Evidence For And Against Evolution

[Astrophile]

I agree that ideas and facts change. But there are so many things which have been taught as unfailing, unflagging truth and then these same things are changed when, let's say, it's found that Pluto is NOT a planet. But we are really speaking of evolution here, and/or scientific posits, conjectures, and discoveries. So if you went to school in the 60's, as Gould (YES, he was a believer of evolution) did, if you wanted to pass a test that said Haeckel's theory about recapitulation was true, you'd have to agree it was true. That's what they taught.

I was at school in the 1960s, and studied biology for one or two years. There was very little about evolution in the course, and, so far as I can remember nothing was said about Haeckel or recapitulation. The course dealt mainly with anatomy and with basic biological processes like digestion. Also, I own two books by G.G. Simpson, who was an American biologist and evolutionist. Of these Life of the Past, published in 1953, does not include either recapitulation or Haeckel in the index; The Meaning of Evolution (published in 1949 and 1951) does not mention recapitulation at all, and mentions Haeckel only once (in a different context). Also, Simpson's book Quantitative Zoology (1939), which you can read online, does not mention either Haeckel or recapitulation. If I can judge by these books, even in the United States recapitulation was not regarded as an important part of evolutionary theory during the 1940s and 1950s.

Whatever you make of Haeckel's work, the fact is that his hypothesis of recapitulation was wrong doesn't mean that the theory of evolution is false, and whether recapitulation was taught in schools doesn't affect the truth of the theory of evolution.

When my mother was at school, in the 1920s or 1930s, she was taught an incorrect value for the circumference of the Earth (29,000 miles rather than 24,900 miles), and, when I was a child, she told me that this was the circumference of the Earth. Do you think that this error, taught as truth in schools in the 1930s, invalidates all of geography or implies that the Earth is flat?

So, I say again -- that while the human embryo has parts similar to other organisms, that does not mean humans came about as a result of mindless evolution, the human being coming from??? early humanoids, coming from??? another mammal??? hmmm, I doubt it. But that's me. Not others. Oh, and there is simply no proof real-time (OK, evidence) that humans evolved. Chimpanzees are not evolving or interbreeding, neither are bonobos, and -- neither are the "youngest" specimens, humans.

Are you willing to tell me how old you think the Earth is, and how you interpret the fossil record? Do you, like almost all geologists, accept that the Earth is about 4540 million years ago, and that fossils are the remains of animals, plants and micro-organisms that lived and died during approximately the last 3500 million years? If so, the fossil evidence shows that humans, and apes, are late-comers on the biological scene; the first apes appeared between about 25 and 30 million years ago. Where did they come from? Were they descended, by the normal process of reproduction, from animals that were not apes? Did they appear from non-living matter by spontaneous generation? Or did God create all the separate species that now occur as fossils at intervals throughout geological history?

 

[YoursTrue]

No, I will gladly answer that question. You have a price to pay first. Why are you so afraid to learn what is and what is not evidence?

Sorry I don't pay to have a discussion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry I don't pay to have a discussion.

You are not discussing. You have been making yourself look foolish.

 

[Polymath257]

The truth is also that they are round-ish, maybe not perfect round, but very like a ball in my opinion. Not sure if any of them emit light like a star does. They may reflect light. But my point is that science can be wrong about their conjectures, therefore revise its viewpoints and teachings. Since some scientists like to ponder over things like, when did the universe start, or did it start, it is almost like a sci-fi movie or comic book. And many, obviously, spend their lifetime thinking hard about these things. It's almost like a Star Trek convention where many attend and enjoy themselves.

Planets reflect light. Jupiter emits more energy in radio waves than it receives from the sun, but it does not emit in visible light. I'm not sure why either of these is relevant to the current discussion, however.

Yes, of course, science can be wrong. The key is always the evidence. Speculating too far from the evidence is always risky.

And one of the things that keeps us 'honest' in such speculation is the requirement that we use laws of physics that *have* been tested, even if not in the situations in which they are used. So, we test quantum mechanics here and apply it to the early universe. We test relativity here and apply it to distant galaxies. We don't get to speculate with 'laws' that contradict what we know locally.

 

[Polymath257]

So you refuse to answer if the human embryo is always human or does it pass through related but nonhuman stages? I detect from the image you posted that you believe yes, it passes through earlier nonhuman stages until it reaches full human stage.

The embryo is always genetically human. It goes through phases that are quite similar to those of other animals and those phases show the relatedness of different species.

The embryo does NOT pass through all the stages of evolution leading up to humans. But it *does* pass through phases that allow us to establish the relatedness to those other species.

There. You have your answer. We have said it several times already and you have ignored it, but there it is once again.

So, the stages of development *are* evidence of evolution (the development of humans from non-human ancestors) but they do not go through all the previous stages.

Understand??

 

[YoursTrue]

I was at school in the 1960s, and studied biology for one or two years. There was very little about evolution in the course, and, so far as I can remember nothing was said about Haeckel or recapitulation. The course dealt mainly with anatomy and with basic biological processes like digestion. Also, I own two books by G.G. Simpson, who was an American biologist and evolutionist. Of these Life of the Past, published in 1953, does not include either recapitulation or Haeckel in the index; The Meaning of Evolution (published in 1949 and 1951) does not mention recapitulation at all, and mentions Haeckel only once (in a different context). Also, Simpson's book Quantitative Zoology (1939), which you can read online, does not mention either Haeckel or recapitulation. If I can judge by these books, even in the United States recapitulation was not regarded as an important part of evolutionary theory during the 1940s and 1950s.

Whatever you make of Haeckel's work, the fact is that his hypothesis of recapitulation was wrong doesn't mean that the theory of evolution is false, and whether recapitulation was taught in schools doesn't affect the truth of the theory of evolution.

When my mother was at school, in the 1920s or 1930s, she was taught an incorrect value for the circumference of the Earth (29,000 miles rather than 24,900 miles), and, when I was a child, she told me that this was the circumference of the Earth. Do you think that this error, taught as truth in schools in the 1930s, invalidates all of geography or implies that the Earth is flat?




Are you willing to tell me how old you think the Earth is, and how you interpret the fossil record? Do you, like almost all geologists, accept that the Earth is about 4540 million years ago, and that fossils are the remains of animals, plants and micro-organisms that lived and died during approximately the last 3500 million years? If so, the fossil evidence shows that humans, and apes, are late-comers on the biological scene; the first apes appeared between about 25 and 30 million years ago. Where did they come from? Were they descended, by the normal process of reproduction, from animals that were not apes? Did they appear from non-living matter by spontaneous generation? Or did God create all the separate species that now occur as fossils at intervals throughout geological history?

The embryo is always genetically human. It goes through phases that are quite similar to those of other animals and those phases show the relatedness of different species.

The embryo does NOT pass through all the stages of evolution leading up to humans. But it *does* pass through phases that allow us to establish the relatedness to those other species.

There. You have your answer. We have said it several times already and you have ignored it, but there it is once again.

So, the stages of development *are* evidence of evolution (the development of humans from non-human ancestors) but they do not go through all the previous stages.

Understand??

Your last paragraph, I have a question. While you believe that the stages of development are evidence of evolution, you also say they do not go through all previous stages. Does that mean the human embryo goes through some previous stages?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your last paragraph, I have a question. While you believe that the stages of development are evidence of evolution, you also say they do not go through all previous stages. Does that mean the human embryo goes through some previous stages?

No.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is no "fish" stage, but since we share a common ancestor with today's fish early on our embryos were quite similar to theirs. For example we do develop pharyngeal arches. In fish those become gills. For us they form part of the mandible, our inner ears etc.. Our similarities are evidence for evolution. Something that creationists cannot seem to explain.

 

[Polymath257]

Your last paragraph, I have a question. While you believe that the stages of development are evidence of evolution, you also say they do not go through all previous stages. Does that mean the human embryo goes through some previous stages?

During evolution, the development of the embryo changes. So the sequence for humans is similar, but not identical to those of related and ancestral species. The human embryo s genetically human. it is the human sequence of stages.

But, the stages for another primate will be almost identical to those we go through. The stages for an ancestral mammal will be similar, but not identical. As we go farther back in our ancestry, the stages will be less and less similar. For us, some stages are just different. Others were added on. But the overall sequence is still similar.

And, modern fish will go through stages that are different than ancient fish. So modern fish and human stages will diverge fairly early in development. As an example the gills of fish develop from the same structures as the pharangeal arches present in humans.

 

[YoursTrue]

The embryo is always genetically human. It goes through phases that are quite similar to those of other animals and those phases show the relatedness of different species.

The embryo does NOT pass through all the stages of evolution leading up to humans. But it *does* pass through phases that allow us to establish the relatedness to those other species.

There. You have your answer. We have said it several times already and you have ignored it, but there it is once again.

So, the stages of development *are* evidence of evolution (the development of humans from non-human ancestors) but they do not go through all the previous stages.

Understand??

I understand the idea. I have a question. Again. To reiterate, the humàn embryo is always a human embryo. It does not pass through stages such as rabbit or fish, does it? Even if these early human embryos appear to be similar? The embryos are human and not fish or rabbits, right?

 

[YoursTrue]

During evolution, the development of the embryo changes. So the sequence for humans is similar, but not identical to those of related and ancestral species. The human embryo s genetically human. it is the human sequence of stages.

But, the stages for another primate will be almost identical to those we go through. The stages for an ancestral mammal will be similar, but not identical. As we go farther back in our ancestry, the stages will be less and less similar. For us, some stages are just different. Others were added on. But the overall sequence is still similar.

And, modern fish will go through stages that are different than ancient fish. So modern fish and human stages will diverge fairly early in development. As an example the gills of fish develop from the same structures as the pharangeal arches present in humans.

That little percentage of difference between one of the relatives of humans and humans themselves ensures that humans are not, for instance, bonobos.

 

[Astrophile]

Your last paragraph, I have a question. While you believe that the stages of development are evidence of evolution, you also say they do not go through all previous stages. Does that mean the human embryo goes through some previous stages?

Why did you quote my post as part of your reply to Polymath 257?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I understand the idea. I have a question. Again. To reiterate, the humàn embryo is always a human embryo. It does not pass through stages such as rabbit or fish, does it? Even if these early human embryos appear to be similar? The embryos are human and not fish or rabbits, right?

Those are poorly worded terms so your question cannot be answered as asked.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That little percentage of difference between one of the relatives of humans and humans themselves ensures that humans are not, for instance, bonobos.

No one ever claimed that they were. But the little difference is evidence for evolution. This is why understanding evidence is key to understanding the sciences, especially if one is a denier of the sciences.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why did you quote my post as part of your reply to Polymath 257?

It may have been an honest mistake. It may be a bit of a bug in the system. At my next opportunity I will run a quick test for you.

 

[YoursTrue]

There is no "fish" stage, but since we share a common ancestor with today's fish early on our embryos were quite similar to theirs. For example we do develop pharyngeal arches. In fish those become gills. For us they form part of the mandible, our inner ears etc.. Our similarities are evidence for evolution. Something that creationists cannot seem to explain.

That we have similar things, such as ears, legs, noses, with other organisms, does not mean, to me, all differences are caused by nàtural force or natural mindless selection of the genes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That we have similar things, such as ears, legs, noses, with other organisms, does not mean, to me, all differences are caused by nàtural force or natural mindless selection of the genes.

You have a tendency to jump to conclusions so you do not recognize evidence when it is presented to you. Quite often when it comes to evidence , especially for events with small changes, very often no one piece of evidence in such a case will be definitive. In the sciences one formulates a hypothesis and then tests them repeatedly. But when all of the evidence supports only one idea, and none supports anything else it is quite reasonable to accept the idea that is supported by evidence. You have a belief that has been refuted. So much so that creation "scientists" will not form a testable hypothesis any more. That is why there is no evidence for their beliefs. All they have is failed claims.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why did you quote my post as part of your reply to Polymath 257?

Okay, to test the bug I hit reply to a post of yours. Erased your post and then quoted @YoursTrue . If it looks like I quoted you in a post to Yours True that is what happened.

 

[YoursTrue]

Why did you quote my post as part of your reply to Polymath 257?

Sorry, didn't mean to. Maybe it's my phone because I'm not at my laptop now and it's harder to reply on phone.

 

[YoursTrue]

You have a tendency to jump to conclusions so you do not recognize evidence when it is presented to you. Quite often when it comes to evidence , especially for events with small changes, very often no one piece of evidence in such a case will be definitive. In the sciences one formulates a hypothesis and then tests them repeatedly. But when all of the evidence supports only one idea, and none supports anything else it is quite reasonable to accept the idea that is supported by evidence. You have a belief that has been refuted. So much so that creation "scientists" will not form a testable hypothesis any more. That is why there is no evidence for their beliefs. All they have is failed claims.

But how can micro or macro evolution be tested?