be similar or very different in appearance. It just means that they have the same designer, using the same building blocks, who took all the time he needed to create everything that he wanted to exist.....what makes humans unique is their superior intelligence, not their DNA. We don't need to know science when we know and trust the most knowledgeable Scientist in existence....and he doesn't need to lie.

"All life comes from pre-existing life"...science knows this......except when the pre-existing life is something they cannot evaluate with their current, and very limited knowledge. They have to pretend he cannot exist when in reality they have no way to determine whether he does or not.....He has nothing to prove to the faithless.....and the faithful do not need proof. Creation speaks for itself and its designer. Its actually a waste of time trying to convince them....they will all find out one day because he promises a manifestation that none will be able to deny....that is when 'the sheep will be separated from the goats', foretold almost 2,000 years ago....its not like they can ever say that nobody told them.....

 

[ratiocinator]

OK, let's go back to something quoted at the beginning:

So much easier than actually reading the material or thinking about it, eh?

"organisms has been discovered by scientists researching in a variety of disciplines over many decades, demonstrating that all life on Earth comes from a single ancestor."

It does? Where? And how? "demonstrating that all life on earth comes from a single ancestor"? It does? Please show evidence, thank you.

The evidence (well, some of the evidence, there's a great deal) is in the links, there is a lot referred to in the one you've apparently only read the first paragraph of - together with 300+ references. Some of the others are more succinct, but, of course, they can't cover as much of the evidence.

There's no point at all in just saying "show me the evidence, show me the evidence" if you just ignore it when it's given to you. What are you expecting here? Do you need me to copy and paste large amounts of text into a post for you to read? What?

The evidence isn't one single fact or something that can be conveyed in a paragraph on a forum. There are endless different pieces of evidence, from different disciplines, that together make a case that is beyond reasonable doubt.

The last link I gave is relatively short and concentrates on just four examples that show that common descent fits far better than individual design (and is written by Christian believers). Obviously this is just a tiny snapshot of the evidence but it will give you an idea at least of the sorts of things that we're talking about. By far the most comprehensive and compelling evidence is from genetics, so at least read the whole thing. It really shouldn't take you long.

Common Descent vs. Common Design: 4 Examples Explained Better by Descent - Articles

 

[tas8831]

I am talking of the possibility of evolution from the beginning on up, down, or sideways on the descent tree.

Funny stuff...

 

[Jose Fly]

So we have a couple of creationists who've been in this sub-forum for years, yet are still acting as if no one has ever posted any bit of evidence for evolution or common ancestry here.

All you have to do is scroll through the pages in this sub-forum to see lots of threads from multiple people where they present some of the evidence.

Putting those two facts together is a very clear indication that these creationists' requests for evidence were not offered in good faith, once again showing that it is impossible to advocate for creationism in an honest manner.

 

[ratiocinator]

Here is a quote from a source you provide above, as if proving (yes, proving) that there is no escape from the theory called evolution

Repeating the nonsense about 'proof', just makes you look foolish.

:So---
"Forms and structures point to common ancestors
When we examine the bodies of today’s animals in detail, we find some remarkable similarities. For example, the skeletons of four-limbed creatures (what scientists call “tetrapods”) are only slight variations on the same body plan. The bones are longer in some animals, and in others they are fused together, but they are arranged in the same pattern. Skeletons don’t have to be this way for animals to function, and in fact they result in some inefficiencies (how many people do you know with lower back or knee problems?). But this is the sort of pattern we would expect if the body plans of tetrapods changed slowly and diversified over many generations.

We can also look at the bodies of animals today and find features that are similar to what other animals have, but which no longer seem to function (or have different functions). Scientists call these vestigial traits. Some classic examples are non-functioning eyes in blind cave fish, the hip bones on whales, and leg bones buried in the muscles of some snakes. In our own bodies, we can point to the appendix, wisdom teeth, goosebumps, and many other features. These are more clues that today’s animals have a history that extends back to ancestors that were quite different."

My comment: the example about the fish with non-functioning eyes does not make them into non-fish. That they genetically developed into blind fish to me does not mean evolultion of the Darwinian kind. It means that genetically they reproduced to the point that the population somehow became blind on a continuous basis with no variation and managed to survive, continue as a fish type of sorts. That does not mean evolution of the Darwinian kind. It means transference of a trait that was not counteracted by genes that enabled the fish to see.
Next point I considered is that of what are called vestigial organs, first off the appendix. The appendix in humans used to be considered by scientists as unnecessary, a kind of leftover from something else. And useless in humans, a sort of holdover. But that opinion is changing. Notice one reference alluding to this from Kooij IA, Sahami S, Meijer SL, Buskens CJ, Te Velde AA (October 2016). "The immunology of the vermiform appendix: a review of the literature". Clinical and Experimental Immunology. 186 (1): 1–9. doi:10.1111/cei.12821. PMC 5011360. PMID 27271818, showing that the scientific view is changing based on the biologic circumstances of the human appendix, quite fascinating to say the least. This shows that the previously popular idea that the appendix was a useless holdover organ is certainly diminishing in scientific research circles.

It really is rather comical how selective you've been. You picked out one section of one of the articles, then picked out just two of the examples from that section. Just from the section you quoted, how do you explain hip bones in whales or leg bones in snakes? That's before we get to all the rest of the evidence even just in that one page. Scroll down a bit to the "Genetics removes all reasonable doubt" section for just one example (of many thousands) of how genetics has spectacularly confirmed evolution. Quite apart from the example given about vitamin C on that page, humans also have a broken version of the gene for making egg yoke. We can also trace the relationship between humans, chimpanzees, orang-utans, and gorillas by looking at the way in which olfactory receptor (sense of smell) genes are broken.

 

[Justanatheist]

So we have a couple of creationists who've been in this sub-forum for years, yet are still acting as if no one has ever posted any bit of evidence for evolution or common ancestry here.

All you have to do is scroll through the pages in this sub-forum to see lots of threads from multiple people where they present some of the evidence.

Putting those two facts together is a very clear indication that these creationists' requests for evidence were not offered in good faith, once again showing that it is impossible to advocate for creationism in an honest manner.

What fine representatives of their god and religion they are

 

[Jose Fly]

What fine representatives of their god and religion they are

That's what I often wonder....do they really think they're representing their faith in a good way in these debates? Do they think people will see them arguing against science while refusing to learn any of it, and say to themselves, "Yeah, I wanna join that group"?

 

[Justanatheist]

That's what I often wonder....do they really think they're representing their faith in a good way in these debates? Do they think people will see them arguing against science while refusing to learn any of it, and say to themselves, "Yeah, I wanna join that group"?

I just got asked if I thought Hitler was wrong to kill the Jews, I mean seriously what sort of derogatory question is that to ask anyone, they shame themselves.

 

[Jose Fly]

I just got asked if I thought Hitler was wrong to kill the Jews, I mean seriously what sort of derogatory question is that to ask anyone, they shame themselves.

Wow....I don't know what to say to that, except......wow.

 

[YoursTrue]

So much easier than actually reading the material or thinking about it, eh?


The evidence (well, some of the evidence, there's a great deal) is in the links, there is a lot referred to in the one you've apparently only read the first paragraph of - together with 300+ references. Some of the others are more succinct, but, of course, they can't cover as much of the evidence.

There is no evidence. It's all conjecture fitting the fossils in with the conjecture.

 

[YoursTrue]

So much easier than actually reading the material or thinking about it, eh?


The evidence (well, some of the evidence, there's a great deal) is in the links, there is a lot referred to in the one you've apparently only read the first paragraph of - together with 300+ references. Some of the others are more succinct, but, of course, they can't cover as much of the evidence.

There's no point at all in just saying "show me the evidence, show me the evidence" if you just ignore it when it's given to you. What are you expecting here? Do you need me to copy and paste large amounts of text into a post for you to read? What?

The evidence isn't one single fact or something that can be conveyed in a paragraph on a forum. There are endless different pieces of evidence, from different disciplines, that together make a case that is beyond reasonable doubt.

The last link I gave is relatively short and concentrates on just four examples that show that common descent fits far better than individual design (and is written by Christian believers). Obviously this is just a tiny snapshot of the evidence but it will give you an idea at least of the sorts of things that we're talking about. By far the most comprehensive and compelling evidence is from genetics, so at least read the whole thing. It really shouldn't take you long.

Common Descent vs. Common Design: 4 Examples Explained Better by Descent - Articles

Here's the funny thing, you present lots of links but how about you take questions about each one in depth, instead of thinking I should just take the conclusions on faith about evolution. So you choose one article to start with and let's go over it point by point. If I don't understand something, I'll ask you since you're presenting the articles. And if you think I'm stupid because I can't understand something or don't know the technical language and you won't personally explain it...ok. we'll stop. How about it? You choose ONE ARTICLE to start with.

 

[YoursTrue]

Funny stuff...

Ok, since it's so funny, what is the evidence of the very first form of life, i.e., the ancestor on the earth of all subsequent life forms? Evidence. Not proof of the theory. Evidence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I just got asked if I thought Hitler was wrong to kill the Jews, I mean seriously what sort of derogatory question is that to ask anyone, they shame themselves.

Good grief! I don't know what to say about that either. Except that not all of us are spewing garbage and hate.