• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Evidence of Evolution that was presented but never addressed

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
In a particularly long thread enormous amounts of excellent evidence demonstrating the case for evolution was presented by me an many others. As usual, they were never either rebutted or taken into account in any fashion. So I thought to compile them in a single thread that belongs to me, and encourage others to do so also. Repeating the same refuted arguments 500 times in a 200 page thread is a useful tactic to drown the refutations. So here is good way to counter that,

1)Transitional Sea to Land Fossils and trends in Evolution

The theory of evolution predicts that descent with modification with natural selection will create species that will show biological similarities with their ancestral lineage while slowly diverging as time progresses into newer types of body structure. The theory of evolution predicts that when we look at two very different seeming types (land animals and fish), there will be ancient animals who lived in the past who would share characteristics of both fish and land animals and we would see a chronological sequence where we would see certain types of fossil fish appear that are more and more land animal like until the first fossils of land amphibians crop up.

Thus the theory of evolution predicts a pattern, a pattern that has no reason to exist otherwise. Here is the pattern

1) The ancient earth will have no land animals but only fish in the sea. This is indeed what we see before 400 million years.
2) There will eventually be groups of fish that will have some similarities with land animals. This is observed in the fossil record with lungfish (fish with lungs) and other lobe-finned fish (fish with four fleshy limb like fin lobes) cropping up from 400 million years. No land animals are found yet.
3) Some groups of lobe finned fish are seen to adapt to shallow waters and begin to sport primitive limb bones in their fins
Example Eusthenopteron. 385 million years ago, after generic lungfish are seen and before any animals are seen.
Palaeos Vertebrates Sarcopterygii: Osteolepiformes: Eusthenopteron

Eusthenopteron_foordi_1.jpg


With the typical bone structure in the limbs that will become characteristic of all later land animals
f16.gif


EusthenPectFinAll.gif


4) By 375 million years, fish-amphibian transition animals like Tiktaalik are being found showing further development of limbs, heads and other features that make them more and more similar to land vertebrates.
Tiktaalik fossils reveal how fish evolved into four-legged land animals

"Its extraordinary blend of gills, scales, fins and lungs, combined with a movable neck, sturdy ribcage and crocodile-like head, placed Tiktaalik half way between fish and the earliest four-legged land animals.In work published on Monday, researchers describe fossils of the back half of Tiktaalik for the first time. The report shows that the animal had a large, robust pelvic girdle, a prominent hip joint, and long hind fins. The powerful fins could have propelled the beast in the water, but also helped it walk on riverbeds, or scramble around on mudflats."

image_1686_2e-Tiktaalik-roseae.jpg


5) Finally we have Acanthostega and Icthyostega that are discovered after 370 million years that, as I discussed, have many of the features that show them to be clearly amphibious.
Ictheyostega, a 370 million year old fish-amphibian transitional species that had fish like traits (tail fins, gills, fish like snout and teeth) and land animal like traits (four legs with feet and fingers, shoulders and necks and hips and lungs) . Found in the horizon between the arising of lungfish ancestors (lobe finned fish, 420 million years) and later modern amphibians (320 million years) . Just accident or evolution? ;)

Full CT-scanned image of the animal based on fossils (over 200 individuals found)
1-shifttoshore.jpg


Full details of anatomy
Ichthyostega

How it moved on land, hauling its body like seals
http://phys.org/news/2012-05-shift-shore-extinct-tetrapod-ichthyostega.html

6)Its only after this, from 360 million years, that land vertebrate fossils begin to enter the fossil record. An example is an ancient land walking amphibious animal Perderpes from 350 million years who show striking similarity with earlier Acanthostega and yet has more well developed legs and shoulders that are now capable of supporting its full weight on land.

017_070__pederpes_1418255009_standard.jpg


Pederpes.jpg


7) Thus from 400-350 million years, the fossil record show a chronological sequence where -at one end we have only primitive fishes and no vertebrate animals whatsoever on land, and the other end we have the first land walking amphibians. And in between we have a whole sequence of fish-amphibian animals whose bodies begin by looking like the ancient fishes but take on characteristics of the primitive amphibians over time, until at the end we have the first land walking amphibians! This is exactly as predicted by the theory of evolution, where descent through modification and natural selection is expected to generate just this kind of a pattern as the animals slowly evolve from fully marine fishes to land-walking amphibians through 50 million years of evolution over successive generations.

I10-72-tetree1.jpg

tetrapod2.jpg


8) Your "Jehova created everything directly when he wanted to" can neither predict such a pattern or explain why its rational to expect such a pattern. He could have created land animals with fully developed features along with all the fishes directly 450 million years ago. All the fishes, all the reptiles, all the amphibians, all the birds could have been created at the same time, fully modern . He could have created them billions of years ago instead of waiting around for 4 billion years since the formation of earth and populating the earth with nothing but bacteria, amoeba and plankton for the first 3.5 billion years of life.

In your theory there is no reason to expect
i) Simple unicellular prokaryotic life to predate complex multicellular life by a billion years (in evolution this is expected)
ii) Eukaryotic cells to arise after prokaryotic cells by a billion years (in evolution this is expected)
iii) Simplest types of animals like jellyfish and sponge to predate complex animals by 100 million years (in evolution you expect this)
iv) Early forms of invertebrate and vertebrate life look very primitive and less well developed than later types in the Cambrian era (in evolution you expect this)
v) Fish fossils to show distinct stages of sequential development of modern features over a 100 million year period like from jawless varieties to jaws, from bony plates to scales, from no internal skeleton to internal skeleton (the flexible vertebra), from early lobe like fins to more aerodynamic ray like fins. (evolution predicts this)
vi) For vertebrate animals to appear on land much much after the emergence of fish and the earliest of them showing a clear sequence of intermediate forms between certain fish and the first amphibians.(evolution predicts this)
vii) For amphibians to arise first, then reptiles, then mammals, then dinosaurs and then birds with clear sequence of forms intermediate between each of these group just at the time point of emergence.(evolution predicts this)



It appears Jehovah went into an enormous amount of trouble trying to time and finetune his designed animals so that it looks like they arose by evolution. It seems his only goals were to make evolution appear to be correct rather than good design of perfected animals! Thousands and thousands of very different animals filled the same ecological niche over the eons again and again before becoming extinct and replaced by new forms living almost the exact same way. What is this? A perfect omnipotent, omniscient designer can't decide what he wants and changing each and every animal type every 2-3 million years or so for the last 600 million years? Building and rebuilding species, moving the continents and oceans around again and again, building and eroding mountains again and again and again eon after eon of pointless mindless transformations and re-transformations. This is design?? Wow!! He is psychotic or something? You belittle God by hanging onto such a regressive view of creation.

An young earth view is even more ridiculous. Not only does this go against all geological, physical and astronomical evidence, it assumes the absurdity of believing all animals ancient and modern (ammonites to T-rex to pterosaurs to lions to rabbits to eagles to icthysaurs to otters to...) living side by side! It cannot explain why 90% of sedimentary rocks that also happen to be consistently dated to be the oldest has not a single animal fossil, and then suddenly the last 10% have animals, but not in random assemblages but in graded order of more primitive and alien looking to more advanced and modern looking, with distinct blocks of similar species in various layers. It cannot explain the pattern above whatsoever if all species were living together. And where are the drowned humans in the Cambrian, Ordovician or Triassic rocks? Can humans swim better than ammonites or icthyosaurs? This is just a taste of the absurd. There are many many more.


More will follow.
 
Last edited:

psychoslice

Veteran Member
Yes of course evolution is true, I believe you would have to be living in a dream of denial not to believe in it.
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
Yes of course evolution is true, I believe you would have to be living in a dream of denial not to believe in it.
Yes of course evolution is true
I agree.
But if one does not believe in evolution, even then it won't stop, and do no harm to the person who does not hold that.
It is not much of a problem to an ordinary human being.
Please
Regards
 

psychoslice

Veteran Member
Yes of course evolution is true
I agree.
But if one does not believe in evolution, even then it won't stop, and do no harm to the person who does not hold that.
It is not much of a problem to an ordinary human being.
Please
Regards
So what, the other can believe whatever they want, who cares ?.
 

buddhist

Well-Known Member
In a particularly long thread enormous amounts of excellent evidence demonstrating the case for evolution was presented by me an many others. As usual, they were never either rebutted or taken into account in any fashion. So I thought to compile them in a single thread that belongs to me, and encourage others to do so also. Repeating the same refuted arguments 500 times in a 200 page thread is a useful tactic to drown the refutations. So here is good way to counter that,

1)Transitional Sea to Land Fossils and trends in Evolution

The theory of evolution predicts that descent with modification with natural selection will create species that will show biological similarities with their ancestral lineage while slowly diverging as time progresses into newer types of body structure. The theory of evolution predicts that when we look at two very different seeming types (land animals and fish), there will be ancient animals who lived in the past who would share characteristics of both fish and land animals and we would see a chronological sequence where we would see certain types of fossil fish appear that are more and more land animal like until the first fossils of land amphibians crop up.

Thus the theory of evolution predicts a pattern, a pattern that has no reason to exist otherwise. Here is the pattern

1) The ancient earth will have no land animals but only fish in the sea. This is indeed what we see before 400 million years.
2) There will eventually be groups of fish that will have some similarities with land animals. This is observed in the fossil record with lungfish (fish with lungs) and other lobe-finned fish (fish with four fleshy limb like fin lobes) cropping up from 400 million years. No land animals are found yet.
3) Some groups of lobe finned fish are seen to adapt to shallow waters and begin to sport primitive limb bones in their fins
Example Eusthenopteron. 385 million years ago, after generic lungfish are seen and before any animals are seen.
Palaeos Vertebrates Sarcopterygii: Osteolepiformes: Eusthenopteron

Eusthenopteron_foordi_1.jpg


With the typical bone structure in the limbs that will become characteristic of all later land animals
f16.gif


EusthenPectFinAll.gif


4) By 375 million years, fish-amphibian transition animals like Tiktaalik are being found showing further development of limbs, heads and other features that make them more and more similar to land vertebrates.
Tiktaalik fossils reveal how fish evolved into four-legged land animals

"Its extraordinary blend of gills, scales, fins and lungs, combined with a movable neck, sturdy ribcage and crocodile-like head, placed Tiktaalik half way between fish and the earliest four-legged land animals.In work published on Monday, researchers describe fossils of the back half of Tiktaalik for the first time. The report shows that the animal had a large, robust pelvic girdle, a prominent hip joint, and long hind fins. The powerful fins could have propelled the beast in the water, but also helped it walk on riverbeds, or scramble around on mudflats."

image_1686_2e-Tiktaalik-roseae.jpg


5) Finally we have Acanthostega and Icthyostega that are discovered after 370 million years that, as I discussed, have many of the features that show them to be clearly amphibious.
Ictheyostega, a 370 million year old fish-amphibian transitional species that had fish like traits (tail fins, gills, fish like snout and teeth) and land animal like traits (four legs with feet and fingers, shoulders and necks and hips and lungs) . Found in the horizon between the arising of lungfish ancestors (lobe finned fish, 420 million years) and later modern amphibians (320 million years) . Just accident or evolution? ;)

Full CT-scanned image of the animal based on fossils (over 200 individuals found)
1-shifttoshore.jpg


Full details of anatomy
Ichthyostega

How it moved on land, hauling its body like seals
http://phys.org/news/2012-05-shift-shore-extinct-tetrapod-ichthyostega.html

6)Its only after this, from 360 million years, that land vertebrate fossils begin to enter the fossil record. An example is an ancient land walking amphibious animal Perderpes from 350 million years who show striking similarity with earlier Acanthostega and yet has more well developed legs and shoulders that are now capable of supporting its full weight on land.

017_070__pederpes_1418255009_standard.jpg


Pederpes.jpg


7) Thus from 400-350 million years, the fossil record show a chronological sequence where -at one end we have only primitive fishes and no vertebrate animals whatsoever on land, and the other end we have the first land walking amphibians. And in between we have a whole sequence of fish-amphibian animals whose bodies begin by looking like the ancient fishes but take on characteristics of the primitive amphibians over time, until at the end we have the first land walking amphibians! This is exactly as predicted by the theory of evolution, where descent through modification and natural selection is expected to generate just this kind of a pattern as the animals slowly evolve from fully marine fishes to land-walking amphibians through 50 million years of evolution over successive generations.

I10-72-tetree1.jpg

tetrapod2.jpg


8) Your "Jehova created everything directly when he wanted to" can neither predict such a pattern or explain why its rational to expect such a pattern. He could have created land animals with fully developed features along with all the fishes directly 450 million years ago. All the fishes, all the reptiles, all the amphibians, all the birds could have been created at the same time, fully modern . He could have created them billions of years ago instead of waiting around for 4 billion years since the formation of earth and populating the earth with nothing but bacteria, amoeba and plankton for the first 3.5 billion years of life.

In your theory there is no reason to expect
i) Simple unicellular prokaryotic life to predate complex multicellular life by a billion years (in evolution this is expected)
ii) Eukaryotic cells to arise after prokaryotic cells by a billion years (in evolution this is expected)
iii) Simplest types of animals like jellyfish and sponge to predate complex animals by 100 million years (in evolution you expect this)
iv) Early forms of invertebrate and vertebrate life look very primitive and less well developed than later types in the Cambrian era (in evolution you expect this)
v) Fish fossils to show distinct stages of sequential development of modern features over a 100 million year period like from jawless varieties to jaws, from bony plates to scales, from no internal skeleton to internal skeleton (the flexible vertebra), from early lobe like fins to more aerodynamic ray like fins. (evolution predicts this)
vi) For vertebrate animals to appear on land much much after the emergence of fish and the earliest of them showing a clear sequence of intermediate forms between certain fish and the first amphibians.(evolution predicts this)
vii) For amphibians to arise first, then reptiles, then mammals, then dinosaurs and then birds with clear sequence of forms intermediate between each of these group just at the time point of emergence.(evolution predicts this)



It appears Jehovah went into an enormous amount of trouble trying to time and finetune his designed animals so that it looks like they arose by evolution. It seems his only goals were to make evolution appear to be correct rather than good design of perfected animals! Thousands and thousands of very different animals filled the same ecological niche over the eons again and again before becoming extinct and replaced by new forms living almost the exact same way. What is this? A perfect omnipotent, omniscient designer can't decide what he wants and changing each and every animal type every 2-3 million years or so for the last 600 million years? Building and rebuilding species, moving the continents and oceans around again and again, building and eroding mountains again and again and again eon after eon of pointless mindless transformations and re-transformations. This is design?? Wow!! He is psychotic or something? You belittle God by hanging onto such a regressive view of creation.

An young earth view is even more ridiculous. Not only does this go against all geological, physical and astronomical evidence, it assumes the absurdity of believing all animals ancient and modern (ammonites to T-rex to pterosaurs to lions to rabbits to eagles to icthysaurs to otters to...) living side by side! It cannot explain why 90% of sedimentary rocks that also happen to be consistently dated to be the oldest has not a single animal fossil, and then suddenly the last 10% have animals, but not in random assemblages but in graded order of more primitive and alien looking to more advanced and modern looking, with distinct blocks of similar species in various layers. It cannot explain the pattern above whatsoever if all species were living together. And where are the drowned humans in the Cambrian, Ordovician or Triassic rocks? Can humans swim better than ammonites or icthyosaurs? This is just a taste of the absurd. There are many many more.


More will follow.
IMO this could also be evidence for de-evolution.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Yes of course evolution is true
I agree.
But if one does not believe in evolution, even then it won't stop, and do no harm to the person who does not hold that.
It is not much of a problem to an ordinary human being.
Please
Regards
The harm is done if there exists well funded groups that try to stop the education and research and funding of evolutionary, biological and geological sciences as they are vital to the continued progress of science and technological capacities of a modern society.
 

psychoslice

Veteran Member
If you expect creationists to address them, don't hold your breath. When it comes to scripture Vs. science, creationists don't care what science has to say. You may as well whistle in the wind. Simple as that. :shrug:


.
Its childish isn't it ?.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Macro-evolution of multi-cellularity in the lab.

The transition to unicellular life to multicellular life is one of the great transitions of evolutionary history. A great recent success in the lab has been to replicate this transition through evolutionary selection in the lab for several organisms.


Alga takes first evolutionary leap to multicellularity



Multicellularity has evolved at least 20 times since life first began, but no organisms have made the leap in the past 200 million years, so the process is difficult to study. To replicate the step in the lab, Will Ratcliff and Michael Travisano, evolutionary biologists at the University of Minnesota in St Paul, and their colleagues grew 10 cultures of a single-celled alga, Chlamydomonas reinhardtii. Every three days, they centrifuged each culture gently and used the bottom tenth to found the next generation. Since clusters of cells settle faster than single ones, this meant that they effectively selected for algal cells that had a tendency to clump together.
Sure enough, after about 50 transfers, algal cells in one of the 10 cultures began to form clusters. To the researchers’ surprise, these clusters – the first step towards true multicellularity – seemed to pass through a coordinated life cycle. Cells stuck together for hours while they settled, then quickly broke apart into single cells again each of which then divided to form new multicellular colonies.

Rapid Speciation in these newly formed multicellular species of yeast have also been observed,
Simple lab life makes an evolutionary leap in a few generations

n 2011, evolutionary biologist Michael Travisano and his student William Ratcliff at the University of Minnesota in St Paul made single-celled brewer’s yeast evolve into multicellular forms in the lab. They did that by centrifuging yeast cultures and selecting the fastest-settling yeasts to found the next generation. Since clumps of cells settle faster than single cells, this quickly led to multicellular “snowflakes”.

When another of Travisano’s students, Maria Rebolleda-Gomez, looked at Ratcliff’s multicellular strains, she noticed that some snowflakes were up to 10 times larger than others. So she took individual cells from large and small snowflakes in Ratcliff’s original samples and grew them into new multicellular snowflakes.The daughter colonies resembled the parents in size meaning that the size difference was heritable, giving her in effect two different morphs of snowflake yeast.

The big morph settles faster, giving it a survival advantage until it becomes too common, at which point the big snowflakes start to get in each other’s way.
“Now they have a harder time settling,” says Rebolleda-Gomez. “The small ones can take advantage of this, because they can percolate through the big ones that are stuck together.”
In short, large and small yeast morphs specialise in different settling strategies, so both can coexist.

This provides experimental proof that when evolution makes a great leap forward – such as the origin of multicellularity — organisms can diversify rapidly to take advantage of the change.

But can this explain the emergence of complex body parts in animals and plants. In an exceptional work of experimental evolution, a team of scientists looked at the way animals of various groups make their bodies and identified a single gene whose different versions govern this process of differentiated cell division in all animals by creating a specific protein. Then through computation they calculated the structure of the Last Common Ancestor of this gene and found this to be remarkably similar to another gene that codes for a set of enzymes in unicellular cells. They then resurrected this ancient common ancestor of the multicellular protein making gene and the ancient common ancestor of the unicellular enzyme making gene and found that
1) They differ from each other by only a single mutation.
2) They retain their functionality (of creating a specific unicellular enzyme or the multicellular protein scaffold) in their ancestral forms even though they differ only by a single mutation. This they experimentally demonstrated by injecting the ancestral gene in modern organisms.

Thus only a single mutation was originally required for a unicellular colony making organism to gain the capability of creating specialized cells that function as specialized organs of animals. This experimental demonstration eliminates the argument that multicellularity is too complex to have evolved in accordance to the theory of evolution.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/01/160107140526.htm
 

Sapiens

Polymathematician
Yes of course evolution is true
I agree.
But if one does not believe in evolution, even then it won't stop, and do no harm to the person who does not hold that.
It is not much of a problem to an ordinary human being.
Please
Regards
As was said, "Biology only makes sense in the light of evolution." Without biology there is no agriculture, no medicine, etc. If you are willing to forego all such things and move into a benighted dark age ... feel free, but I choose not to.
IMO this could also be evidence for de-evolution.
No, actually it could not.
 

stevevw

Member
Natural selection needs to have existing features to work on.How did those existing features get there in the first place? Natural selection does not create anything. As the saying goes selection can explain the survival of the fittest but it does not explain the arrival of the fittest. This is even supported by nonreligious biologists. They say that it is not natural selection that can create complex genomic networks that are needed to build these features but other nonadaptive forces.

Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics

There is no consistent tendency of evolution towards increased genomic complexity, and when complexity increases, this appears to be a non-adaptive consequence of evolution under weak purifying selection rather than an adaptation.
Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics

Evidence shows that it is not selection, that is creating the complexity of life but nonadaptive forces such as (developmental bias); how the environment directly shapes organisms’ traits (plasticity); how organisms modify environments (niche construction); and how organisms transmit more than genes across generations (extra-genetic inheritance).
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

It is easy to make up a speculative explanation based on the reasoning of natural selection sifting and sorting to build complex features and creatures. But there is always a lot of explanation left out. It's easy to take 1/2 a dozen steps and say look how easy it is to make life, through adaptations. Life is not just the limbs we see or the skin and bones. It is also the cells of that skin, the different layers of that skin which all have different makeups that need to work together and be created at the same time. There are systems within systems right down to the nerves and signals that go to the brain and the millions of neurons. Then this goes even further into the proteins that build all the components of those features. Then this goes even further down to the cellular level further again into the micro level. But this is never explained how all this can be created by mostly nonbeneficial random mutations and blind selection.

So when someone says hey it's easy to create something through natural selection they only look at one level and that is why it's a fallacy because they can never explain how it happens at all levels. They can only speculate about this. But the biggest hurdle is that through all these levels this blind and random process has, to produce the exact piece of the puzzle at the right time and in the right place each and every time to make it happen. Becuase this same process also allows many, more non-beneficial mutations that will cause those exact pieces to not work properly that it is hard to believe that it can create such complex and finely tuned features. That is why many scientists cannot explain how this can happen altogether. They will take one experiment or example and turn that into an entire theory.

It seems to leave the building of precise and delicate complex networks to a blind and random process that introduces situations that continually undermine those precise and delicate structures seems hard to believe and doesn't make sense. Then to say that the process of selection will neatly sort it all out does not make sense and leaves a lot of unanswered questions and does not fit what is being seen. Life follows preset paths where it seems to be able to adjust and tap into preexisting genetic material either within itself or through other cohabitating life forms including microorganism and the environment. It is all connected. There are other mechanisms as mentioned in the papers I linked which shows life has much more ability to adapt and change than through adaptations.

The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity
The goal here is to dispel a number of myths regarding the evolution of organismal complexity (Table 1). Given that life originated from inorganic matter, it is clear that there has been an increase in phenotypic complexity over the past 3.5 billion years, although long-term stasis has been the predominant pattern in most lineages. What is in question is whether natural selection is a necessary or sufficient force to explain the emergence of the genomic and cellular features central to the building of complex organisms.
The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity
 

Kirran

Premium Member
Natural selection needs to have existing features to work on.How did those existing features get there in the first place? Natural selection does not create anything. As the saying goes selection can explain the survival of the fittest but it does not explain the arrival of the fittest. This is even supported by nonreligious biologists. They say that it is not natural selection that can create complex genomic networks that are needed to build these features but other nonadaptive forces.

You didn't read the posts, did you?
 

omega2xx

Well-Known Member
In a particularly long thread enormous amounts of excellent evidence demonstrating the case for evolution was presented by me an many others. As usual, they were never either rebutted or taken into account in any fashion. So I thought to compile them in a single thread that belongs to me, and encourage others to do so also. Repeating the same refuted arguments 500 times in a 200 page thread is a useful tactic to drown the refutations. So here is good way to counter that,

1)Transitional Sea to Land Fossils and trends in Evolution

The theory of evolution predicts that descent with modification with natural selection will create species that will show biological similarities with their ancestral lineage while slowly diverging as time progresses into newer types of body structure. The theory of evolution predicts that when we look at two very different seeming types (land animals and fish), there will be ancient animals who lived in the past who would share characteristics of both fish and land animals and we would see a chronological sequence where we would see certain types of fossil fish appear that are more and more land animal like until the first fossils of land amphibians crop up.

Thus the theory of evolution predicts a pattern, a pattern that has no reason to exist otherwise. Here is the pattern

1) The ancient earth will have no land animals but only fish in the sea. This is indeed what we see before 400 million years.
2) There will eventually be groups of fish that will have some similarities with land animals. This is observed in the fossil record with lungfish (fish with lungs) and other lobe-finned fish (fish with four fleshy limb like fin lobes) cropping up from 400 million years. No land animals are found yet.
3) Some groups of lobe finned fish are seen to adapt to shallow waters and begin to sport primitive limb bones in their fins
Example Eusthenopteron. 385 million years ago, after generic lungfish are seen and before any animals are seen.
Palaeos Vertebrates Sarcopterygii: Osteolepiformes: Eusthenopteron

Eusthenopteron_foordi_1.jpg


With the typical bone structure in the limbs that will become characteristic of all later land animals
f16.gif


EusthenPectFinAll.gif


4) By 375 million years, fish-amphibian transition animals like Tiktaalik are being found showing further development of limbs, heads and other features that make them more and more similar to land vertebrates.
Tiktaalik fossils reveal how fish evolved into four-legged land animals

"Its extraordinary blend of gills, scales, fins and lungs, combined with a movable neck, sturdy ribcage and crocodile-like head, placed Tiktaalik half way between fish and the earliest four-legged land animals.In work published on Monday, researchers describe fossils of the back half of Tiktaalik for the first time. The report shows that the animal had a large, robust pelvic girdle, a prominent hip joint, and long hind fins. The powerful fins could have propelled the beast in the water, but also helped it walk on riverbeds, or scramble around on mudflats."

image_1686_2e-Tiktaalik-roseae.jpg


5) Finally we have Acanthostega and Icthyostega that are discovered after 370 million years that, as I discussed, have many of the features that show them to be clearly amphibious.
Ictheyostega, a 370 million year old fish-amphibian transitional species that had fish like traits (tail fins, gills, fish like snout and teeth) and land animal like traits (four legs with feet and fingers, shoulders and necks and hips and lungs) . Found in the horizon between the arising of lungfish ancestors (lobe finned fish, 420 million years) and later modern amphibians (320 million years) . Just accident or evolution? ;)

Full CT-scanned image of the animal based on fossils (over 200 individuals found)
1-shifttoshore.jpg


Full details of anatomy
Ichthyostega

How it moved on land, hauling its body like seals
http://phys.org/news/2012-05-shift-shore-extinct-tetrapod-ichthyostega.html

6)Its only after this, from 360 million years, that land vertebrate fossils begin to enter the fossil record. An example is an ancient land walking amphibious animal Perderpes from 350 million years who show striking similarity with earlier Acanthostega and yet has more well developed legs and shoulders that are now capable of supporting its full weight on land.

017_070__pederpes_1418255009_standard.jpg


Pederpes.jpg


7) Thus from 400-350 million years, the fossil record show a chronological sequence where -at one end we have only primitive fishes and no vertebrate animals whatsoever on land, and the other end we have the first land walking amphibians. And in between we have a whole sequence of fish-amphibian animals whose bodies begin by looking like the ancient fishes but take on characteristics of the primitive amphibians over time, until at the end we have the first land walking amphibians! This is exactly as predicted by the theory of evolution, where descent through modification and natural selection is expected to generate just this kind of a pattern as the animals slowly evolve from fully marine fishes to land-walking amphibians through 50 million years of evolution over successive generations.

I10-72-tetree1.jpg

tetrapod2.jpg


8) Your "Jehova created everything directly when he wanted to" can neither predict such a pattern or explain why its rational to expect such a pattern. He could have created land animals with fully developed features along with all the fishes directly 450 million years ago. All the fishes, all the reptiles, all the amphibians, all the birds could have been created at the same time, fully modern . He could have created them billions of years ago instead of waiting around for 4 billion years since the formation of earth and populating the earth with nothing but bacteria, amoeba and plankton for the first 3.5 billion years of life.

In your theory there is no reason to expect
i) Simple unicellular prokaryotic life to predate complex multicellular life by a billion years (in evolution this is expected)
ii) Eukaryotic cells to arise after prokaryotic cells by a billion years (in evolution this is expected)
iii) Simplest types of animals like jellyfish and sponge to predate complex animals by 100 million years (in evolution you expect this)
iv) Early forms of invertebrate and vertebrate life look very primitive and less well developed than later types in the Cambrian era (in evolution you expect this)
v) Fish fossils to show distinct stages of sequential development of modern features over a 100 million year period like from jawless varieties to jaws, from bony plates to scales, from no internal skeleton to internal skeleton (the flexible vertebra), from early lobe like fins to more aerodynamic ray like fins. (evolution predicts this)
vi) For vertebrate animals to appear on land much much after the emergence of fish and the earliest of them showing a clear sequence of intermediate forms between certain fish and the first amphibians.(evolution predicts this)
vii) For amphibians to arise first, then reptiles, then mammals, then dinosaurs and then birds with clear sequence of forms intermediate between each of these group just at the time point of emergence.(evolution predicts this)



It appears Jehovah went into an enormous amount of trouble trying to time and finetune his designed animals so that it looks like they arose by evolution. It seems his only goals were to make evolution appear to be correct rather than good design of perfected animals! Thousands and thousands of very different animals filled the same ecological niche over the eons again and again before becoming extinct and replaced by new forms living almost the exact same way. What is this? A perfect omnipotent, omniscient designer can't decide what he wants and changing each and every animal type every 2-3 million years or so for the last 600 million years? Building and rebuilding species, moving the continents and oceans around again and again, building and eroding mountains again and again and again eon after eon of pointless mindless transformations and re-transformations. This is design?? Wow!! He is psychotic or something? You belittle God by hanging onto such a regressive view of creation.

An young earth view is even more ridiculous. Not only does this go against all geological, physical and astronomical evidence, it assumes the absurdity of believing all animals ancient and modern (ammonites to T-rex to pterosaurs to lions to rabbits to eagles to icthysaurs to otters to...) living side by side! It cannot explain why 90% of sedimentary rocks that also happen to be consistently dated to be the oldest has not a single animal fossil, and then suddenly the last 10% have animals, but not in random assemblages but in graded order of more primitive and alien looking to more advanced and modern looking, with distinct blocks of similar species in various layers. It cannot explain the pattern above whatsoever if all species were living together. And where are the drowned humans in the Cambrian, Ordovician or Triassic rocks? Can humans swim better than ammonites or icthyosaurs? This is just a taste of the absurd. There are many many more.

If you think pictures of specific species is evidence, you do not understand genetics at all. It is genetically impossible for the nose of land animal(pakicetus), which you conveniently left out. to become the blowhole of a sea creature. There is no way genetically for legs to become fins. Your whale "experts" are either lying or ignorant.

Using similar bone structure may have made sense until DNA was discovered, Now it separates all similar into separate and distinct species.

You mentioned "natural selection" as evidence of evolution, but you did not provide the evidence that makes it possible. Talk is cheap.

Evolution goes against what can be proven and can't be falsified---AFTER ITS KIND. Evolutin doe snot predict anything. It takes 2 separate and distinct species with a few similarities and says "SEE" as if tht is evidence.


More will follow.

Next time provide more than the usual evo rhetoric.
 

omega2xx

Well-Known Member
Oh yeah? Tell me about ring species.

Glad to but it will be a waste of time.

With the salamanders, the salamanders remained salamanders. With the gulls, the gulls remained gulls.

Hint---a Species remaining the same species is not evidence of evolution.
 

capumetu

Active Member
Simple logic, for recorded history the "closest" living relative the primate has yet to evolve into organized language, or design and build anything.

Bible states all living things were created according to it's kind. The simple fact is that we all humans came from a single source, either through the created Adam, or through a freak occurrence in which a cell came to life. If the latter is true we are all of the same kind, and should be able to reproduce with anything, however that is not the case.

Like was mentioned also, fish still exist blowing away the theory of survival of the fittest.

I believe simple logic refutes evolution, but to each their own.
 

Kirran

Premium Member
Glad to but it will be a waste of time.

With the salamanders, the salamanders remained salamanders. With the gulls, the gulls remained gulls.

Hint---a Species remaining the same species is not evidence of evolution.

Neither salamander nor gull is a species. The herring gull and black-backed gull are emphatically different species at the extremes.
 
Top