How would we know if a species was newly evolved?

[YoursTrue]

Are you asking which species is the most recent historically? Answering that would require that we know the history of most species, however, you could get some idea looking at derived characters in comparison to the extant character states of existing species. My guess, based on a very trivial examination of the evidence, is that it is probably whales or deer.

So where do humans fit in with that sequence? Before or after whales, would you say?

 

[YoursTrue]

I realize that you do not understand. I recommend that you go back to school and study science if you are seriously interested to learn about evolution, biology, science and all those things that you do not understand.

Whether he understands these things or not, are you saying one would have to study all about the above sciences to believe everything said currently in all of those schools of thought?
Meantime, did humans come before or after whales? Or maybe at the same time? What is your thought based on science, of course.

 

[YoursTrue]

The point is that supporters of Evolution are really ignorant of reality and their theory. If there is change, there must always a limit or range of change, numerically tested and empirically confirmed. But saying that you do not even come up this topic in your head, is a sigh that you are really ignorant of Evolution or reality.

One would evidently really have to study and believe everything in all the different forms of research including the dating process and conjectures that scientists propose about these things to understand, and especially, believe what the current science is, I suppose.
And, of course, as has been said here, these scientists really know what they're talking about, even if the general population may not. So therefore, it has been said, the general populace should believe them.
Allow me to say that I used to believe in evolution when I was in school and beyond. I no longer do because as I continue looking into it, there is no proof, the fossils do not prove evolution at all. Anything that claims it does is mere conjecture based on bones and possible dating endeavors. It is a presumption to believe that life on earth evolved either by "survival of the fittest," or so-called natural selection. There is no proof of this. Bats remain bats. Gorillas remain gorillas, and so forth. No proof of anything else.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So where do humans fit in with that sequence? Before or after whales, would you say?

We are both species of mammals. We are not in the same branch of mammal evolution as whales. All I can say is that the evidence indicates that Homo sapiens evolved about 300,000 years ago. The first whales evolved 50 million years ago before humans.

There is no set timeline that evolution follows or preconceived pattern that it is flowing towards. Change is driven primarily by the environment. If the environment is stable for the species in that environment, then large changes will slow. If environmental change is rapid or new niches open, then change can be more rapid. Looking at derived characters, whales and deer morphology is more highly derived (in comparison to ancestral forms) than humans. This doesn't mean or say that they evolved faster or slower than humans.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Whether he understands these things or not, are you saying one would have to study all about the above sciences to believe everything said currently in all of those schools of thought?
Meantime, did humans come before or after whales? Or maybe at the same time? What is your thought based on science, of course.

I'm not sure I understand the question.

What is being claimed regarding the theory of evolution, intelligence and intelligent design in recent posts is nonsense. It seems more like a desperate attempt for relevance and attention. It is certainly not science and cannot be taken seriously.

A sound, general understanding of science, the ability to think critically and logically, and to recognize, understand and review evidence, should be sufficient grounds to understand and provide one with the means to accept or reject a theory. Scientific theories are not rejected or accepted on ideological grounds that have no basis in fact. You do not need a degree or survey every field to understand the theory and see that it is supported.

The evidence of the fossil record indicates that whales evolved many 10's of millions of year before humans, though the primate lineage that we belong to is just a bit older than the origin of the first whales at 55 million years.

 

[YoursTrue]

We are both species of mammals. We are not in the same branch of mammal evolution as whales. All I can say is that the evidence indicates that Homo sapiens evolved about 300,000 years ago. The first whales evolved 50 million years ago before humans.

There is no set timeline that evolution follows or preconceived pattern that it is flowing towards. Change is driven primarily by the environment. If the environment is stable for the species in that environment, then large changes will slow. If environmental change is rapid or new niches open, then change can be more rapid. Looking at derived characters, whales and deer morphology is more highly derived (in comparison to ancestral forms) than humans. This doesn't mean or say that they evolved faster or slower than humans.

So let me try to understand you. Are you saying that whales emerged as a species, animal, whatever they're called before hominids or homo sapiens? Or at the same time? Or after? What?

 

[YoursTrue]

I'm not sure I understand the question.

What is being claimed regarding the theory of evolution, intelligence and intelligent design in recent posts is nonsense. It seems more like a desperate attempt for relevance and attention. It is certainly not science and cannot be taken seriously.

A sound, general understanding of science, the ability to think critically and logically, and to recognize, understand and review evidence, should be sufficient grounds to understand and provide one with the means to accept or reject a theory. Scientific theories are not rejected or accepted on ideological grounds that have no basis in fact. You do not need a degree or survey every field to understand the theory and see that it is supported.

The evidence of the fossil record indicates that whales evolved many 10's of millions of year before humans, though the primate lineage that we belong to is just a bit older than the origin of the first whales at 55 million years.

Again -- according to the evolution theory, did whales evolve to their present form before, during, or after humans evolved in the present form? (Not talking about "primate lineage.") So you seem to be saying, although more or less tentatively, that human linage (? but not humans...) emerged before lineage of whales? I won't go into any more questions namely because -- it's ridiculous to keep discussing it as if evolution is true. Lineage -- unknown common ancestor -- gorillas, whales, humans, etc. still evolving. What these discussions have convinced me of is that the theory of evolution is -- beyond belief. To put it mildly. One reason is the sheer fabulousness of -- insects and flowers. And flowers growing...etc. to think/imagine or conjecture that it just all "came about" by change/mutation/slow changes (which cannot be proved AT ALL). Thanks, guys, so glad I realize not only the no proof concept, but again -- no proof <g> meaning no real actual substance to the concept of "transitional" items. Nonsense. Thanks.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So let me try to understand you. Are you saying that whales emerged as a species, animal, whatever they're called before hominids or homo sapiens? Or at the same time? Or after? What?

Before hominids. Hello? Hello?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again -- according to the evolution theory, did whales evolve to their present form before, during, or after humans evolved in the present form? (Not talking about "primate lineage.") So you seem to be saying, although more or less tentatively, that human linage (? but not humans...) emerged before lineage of whales? I won't go into any more questions namely because -- it's ridiculous to keep discussing it as if evolution is true. Lineage -- unknown common ancestor -- gorillas, whales, humans, etc. still evolving. What these discussions have convinced me of is that the theory of evolution is -- beyond belief. To put it mildly. One reason is the sheer fabulousness of -- insects and flowers. And flowers growing...etc. to think/imagine or conjecture that it just all "came about" by change/mutation/slow changes (which cannot be proved AT ALL). Thanks, guys, so glad I realize not only the no proof concept, but again -- no proof <g> meaning no real actual substance to the concept of "transitional" items. Nonsense. Thanks.

That is a poorly asked question since the "present form" is always changing. Why would you think that animals, including humans, ever quit evolving? The only way to properly discuss them is as if they are still evolving since that is exactly what all life is doing. It appears from your argument that you think that evolution has some goal of some sort and then it stops. That is not the case.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So let me try to understand you. Are you saying that whales emerged as a species, animal, whatever they're called before hominids or homo sapiens? Or at the same time? Or after? What?

I thought I was clear on that. The whales evolved prior to the evolution of Homo sapiens, based on the evidence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Again -- according to the evolution theory, did whales evolve to their present form before, during, or after humans evolved in the present form? (Not talking about "primate lineage.") So you seem to be saying, although more or less tentatively, that human linage (? but not humans...) emerged before lineage of whales? I won't go into any more questions namely because -- it's ridiculous to keep discussing it as if evolution is true. Lineage -- unknown common ancestor -- gorillas, whales, humans, etc. still evolving. What these discussions have convinced me of is that the theory of evolution is -- beyond belief. To put it mildly. One reason is the sheer fabulousness of -- insects and flowers. And flowers growing...etc. to think/imagine or conjecture that it just all "came about" by change/mutation/slow changes (which cannot be proved AT ALL). Thanks, guys, so glad I realize not only the no proof concept, but again -- no proof <g> meaning no real actual substance to the concept of "transitional" items. Nonsense. Thanks.

It isn't according to theory, it is conclusions based on the evidence that is explained by the theory. The theory of evolution does not predict the emergence of any specific taxa or time the expectation of a future emergence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Again -- according to the evolution theory, did whales evolve to their present form before, during, or after humans evolved in the present form? (Not talking about "primate lineage.") So you seem to be saying, although more or less tentatively, that human linage (? but not humans...) emerged before lineage of whales? I won't go into any more questions namely because -- it's ridiculous to keep discussing it as if evolution is true. Lineage -- unknown common ancestor -- gorillas, whales, humans, etc. still evolving. What these discussions have convinced me of is that the theory of evolution is -- beyond belief. To put it mildly. One reason is the sheer fabulousness of -- insects and flowers. And flowers growing...etc. to think/imagine or conjecture that it just all "came about" by change/mutation/slow changes (which cannot be proved AT ALL). Thanks, guys, so glad I realize not only the no proof concept, but again -- no proof <g> meaning no real actual substance to the concept of "transitional" items. Nonsense. Thanks.

Your conclusion appears to be based largely on ideology coupled with an ignorance of the evidence, theory and science. That you find something incredible is not evidence that something is false or conjecture.

In examining the available evidence the following can be determined. Primates evolved about 55 million years ago. Whales evolved about 50 million years ago. Homo sapiens evolved about 300,000 years ago.

Recall that almost nothing you or I believe regarding religion can be supported by evidence. All of that can be dismissed as conjecture. There is no proof or evidence. There is evidence for the claims and conclusions of science that are not conjecture. Conjecture is speculation without evidence. Calling science as conjecture is an erroneous application of the term.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Again -- according to the evolution theory, did whales evolve to their present form before, during, or after humans evolved in the present form? (Not talking about "primate lineage.") So you seem to be saying, although more or less tentatively, that human linage (? but not humans...) emerged before lineage of whales? I won't go into any more questions namely because -- it's ridiculous to keep discussing it as if evolution is true. Lineage -- unknown common ancestor -- gorillas, whales, humans, etc. still evolving. What these discussions have convinced me of is that the theory of evolution is -- beyond belief. To put it mildly. One reason is the sheer fabulousness of -- insects and flowers. And flowers growing...etc. to think/imagine or conjecture that it just all "came about" by change/mutation/slow changes (which cannot be proved AT ALL). Thanks, guys, so glad I realize not only the no proof concept, but again -- no proof <g> meaning no real actual substance to the concept of "transitional" items. Nonsense. Thanks.

It is erroneous to conclude that scientific conclusions and explanations have no evidence. Especially when so many have provided you examples of that evidence for the specific case of evolution.

We do not know how life originated, but the evidence coming out of all the relevant disciplines of science support the theory that life is related through common ancestry and that it diversified through evolutionary processes driven by natural selection. The pattern is widespread, profuse, durable and predictable.

 

[YoursTrue]

It is erroneous to conclude that scientific conclusions and explanations have no evidence. Especially when so many have provided you examples of that evidence for the specific case of evolution.

We do not know how life originated, but the evidence coming out of all the relevant disciplines of science support the theory that life is related through common ancestry and that it diversified through evolutionary processes driven by natural selection. The pattern is widespread, profuse, durable and predictable.

I find it interesting to say the least, that God made Adam from the soil. How it happened much beyond that I don't know. But I do understand that bodies contain many elements found in soil. And of course, God said, from dust Adam was and to dust he will go. Dust. I no longer believe or go along with the idea that man (homo sapiens to be exact) evolved from some "Unknown Common Ancestor" related to gorillas, bonobos, chimpanzees, and so forth. It no longer makes sense to me because -- yes -- that's right, there is simply no proof. One might say circumstantial evidence is proof, but actually, it's not except in the imagination. Reasoning itself does not prove evolution.
Birds changing beak sizes or even what they look like to a degree is not proof of evolution as Darwin & his supporters outline it as if dinosaurs evolved to become birds.
So far birds remain birds, bees remain bees and so forth. If they inbreed, again, that is no proof of evolution. Conjecture may have it that inbreeding is proof, but it is just that -- conjecture. Because -- bats remain bats, bees, even different types, remain bees, and so forth. Similar vertebrae types do not prove evolution. It proves that these organisms possibly have similar type vertebraes. does not prove evolution by natural selection or survival of the fittest. Different branches as suggested by scientists moving into different areas of life does not prove evolution.
I am reminded of the Hapsburg family and the inbreeding there. It didn't help the lineage much. But that is not inbreeding such as that which may be outlined by Darwinian experts or believers. (Is it?)

 

[YoursTrue]

It is erroneous to conclude that scientific conclusions and explanations have no evidence. Especially when so many have provided you examples of that evidence for the specific case of evolution.

We do not know how life originated, but the evidence coming out of all the relevant disciplines of science support the theory that life is related through common ancestry and that it diversified through evolutionary processes driven by natural selection. The pattern is widespread, profuse, durable and predictable.

Sorry, but claims by scientists based on imagination stemming from fossils does not prove evolution. As far as predictable patterns go, so far as I know and any reasonable person knows, gorillas remain gorillas, bats remain bats, beetles remain beetles.

 

[YoursTrue]

Your conclusion appears to be based largely on ideology coupled with an ignorance of the evidence, theory and science. That you find something incredible is not evidence that something is false or conjecture.

In examining the available evidence the following can be determined. Primates evolved about 55 million years ago. Whales evolved about 50 million years ago. Homo sapiens evolved about 300,000 years ago.

Recall that almost nothing you or I believe regarding religion can be supported by evidence. All of that can be dismissed as conjecture. There is no proof or evidence. There is evidence for the claims and conclusions of science that are not conjecture. Conjecture is speculation without evidence. Calling science as conjecture is an erroneous application of the term.

High sounding reports do not prove anything beyond conjecture insofar as evolution is concerned.
As I read your post, I see you say that homo sapiens evolved after whales came about, is that true?

 

[YoursTrue]

@Dan From Smithville
High sounding reports do not prove anything beyond conjecture insofar as evolution is concerned.
As I read your post, I see you say that homo sapiens evolved after whales came about, is that true?
By the way I believe there is good reason to believe in the Bible, in actuality, a greater basis by evidence than that of evolution. Just as you believe that denial of evolution doesn't make evolution, the theory of, untrue, I believe that evidence shows, moreso, that the Bible is true and beneficial for leading one's life and belief. The more I study and learn, the deeper my faith is.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

High sounding reports do not prove anything beyond conjecture insofar as evolution is concerned.
As I read your post, I see you say that homo sapiens evolved after whales came about, is that true?

There is no evidence to the contrary unless you are offering some. Whales came first in the record and man evolved much more recently.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

@Dan From Smithville
High sounding reports do not prove anything beyond conjecture insofar as evolution is concerned.
As I read your post, I see you say that homo sapiens evolved after whales came about, is that true?
By the way I believe there is good reason to believe in the Bible, in actuality, a greater basis by evidence than that of evolution. Just as you believe that denial of evolution doesn't make evolution, the theory of, untrue, I believe that evidence shows, moreso, that the Bible is true and beneficial for leading one's life and belief. The more I study and learn, the deeper my faith is.

If you have evidence supporting belief in the Bible, I would love to see it and understand why you consider it evidence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Sorry, but claims by scientists based on imagination stemming from fossils does not prove evolution. As far as predictable patterns go, so far as I know and any reasonable person knows, gorillas remain gorillas, bats remain bats, beetles remain beetles.

Logical conclusions based on evidence are not contrived fantasy.

Your arguments about proof are outside of science and organisms changing into other organisms is not a claim of the theory of evolution or biology. Arguing what amounts to magical change to deny a theory that doesn't claim or predict magical change is not an argument against that theory and falls under the heading of logical fallacy.