Evidence showing evolution from one species to another

[leibowde84]

I often here the erroneous claim that there isn't evidence of species to species evolution, but the evidence is there and abundant. Just with our human ancestors, we have discovered numerous DIFFERENT SPECIES that, over long periods of time, changed to become more evolutionarily advanced species. So, where does this claim come from?

The below article is an example of a recently discovered early species that predated human beings. There is insurmountable evidence that these were some of the predecessors of human beings. So, again, why do people claim that species to species evolution is not supported by evidence when all that is necessary is to look at the different species that predated humans?

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/10/africa/homo-naledi-human-relative-species/

 

[viole]

I often here the erroneous claim that there isn't evidence of species to species evolution, but the evidence is there and abundant. Just with our human ancestors, we have discovered numerous DIFFERENT SPECIES that, over long periods of time, changed to become more evolutionarily advanced species. So, where does this claim come from?

The below article is an example of a recently discovered early species that predated human beings. There is insurmountable evidence that these were some of the predecessors of human beings. So, again, why do people claim that species to species evolution is not supported by evidence when all that is necessary is to look at the different species that predated humans?

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/10/africa/homo-naledi-human-relative-species/

Because they live in denial, basically. And because you make the assumption that they think rationally.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Parsimony]

Most creationists that I've seen do accept that one species can evolve into another, just not one kind evolving into another. Funnily enough, the way that "kind" is defined, it is literally impossible for one kind to become another in the first place. A "kind" would be any group of species that can trace their ancestry back to the one, original species that God created as-is in the beginning: all cat species come from an original cat, for example. So even if a cat species gave rise to an aquatic animal like a pseudo-whale, that would still be the same "kind" of creature because it can trace its ancestry back to the one, original cat species. Sort of "evolution-lite".

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Most creationists that I've seen do accept that one species can evolve into another, just not one kind evolving into another. Funnily enough, the way that "kind" is defined, it is literally impossible for one kind to become another in the first place. A "kind" would be any group of species that can trace their ancestry back to the one, original species that God created as-is in the beginning: all cat species come from an original cat, for example. So even if a cat species gave rise to an aquatic animal like a pseudo-whale, that would still be the same "kind" of creature because it can trace its ancestry back to the one, original cat species. Sort of "evolution-lite".

Bicycles were the predecessors of motorbikes also, that says nothing about significant design improvements occurring accidentally, that's the problematic part..

 

[leibowde84]

Bicycles were the predecessors of motorbikes also, that says nothing about significant design improvements occurring accidentally, that's the problematic part..

This is nonsensical. You are comparing design improvements in mechanical engineering with natural selection in nature.

 

[Parsimony]

Bicycles were the predecessors of motorbikes also, that says nothing about significant design improvements occurring accidentally, that's the problematic part..

I'm not sure what the relevance to my post is.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

This is nonsensical. You are comparing design improvements in mechanical engineering with natural selection in nature.

exactly, they both leave the same 'fossil record' fingerprints. complete with extinctions, unbridged gaps, and a general trend towards bigger and better.

We know for sure one is designed, the jury is still out on the other

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I'm not sure what the relevance to my post is.

most creationists agree with direct observations- that small differences/ genetic mutations can occur from one generation to the next-
Not the speculation that this phenomena is adequate to account for a molecule morphing into a human

 

[leibowde84]

exactly, they both leave the same 'fossil record' fingerprints. complete with extinctions, unbridged gaps, and a general trend towards bigger and better.

We know for sure one is designed, the jury is still out on the other

We have evidence that one was designed. We have absolutely no evidence even suggesting that the other is. That is a HUGE, MONUMENTAL difference. Intelligent Design is based on nothing more than speculation.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

We have evidence that one was designed. We have absolutely no evidence even suggesting that the other is. That is a HUGE, MONUMENTAL difference. Intelligent Design is based on nothing more than speculation.

evidence is a little subjective, I respect your interpretation of it- but if there is an objective point here, it's that observing progression in design, does not in and of itself, suggest accidental design improvements.

 

[leibowde84]

evidence is a little subjective, I respect your interpretation of it- but if there is an objective point here, it's that observing progression in design, does not in and of itself, suggest accidental design improvements.

By evidence I mean verifiable evidence. And, what do you mean by "accidental"? Do You mean "natural"?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

By evidence I mean verifiable evidence. And, what do you mean by "accidental"? Do You mean "natural"?

chance, fluke, as opposed to design- the means by which these significant design improvements come about

 

[leibowde84]

chance, fluke, as opposed to design- the means by which these significant design improvements come about

So, you do mean naturally then, right?

 

[Yorutenchi]

exactly, they both leave the same 'fossil record' fingerprints. complete with extinctions, unbridged gaps, and a general trend towards bigger and better.

We know for sure one is designed, the jury is still out on the other

Motorcycles and Bikes are only ever created by humans. We know how they are created. So we can know how they "evolve" which was through developed improvements of engineering. Similarly we know how life is created. So the process of improvement and change for animals would be through this process. That is called evolution. If you leave a Bicycle with a trike in the same room it will never mate and make little bicycles that are similar to itself. But life does this. If the process of reproduction is drastically different then it only follows that the mechanics of the evolution involved are just as drastically different. There is no comparison to be made.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Bicycles were the predecessors of motorbikes also, that says nothing about significant design improvements occurring accidentally, that's the problematic part..

That analogy is more suited for human-driven artificial selection, not with the environment-driven natural selection.

 

[First Baseman]

Which abiogenesis theory do most evolutionists accept now?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Which abiogenesis theory do most evolutionists accept now?

Since evolution doesn't say anything about the origins of life, you're likely to find quite a variety of ideas.
Also, "evolutionist" is a straw man as we do not call people "gravitationist," or "germist," or "dopplerist," or "thermodynamicist," or so on.

 

[Parsimony]

most creationists agree with direct observations- that small differences/ genetic mutations can occur from one generation to the next-
Not the speculation that this phenomena is adequate to account for a molecule morphing into a human

Then they'd be right. Evolution doesn't do that.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

That analogy is more suited for human-driven artificial selection, not with the environment-driven natural selection.

either way survival of the fittest is a given, consumers and nature will inevitably favor the best design yes?. Nobody is debating this. The question is how significant design improvements can occur spontaneously, without a design goal.. we have lots of proven examples of the former, the latter is still problematic

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Then they'd be right. Evolution doesn't do that.

Evolution relies on significant design improvements occurring by chance, to get from molecule to man, that's the part most people are skeptical of.