• 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!

Would discovery of species previously thought to be extinct impact the theory of evolution?

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
Recently comments about the discovery of living populations of coelacanths prompted my thinking on how such a discovery appears to be evidence for some to consider it as a basis to reject the theory of evolution. As if finding a species or even more than one species of dinosaur in some remote part of the world is evidence that evolution does not take place.

It is my position that such a finding or any of the findings of modern species of groups previously thought to be extinct is not evidence to reject the theory of evolution.

Finding extant dinosaurs would be surprising. Entirely unexpected. Especially if their morphology were stable enough for cursory examination to identify them given the time since that group went extinct. Would they be the same species as ancestral dinosaurs? Such a high level of similarity would indicate the stability of the environment, but not be evidence to refute the theory of evolution.

Why would anyone think that such a finding would lead to a rejection of the theory of evolution?
 

Daemon Sophic

Avatar in flux

Why would anyone think that such a finding would lead to a rejection of the theory of evolution?
1. Cool! :cool:
2. I agree with you.
…and in answer to you final question…
3. As usual, they might think this, because they have a negligible understanding of science, and what constitutes evidence; plus they seek whatever straws they can grasp to defend their belief system, without having to alter/adjust it in the slightest. :rolleyes: (I.e. - That evolution does nothing to refute most human religions, as long as they accept evolution as a tool used by their “Supreme Being” starting several billion years ago.) ;)
 

Altfish

Veteran Member
Recently comments about the discovery of living populations of coelacanths prompted my thinking on how such a discovery appears to be evidence for some to consider it as a basis to reject the theory of evolution. As if finding a species or even more than one species of dinosaur in some remote part of the world is evidence that evolution does not take place.

It is my position that such a finding or any of the findings of modern species of groups previously thought to be extinct is not evidence to reject the theory of evolution.

Finding extant dinosaurs would be surprising. Entirely unexpected. Especially if their morphology were stable enough for cursory examination to identify them given the time since that group went extinct. Would they be the same species as ancestral dinosaurs? Such a high level of similarity would indicate the stability of the environment, but not be evidence to refute the theory of evolution.

Why would anyone think that such a finding would lead to a rejection of the theory of evolution?
Haven't an odd 'extinct' animal/species been rediscovered? There are even rumours of sightings of the likes of The Tasmanian Tiger.
If any of these were to be verified, evolution is not threatened.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Recently comments about the discovery of living populations of coelacanths prompted my thinking on how such a discovery appears to be evidence for some to consider it as a basis to reject the theory of evolution. As if finding a species or even more than one species of dinosaur in some remote part of the world is evidence that evolution does not take place.

It is my position that such a finding or any of the findings of modern species of groups previously thought to be extinct is not evidence to reject the theory of evolution.

Finding extant dinosaurs would be surprising. Entirely unexpected. Especially if their morphology were stable enough for cursory examination to identify them given the time since that group went extinct. Would they be the same species as ancestral dinosaurs? Such a high level of similarity would indicate the stability of the environment, but not be evidence to refute the theory of evolution.

Why would anyone think that such a finding would lead to a rejection of the theory of evolution?

I'd agree that it would not threaten evolution. What it does eay is that there is a whole lot of unexplored world out there
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
Haven't an odd 'extinct' animal/species been rediscovered? There are even rumours of sightings of the likes of The Tasmanian Tiger.
If any of these were to be verified, evolution is not threatened.
The coelacanth is a widely known example. Finding a Tasmanian tiger would be another if verified sighting occur.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
I have seen the unverified claims of humans and dinosaurs existing together or the discovery of coelacanth presented as evidence that would lead to a rejection of evolution. Why is not often explained.

Finding dinosaurs today would falsify our conclusion that all dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago, but would have no impact on the theory of evolution.

I agree it is often a claim of those ignorant of science and the theory and not much more. But those that rise up against science are often very ignorant of it on a whole.
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
I have seen the unverified claims of humans and dinosaurs existing together or the discovery of coelacanth presented as evidence that would lead to a rejection of evolution. Why is not often explained.

Finding dinosaurs today would falsify our conclusion that all dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago, but would have no impact on the theory of evolution.

I agree it is often a claim of those ignorant of science and the theory and not much more. But those that rise up against science are often very ignorant of it on a whole.
Aren’t birds a subspecies of dinosaurs?
So don’t we already live alongside dinosaurs?

Aha! Admit it! The Theory of Evolution has now crumbled into a million pieces.
Muahahaha!!

(this post is in jest, in case that wasn’t blatantly obvious.)
 

John53

I go leaps and bounds
Premium Member
The coelacanth is a widely known example. Finding a Tasmanian tiger would be another if verified sighting occur.

Would a Tassie Tiger count? They went extinct in modern times probably because of human interference although some debate that.

I thought you meant species only known from fossils. But it's not even 6am and my brain isn't working.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
Would a Tassie Tiger count? They went extinct in modern times probably because of human interference although some debate that.

I thought you meant species only known from fossils. But it's not even 6am and my brain isn't working.
I cannot speak to what some may consider as evidence, but the argument against it as reason to reject evolution would apply.

Initially, I did, but it may be useful to consider what straws a person might grasp at to hold up their views.

You have a good point. Mainly, I am thinking of things from the fossil record.

Even if some species of dinosaur had survived long enough to co-exist with humans at some time in our remote past would not offer any reason to falsify the theory of evolution.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Would a Tassie Tiger count? They went extinct in modern times probably because of human interference although some debate that.

I thought you meant species only known from fossils. But it's not even 6am and my brain isn't working.
The Tassie Tiger would be even less of a claim since they could easily have been hidden for such a short period of time. No threat at all there to the theory.
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
The Tassie Tiger would be even less of a claim since they could easily have been hidden for such a short period of time. No threat at all there to the theory.
I kind of feel real bad for the Tassie Tiger ngl.
Not only did it (possibly) go extinct due to human interference. But the last remaining specimen caused decades long debates about whether or not it was a male, due to no one being able to verify its….umm genitalia. That’s just insult to injury if you ask me
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
I am curious how the idea comes up that discovery of an species previously thought to be extinct would impact the theory when more than 99% of all species to have existed on this planet are now extinct. It seems it is largely ignorance and straw clutching by those unfamiliar with the material.

I was taught to familiarize myself with material I was initially against so that I would better understand why I reject it. The risk is that you would change your mind. I suppose that is the fear that creationists have. Or maybe it doesn't matter to them whether their objections have any validity.
 

John53

I go leaps and bounds
Premium Member
I cannot speak to what some may consider as evidence, but the argument against it as reason to reject evolution would apply.

Initially, I did, but it may be useful to consider what straws a person might grasp at to hold up their views.

You have a good point. Mainly, I am thinking of things from the fossil record.

Even if some species of dinosaur had survived long enough to co-exist with humans at some time in our remote past would not offer any reason to falsify the theory of evolution.

I remember something that was discovered in Western Australia back in the 70's (maybe) that was only known in the fossil record. Some kind of worm thing that lives in colonies and looked like a rock to me. A google search of worm thing that looks like a rock didn't help. I'm going to be up for days until I remember what it is.
 
Top