Evolution: Do you see the resemblence

[Mr. Peanut]

Hi!

Everyone, the questions are coming way to fast and by too many people. Thanks for your participation, but I cannot keep up! May drop in another time.

Cheers!

 

[camanintx]

Hi!

While I have seen many breeds of canines, I have never seen a bear-dog, nor a chain of fossils in which dogs became bears or vice versa.

Cheers!

Which shows exactly how little you understand about evolution. Bears don't become dogs and dogs don't become bears. Something in between which doesn't exist today evolved into both.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

While I have seen many breeds of canines, I have never seen a bear-dog, nor a chain of fossils in which dogs became bears or vice versa.

How about one in which wolf-like prehistoric creatures (now extinct, unfortunately) become whales? The sequence (described on the PBS web site here) goes like this:

- creodonts: those wolf-like creatures I mentioned before
- Pakicetus: intermediate step between terrestrial and fully aquatic mammals... think something like a hippo
- Ambulocetus: more adapted to marine life... think large sea lion
- Rhodocetus: even more adapted to marine life... think manatee
- Basilosaurus: full-blown whale, but with vestigal, useless hind legs (note: the "-saurus" suffix usually means lizard or dinosaur; it's the custom of paleontologists to stick with the original name for a species as a unique identifier rather than change it if better information on its classification comes along)

Will that do?

 

[Autodidact]

I don't believe in vestigial organs, I believe the appendix was created for a purpose.

1. Whether you believe in them or not, there are many of them, in humans and many other species.
2. You don't seem to know what the word "vestigial" means.

 

[Autodidact]

And the two questions Mr. Peanut most doesn't want to answer are:

DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION SAYS?
DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE EVIDENCE IS FOR THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION?

Revealing, isn't it?

 

[McBell]

And the two questions Mr. Peanut most doesn't want to answer are:

DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION SAYS?
DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE EVIDENCE IS FOR THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION?

Revealing, isn't it?

Most:yes:

 

[roli]

You do realize it was other evolutionary scientists who exposed those frauds and fakes, don't you?

And if you are going to discard the whole theory of evolution because of some frauds and fakes, shouldn't you be prepared to discard your belief in Christianity as well?

Now, now, shall we be so sensitive, I am sure you and thousands of other evolutionists initially sided with the evolutionary findings that we came from apes and many other findings in the beginning,but that probably shifted when they were later discovered as being bogus, I'm sure you jumped camp and took the other side to escape the exploitation of fabrications, lies and false claims.

Listen, the "missing links" are missing. And unfortunately, the field of paleoanthropology has been riddled with fraudulent claims of finding the missing link between humans and primates, to the extent that fragments of human skeletons have been combined with other species such as pigs and apes and passed off as legitimate. Although genetic variability is seen across all peoples, the process of natural selection leading to speciation is disputed. Research challenging the accepted paradigm continues to surface raising significant questions about the certainty of evolution as the origin of man.
The theory concerning the evolution of man is under increased scrutiny due to the persistence of gaps in the fossil record, the inability to demonstrate "life-or-death" determining advantageous genetic mutations, and the lack of experiments or observations to truly confirm the evidence for speciation.
Men rely so much on evidence coming from fossils ,yet have not found 1 transitional life form in existence now or in any fossil records
Listen my friend,if you choose to have faith in a system that has been attempting unsuccessfully to prove that complex life, extremely complex life, came from non life or natural selection,that "theory "alone is beyond absurdity, but that we have been evolving ever since into these complex creatures , knock yourself out.
" STRAWMAN"
I'll put my faith in the creation account and a savior who will prove to be true. I would'nt be surprised if you don't even believe Jesus walked the earth,2000 yrs ago.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Men rely so much on evidence coming from fossils ,yet have not found 1 transitional life form in existence now or in any fossil records

Two points:

- all life is transitional.

- there are many well-documented transitional sequences. I mentioned one before: whales; more are discussed in detail here, if you're interested.

 

[Autodidact]

roli:

DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION SAYS?

DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE EVIDENCE FOR THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS?

 

[Autodidact]

Now, now, shall we be so sensitive, I am sure you and thousands of other evolutionists initially sided with the evolutionary findings that we came from apes and many other findings in the beginning,but that probably shifted when they were later discovered as being bogus, I'm sure you jumped camp and took the other side to escape the exploitation of fabrications, lies and false claims.

There is no such thing as an evolutionist.
We did not come from apes. We are apes.
What was discovered as being bogus? The entire evolutionary history of the human race?
If I were you, I wouldn't start talking about dishonesty. There is no one as dishonest as a creationist. Not only are creationist lies debunked, but they continue to peddle them as if they were true. Would you like me to cite a few examples?

Listen, the "missing links" are missing.

No they'renot. The worlds museums are filled with thousands of them. Would you like me to cite a few examples?

And unfortunately, the field of paleoanthropology has been riddled with fraudulent claims of finding the missing link between humans and primates, to the extent that fragments of human skeletons have been combined with other species such as pigs and apes and passed off as legitimate.

No it hasn't. Here are some pictures of ape/hominid transitional skulls for you:

Although genetic variability is seen across all peoples, the process of natural selection leading to speciation is disputed.

Only by creationist propagandists. There is no significant dispute among scientists working in the field that modern apes and humans share a common ancestor.

Research challenging the accepted paradigm continues to surface raising significant questions about the certainty of evolution as the origin of man.

Really? Can you cite some published studies?

The theory concerning the evolution of man is under increased scrutiny due to the persistence of gaps in the fossil record, the inability to demonstrate "life-or-death" determining advantageous genetic mutations, and the lack of experiments or observations to truly confirm the evidence for speciation.

No it isn't. Over 99% of working biologists accept this theory.

Men rely so much on evidence coming from fossils ,yet have not found 1 transitional life form in existence now or in any fossil records

I didn't know you were a paleontologist! Where did you look? Would you like me to list a few important transitional forms?

Listen my friend,if you choose to have faith in a system that has been attempting unsuccessfully to prove that complex life, extremely complex life, came from non life or natural selection,that "theory "alone is beyond absurdity, but that we have been evolving ever since into these complex creatures , knock yourself out.

Wha does this have to do with evolution?

" STRAWMAN"
I'll put my faith in the creation account and a savior who will prove to be true. I would'nt be surprised if you don't even believe Jesus walked the earth,2000 yrs ago.

What does this have to do with evolution?

 

[Willamena]

Now, now, shall we be so sensitive, I am sure you and thousands of other evolutionists initially sided with the evolutionary findings that we came from apes...

There is no such theory; never was.

and many other findings in the beginning,but that probably shifted when they were later discovered as being bogus, I'm sure you jumped camp and took the other side to escape the exploitation of fabrications, lies and false claims.

Jumped ship from ...evolution to evolution? From science to science? Science changes and evolves. Old theorires that don't work are discarded in favour of better ones that do. There are no lies, no bogus, no fabrications in real science --if there are, it's not science we're talking about.

Listen, the "missing links" are missing.

Not so much as that some of them just haven't been found yet. More have.

And unfortunately, the field of paleoanthropology has been riddled with fraudulent claims of finding the missing link between humans and primates, to the extent that fragments of human skeletons have been combined with other species such as pigs and apes and passed off as legitimate.

When such things happen it's not science; it is science that exposes them. Besides which, why would you dismiss a whole field of science based on the actions of a few individuals?

Although genetic variability is seen across all peoples, the process of natural selection leading to speciation is disputed. Research challenging the accepted paradigm continues to surface raising significant questions about the certainty of evolution as the origin of man.

No argument, there. This is a good thing.

The theory concerning the evolution of man is under increased scrutiny due to the persistence of gaps in the fossil record, the inability to demonstrate "life-or-death" determining advantageous genetic mutations, and the lack of experiments or observations to truly confirm the evidence for speciation.

What you don't seem to grasp is that it this is normal, natural and scientifically correct procedure for it to be under such scrutiny, and that if and when holes and errors are found in the theory it will be adpated to accommodate the new information that exposed those holes, and this too is an important part of science. It's all good.

Men rely so much on evidence coming from fossils ,yet have not found 1 transitional life form in existence now or in any fossil records

And yet, others have, go figure.

Listen my friend,if you choose to have faith in a system that has been attempting unsuccessfully to prove that complex life, extremely complex life, came from non life or natural selection,that "theory "alone is beyond absurdity, but that we have been evolving ever since into these complex creatures , knock yourself out.
" STRAWMAN"

That is indeed a strawman theory.

 

[camanintx]

I'll put my faith in the creation account and a savior who will prove to be true.

How exactly does one prove creationism? If it could be proved, wouldn't someone have done it by now?

 

[painted wolf]

your list of "fake/fraud" fossils only contains two actual issues.

Piltdown man... who was thanks to science discovered to be a hoax. No big problem there, it happened decades ago and was found out rather quickly.

Nebraska man... was refuted before it became anything but a news blurb...

if these sad examples from so long ago are the best creationism has to offer, well not only are your arguments old and tired.. so is your 'evidence'.
Creationism/ID provides nothing new, makes no predictions and makes no effort to be anything more than misdirection and mistruths.

Anyway, sticking your fingers in your ears and going "la la la" doesn't make the evidence for evolution go away... just like calling a duck a turtle doesn't make it one.

wa:do

 

[roli]

Two points:

- all life is transitional.

- there are many well-documented transitional sequences. I mentioned one before: whales; more are discussed in detail here, if you're interested.

Why is it, you know specifically what I am talking about when I use fossil and transitional in the same sentence,your play on words and head games are infantile and so much like what I hear from evolutionistsregarding much of their findings.
Let me write this out that you may not interpret inaccurately "There is not a single intermediate fossil ever found’ ‘All fossils that are found clearly show that each has developed “after its kind”, funny thing is the Bible tells us.
This means ,there is no actuall fossil record of one speicies actually transforming into another, or is there, I would certainly like to read about it.

One thing is truly evident here, if it is'nt proof of evolution, it is your style of ideological defence.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why is it, you know specifically what I am talking about when I use fossil and transitional in the same sentence,your play on words and head games are infantile and so much like what I hear from evolutionistsregarding much of their findings.

I think the point was valid. I've encountered the idea many times among people who don't believe in evolution that the process stops and starts, or that we're not evolving. I wanted to clear up that potential misunderstanding right off the bat.

Let me write this out that you may not interpret inaccurately "There is not a single intermediate fossil ever found’

I take it you didn't look at my link. Here is a quote from it (written out that you may not interpret inaccurately ):

The following are fossil transitions between species and genera:

1. Human ancestry. There are many fossils of human ancestors, and the differences between species are so gradual that it is not always clear where to draw the lines between them.
2. The horns of titanotheres (extinct Cenozoic mammals) appear in progressively larger sizes, from nothing to prominence. Other head and neck features also evolved. These features are adaptations for head-on ramming analogous to sheep behavior (Stanley 1974).
3. A gradual transitional fossil sequence connects the foraminifera Globigerinoides trilobus and Orbulina universa (Pearson et al. 1997). O. universa, the later fossil, features a spherical test surrounding a "Globigerinoides-like" shell, showing that a feature was added, not lost. The evidence is seen in all major tropical ocean basins. Several intermediate morphospecies connect the two species, as may be seen in the figure included in Lindsay (1997).
4. The fossil record shows transitions between species of Phacops (a trilobite; Phacops rana is the Pennsylvania state fossil; Eldredge 1972; 1974; Strapple 1978).
5. Planktonic forminifera (Malmgren et al. 1984). This is an example of punctuated gradualism. A ten-million-year foraminifera fossil record shows long periods of stasis and other periods of relatively rapid but still gradual morphologic change.
6. Fossils of the diatom Rhizosolenia are very common (they are mined as diatomaceous earth), and they show a continuous record of almost two million years which includes a record of a speciation event (Miller 1999, 44-45).
7. Lake Turkana mollusc species (Lewin 1981).
8. Cenozoic marine ostracodes (Cronin 1985).
9. The Eocene primate genus Cantius (Gingerich 1976, 1980, 1983).
10. Scallops of the genus Chesapecten show gradual change in one "ear" of their hinge over about 13 million years. The ribs also change (Pojeta and Springer 2001; Ward and Blackwelder 1975).
11. Gryphaea (coiled oysters) become larger and broader but thinner and flatter during the Early Jurassic (Hallam 1968).

The following are fossil transitionals between families, orders, and classes:

1. Human ancestry. Australopithecus, though its leg and pelvis bones show it walked upright, had a bony ridge on the forearm, probably vestigial, indicative of knuckle walking (Richmond and Strait 2000).
2. Dinosaur-bird transitions.
3. Haasiophis terrasanctus is a primitive marine snake with well-developed hind limbs. Although other limbless snakes might be more ancestral, this fossil shows a relationship of snakes with limbed ancestors (Tchernov et al. 2000). Pachyrhachis is another snake with legs that is related to Haasiophis (Caldwell and Lee 1997).
4. The jaws of mososaurs are also intermediate between snakes and lizards. Like the snake's stretchable jaws, they have highly flexible lower jaws, but unlike snakes, they do not have highly flexible upper jaws. Some other skull features of mososaurs are intermediate between snakes and primitive lizards (Caldwell and Lee 1997; Lee et al. 1999; Tchernov et al. 2000).
5. Transitions between mesonychids and whales.
6. Transitions between fish and tetrapods.
7. Transitions from condylarths (a kind of land mammal) to fully aquatic modern manatees. In particular, Pezosiren portelli is clearly a sirenian, but its hind limbs and pelvis are unreduced (Domning 2001a, 2001b).
8. Runcaria, a Middle Devonian plant, was a precursor to seed plants. It had all the qualities of seeds except a solid seed coat and a system to guide pollen to the seed (Gerrienne et al. 2004).
9. A bee, Melittosphex burmensis, from Early Cretaceous amber, has primitive characteristics expected from a transition between crabronid wasps and extant bees (Poinar and Danforth 2006).

The following are fossil transitionals between kingdoms and phyla:

1. The Cambrian fossils Halkiera and Wiwaxia have features that connect them with each other and with the modern phyla of Mollusca, Brachiopoda, and Annelida. In particular, one species of halkieriid has brachiopod-like shells on the dorsal side at each end. This is seen also in an immature stage of the living brachiopod species Neocrania. It has setae identical in structure to polychaetes, a group of annelids. Wiwaxia and Halkiera have the same basic arrangement of hollow sclerites, an arrangement that is similar to the chaetae arrangement of polychaetes. The undersurface of Wiwaxia has a soft sole like a mollusk's foot, and its jaw looks like a mollusk's mouth. Aplacophorans, which are a group of primitive mollusks, have a soft body covered with spicules similar to the sclerites of Wiwaxia (Conway Morris 1998, 185-195).
2. Cambrian and Precambrain fossils Anomalocaris and Opabinia are transitional between arthropods and lobopods.
3. An ancestral echinoderm has been found that is intermediate between modern echinoderms and other deuterostomes (Shu et al. 2004).

‘All fossils that are found clearly show that each has developed “after its kind”, funny thing is the Bible tells us.
This means ,there is no actuall fossil record of one speicies actually transforming into another, or is there, I would certainly like to read about it.

Could you provide us with your definition of "kind"? The term seems to be a slippery one to pin down a definition to (it seems to me that it's loosely defined as "range of species between which even the most ardent Creationist can't ignore the evidence for evolution", and hence tends to get broader and broader), but every Creationist I've seen use the term has used a definition that is broader than a single species. This definition doesn't work with your second sentence, though; do you consider "species" and "kind" to be synonymous?

One thing is truly evident here, if it is'nt proof of evolution, it is your style of ideological defence.

Only as much as I would stand in "ideological defence" against someone who claimed that my car ran on pixie magic and not internal combustion.

... unless you mean my defense against your ideology... then the term is accurate.

 

[roli]

How exactly does one prove creationism? If it could be proved, wouldn't someone have done it by now?

Observation and more importantly, expereince.
God made it that if you look at the natural complex world around you,you will have the sense to piece it together that some intelligent designer created what we have and that you will be without excuse on that day.

I mean would'nt it be a rather interesting study to place a piece of modern machinery such as a brand new car and leaving the key in the ignition into the presence of tribes who have never even seen a white man or technology for that matter.
Just thinking about it,would they be so dense to think that it just happened over years and years or would it be more probable they associate it and it's ability to a god or powerful source.
Yet we being so sophisticated,attribute creation and and all it's complexities and how
so much purpose is found in natures cycle which gives us cause to exist and we still attribute such natural phenomena as being self evolving,
I am almost ashamed to say I am part of that species of being.
It's so ironic when a child is given something he really needs or enjoys, be it toy or food ,when he wants more of it, he naturally looks to the parent or adult for more.
That is the way we were at one point in history,but now we have turned to ourselves to suppy us with what we want ,when and how we get it. Godlike I guess!!!

If God made it as difficult and conflicting to find himself by man as evolutionists to find a solid piece of varifiable evidence to prove evolution,I would say keep it.
Man can't find God because they don't want to find him,find God means find accountability, repercussion and judgement.

 

[Mister_T]

Man can't find God because they don't want to find him

Replace "God" in your sentence, with "evolution" and the same could be said for those disbelieving in evolution.

 

[painted wolf]

what kind am I?

What kind am I?

wa:do

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Observation and more importantly, expereince.
God made it that if you look at the natural complex world around you,you will have the sense to piece it together that some intelligent designer created what we have and that you will be without excuse on that day.

IOW, "It's obvious".

Do you have any actual evidence?

I mean would'nt it be a rather interesting study to place a piece of modern machinery such as a brand new car and leaving the key in the ignition into the presence of tribes who have never even seen a white man or technology for that matter.
Just thinking about it,would they be so dense to think that it just happened over years and years or would it be more probable they associate it and it's ability to a god or powerful source.
Yet we being so sophisticated,attribute creation and and all it's complexities and how
so much purpose is found in natures cycle which gives us cause to exist and we still attribute such natural phenomena as being self evolving,

Cars can't make other cars.

As a counter-example, look at the history of the automobile from the Model T to present day.

If we see the progression from a side-draft carburetor to a downdraft carb, to a throttle-body fuel injector, to a multi-port system, why would we not say that each successive step is based on the one that came before?

What possible reason would we have to say that overhead pushrod-operated valves weren't a progressive improvement on external valves, that overhead cams weren't an progressive improvement on pushrod valves, and VTEC wasn't a progressive improvement on fixed-timing OHC designs?

We see the signs of development - of directional change and evolution - all through the history of the automobile. Do you think it makes more sense to say that each design was an incremental improvement on what came before, or that every single automobile model in existence began production in 1903?

The car analogy works both ways.

 

[Autodidact]

Why is it, you know specifically what I am talking about when I use fossil and transitional in the same sentence,your play on words and head games are infantile and so much like what I hear from evolutionistsregarding much of their findings.
Let me write this out that you may not interpret inaccurately "There is not a single intermediate fossil ever found’ ‘All fossils that are found clearly show that each has developed “after its kind”, funny thing is the Bible tells us.
This means ,there is no actuall fossil record of one speicies actually transforming into another, or is there, I would certainly like to read about it.

One thing is truly evident here, if it is'nt proof of evolution, it is your style of ideological defence.

What is a "kind?"