The theory of evolution is like a story of a man who found some bones. He looked at the bones and thinks to himself, there is a pattern here... I suggest the evidence shows a divergence.
With that presupposed idea, he goes in search of more evidence that would confirm his suspicions. After digging in the earth for over a century, he doesn't find what he is looking for. In fact, what he finds paints an entirely different picture to what he hoped would confirm his idea.
However, comparing some of these, they look like they show a pattern of gradual change.
Nevertheless, he is not deterred. Why they are more than one way to cook a fowl. He turns his attention to comparing the bones to the living and the dead. Oh, they look so alike. They must be related. Yes, that would be expected, if my idea is true.
He tries another. Ah, DNA comparison would certainly confirm it. If we can find close relations in our genes, certainly if we find theylook similar then, surely it must mean there is some relation. Aha.
We don't need bones anymore. Besides we are not finding them, and those we imagine we find, require doing too much stretching of the imagination.
So, okay, he thinks to himself, "We have all we need. All of this is OBJECTIVE evidence that my idea is true."
The theory of evolution is like a story of a man who found some bones. He looked at the bones and thinks to himself, there is a pattern here... I suggest the evidence shows a divergence.
With that presupposed idea, he goes in search of more evidence that would confirm his suspicions. After digging in the earth for over a century, he doesn't find what he is looking for. In fact, what he finds paints an entirely different picture to what he hoped would confirm his idea.
However, comparing some of these, they look like they show a pattern of gradual change.
Nevertheless, he is not deterred. Why they are more than one way to cook a fowl. He turns his attention to comparing the bones to the living and the dead. Oh, they look so alike. They must be related. Yes, that would be expected, if my idea is true.
He tries another. Ah, DNA comparison would certainly confirm it. If we can find close relations in our genes, certainly if we find theylook similar then, surely it must mean there is some relation. Aha.
We don't need bones anymore. Besides we are not finding them, and those we imagine we find, require doing too much stretching of the imagination.
So, okay, he thinks to himself, "We have all we need. All of this is OBJECTIVE evidence that my idea is true."
I am sorry but this demonstrates an amazing level of ignorance of the science that you do not understand. It appears that you do not even realize that when Darwin wrote his theory he based very little of it on the fossil record. He observed that at that time the fossil record was very skimpy. He also predicted that if his theory was correct that more fossil would be found that supported his theory and that is exactly what happened.
There is endless evidence across several independent lines that all support the theory of evolution. There is no scientific evidence for creationist beliefs. That is why over 99% of biologists accept the theory of evolution. It would be insanity to oppose it.
There's quite a bit more than a handful, and that "hardened bone" wasn't wished into being and placed in the ground by a god trying to fool us. That bone is evidence of a once living creature; a creature different from today's creatures. What is it's significance, do you think?
And it turns out lots of hardened bones were very carefully placed in different strata, from different time periods, and that the differences show a gradual alteration in form. How do you explain that? It appears that, over time, one creature transmogrified into a different creature. Why would god deliberately carry out such a deception?
Of course there's a lot more than this record of successive changes over time supporting the ToE. The process can be observed working in real time, it can be manipulated.
And, last but not least, what alternative explanation is there -- besides magic poofing, that is? All the pieces fit together like a jigsaw puzzle.
2. Let's look at the 'objective evidence' for evolution, and compare that with 'objective evidence' for God. How do they differ?
What's significant about "evidence of a once living creature; a creature different from today's creatures"?
Evidence of a once living creature; a creature different from today's creatures... many of which are not different at all but practically the same, and practically unchanged.
There is the claim the body plan of every creature in the Cambrian is the same as all living creatures today. I wonder why.
Nope. Don't even think about it.
And it turns out lots of hardened bones were very carefully placed in different strata, from different time periods, and that the differences show a gradual alteration in form. How do you explain that? It appears that, over time, one creature transmogrified into a different creature. Why would god deliberately carry out such a deception?
Different time periods. Perhaps in some cases, Sure.
How long those time periods are, when and how the strata was laid, is another story.
Did it whisper in someone's ears, "Psst. Hey. I'm so old you wouldn't imagine. Here, let me tell you..."? Did it tell anyone exactly how it was laid down, and when? Really?
Can't get more objective than that, can we?
Of course there's a lot more than this record of successive changes over time supporting the ToE. The process can be observed working in real time, it can be manipulated.
Using the simple terminology of biological evolution, without the "fine print", there is objective evidence.
However, when we read the "fine print" we realize there is nothing objective about the evidence suggested.
The alternative does not involve magic poofing.
There seems to be a lot of that going on in the theory of evolution though, and contrary to what you wish to believe, it is in shambles. There are mechanisms being proposed to fix the "gaping holes".
Man, why not admit it. It's like a boat that's so badly made, it's a mad scramble to keep it afloat.
If the pieces really fitted together perfectly, it would be complete, and not have all these alternative propositions to fix it, or make it workable.
That's some denial, to hold on to a belief that clearly has zero foundation, or stability!
We will see.
The story shows that the man (not Darwin for those who assume so), found evidence of creatures that once lived on earth - many of which still live today.
The man makes assumptions, which he interprets to be a correct assessment of the evidence.
Despite the evidence not claiming to support his position, because the man presumes his interpretation to be correct, all the evidence must fit his presumption - regardless of if there is another interpretation.
Nothing objective there, is there?
The fossil remains of such a creature remained elusive. By the turn of the 20th century the oldest fossil whales were still represented by Basilosaurus and similar forms like Dorudon and Protocetus, all of which were fully aquatic - there were no fossils to bridge the gap from land to sea. As E.D. Cope admitted in an 1890 review of whales: “The order Cetacea is one of those of whose origin we have no definite knowledge.” This state of affairs continued for decades.
While analyzing the relationships of ancient meat-eating mammals in 1966, however, the evolutionary biologist Leigh Van Valen was struck by the similarities between an extinct group of land-dwelling carnivores called mesonychids and the earliest known whales.Often called “wolves with hooves,” mesonychids were medium- to large-sized predators with long, toothy snouts and toes tipped with hooves rather than sharp claws. ...
A startling discovery made in the arid sands of Pakistan announced by University of Michigan paleontologists Philip Gingerich and Donald Russell in 1981 finally delivered the transitional form scientists had been hoping for. In freshwater sediments dating to about 53 million years ago, the researchers recovered the fossils of an animal they called Pakicetus inachus. Little more than the back of the animal’s skull had been recovered, but it possessed a feature that unmistakably connected it to cetaceans.
Cetaceans, like many other mammals, have ear bones enclosed in a dome of bone on the underside of their skulls called the auditory bulla. Where whales differ is that the margin of the dome closest to the midline of the skull, called the involucrum, is extremely thick, dense, and highly mineralized. This condition is called pachyosteosclerosis, and whales are the only mammals known to have such a heavily thickened involucrum. The skull of Pakicetus exhibited just this condition.
Even better, two jaw fragments showed that the teeth of Pakicetus were very similar to those of mesonychids. It appeared that Van Valen had been right, and Pakicetus was just the sort of marsh-dwelling creature he had envisioned. The fact that it was found in freshwater deposits and did not have specializations of the inner ear for underwater hearing showed that it was still very early in the aquatic transition, and Gingerich and Russell thought of Pakicetus as “an amphibious intermediate stage in the transition of whales from land to sea,” though they added the caveat that “Postcranial remains [bones other than the skull] will provide the best test of this hypothesis.” The scientists had every reason to be cautious, but the fact that a transitional whale had been found was so stupendous that full-body reconstructions of Pakicetus appeared in books, magazines and on television. It was presented as a stumpy-legged, seal-like creature, an animal caught between worlds.
Throughout the 1990s, the skeletons of more or less aquatically adapted ancient whales, or archaeocetes, were discovered at a dizzying pace. With this new context, however, the stubby, seal-like form for Pakicetus depicted in so many places began to make less and less sense. Then, in 2001, J.G.M. Thewissen and colleagues described the long-sought skeleton (as opposed to just the skull) of Pakicetus attocki. It was a wolf-like animal, not the slick, seal-like animal that had originally been envisioned. Together with other recently discovered genera like Himalayacetus, Ambulocetus, Remingtonocetus, Kutchicetus, Rodhocetus and Maiacetus, it fits snugly within a collection of archaeocetes that exquisitely document an evolutionary radiation of early whales. Though not a series of direct ancestors and descendants, each genus represents a particular stage of whale evolution. Together they illustrate how the entire transition took place. Studies coming out of the field of molecular biology conflicted with the conclusion of the paleontologists that whales had evolved from mesonychids, however. When the genes and amino acid sequences of living whales were compared with those of other mammals, the results often showed that whales were most closely related to artiodactyls - even-toed ungulates like antelope, pigs, and deer. Even more surprising was that comparisons of these proteins used to determine evolutionary relationships often placed whales within the Artiodactyla as the closest living relatives to hippos.
This conflict between the paleontological and molecular hypotheses seemed intractable. Mesonychids could not be studied by molecular biologists because they were extinct, and no skeletal features had been found to conclusively link the archaeocetes to ancient artiodactyls. Which were more reliable, teeth or genes? But the conflict was not without hope of resolution.
[Of course. The teeth could could not speak and say, "Me"]
Many of the skeletons of the earliest archaeocetes were extremely fragmentary, and they were often missing the bones of the ankle and foot. One particular ankle bone, the astragalus, had the potential to settle the debate. In artiodactyls this bone has an immediately recognizable “double pulley” shape, a characteristic mesonychids did not share. If the astragalus of an early archaeocete could be found it would provide an important test for both hypotheses.
In 2001, archaeocetes possessing this bone were finally described, and the results were unmistakable. Archaeocetes had a “double-pulley” astragalus, confirming that cetaceans had evolved from artiodactyls. Mesonychids were not the ancestors of whales, and hippos are now known to be the closest living relatives to whales.
Pakicetus is described as an early ancestor to modern whales. Although pakicetids were land mammals, it is clear that they are related to whales and dolphins based on a number of specializations of the ear, relating to hearing. The skull shown here displays nostrils at the front of the skull.
A skull of the gray whale that roams the seas today has its nostrils placed at the top of its skull. It would appear from these two specimens that the position of the nostril has changed over time and thus we would expect to see intermediate forms.
Note that the nostril placement in Aetiocetus is intermediate between the ancestral form Pakicetus and the modern gray whale — an excellent example of a transitional form in the fossil record!
It would appear from these two specimens that the position of the nostril has changed over time???
Can't beat that objective evidence at all, can we?
So my first question 1. Can you please explain how interpreting a fossil record with a handful of hardened bone is objective evidence of anything? appears not to have been answered, at least by anyone here.
However, the answer seem to be a resounding NO. Unless someone can show me otherwise. I can wait.
Why don't we just speculate about everything else and call it objective evidence and scientific fact?
It's quite easy to do. It seems the old sciences were dismissed for similar reasons.
Yet the scientific method is shoved aside to make way for speculation, guesses, and assumptions, where it is not possible to verify findings.
So let's see if I am going to be accused of that, as I answer my second question.2. Let's look at the 'objective evidence' for evolution, and compare that with 'objective evidence' for God. How do they differ?
Comparison The present is the key to the past. There was only one other kind of creature with an inner ear that matched: a whale. ...whales are the only mammals known to have such a heavily thickened involucrum. The skull of Pakicetus exhibited just this condition.
Evidence of God, in nature
(Hebrews 3:4) 4 Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but the one who constructed all things is God.
(Romans 1:19, 20) . . .what may be known about God is clearly evident among them, for God made it clear to them. 20 For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable.
(Psalm 19:1) The heavens are declaring the glory of God; The skies above proclaim the work of his hands.
(Acts 14:17) although he did not leave himself without witness in that he did good, giving you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, satisfying you with food and filling your hearts with gladness.”
An intelligent designer is the only agent known to plan, create, and design, and what is known to us is that nothing inanimate gets going on it's own and builds itself into anything, on its own. The only known source of specified coded information is an intelligence.
We know that the letters of the alphabet did not pop out of nowhere, but were purposely designed by an intelligent mind. It is known that letters specifically arranged to communicate information, is due to an intelligent agent.
What we know presently is the key to what we have not seen in the past. What we see in the DNA of all living things, and the resulting design thus confirms there is an intelligent designer.
Comparison It would appear from these two specimens that the position of the nostril has changed over time and thus we would expect to see intermediate forms.
Evidence of God, in the Bible
(Daniel 9:20-27)
20 While I was still speaking and praying and confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel and making my request for favor before Jehovah my God concerning the holy mountain of my God, 21 yes, while I was yet speaking in prayer, the man Gabriel, whom I had previously seen in the vision, came to me when I was extremely weary at about the time of the evening gift offering. 22 And he gave me understanding, saying: “O Daniel, now I have come to give you insight and understanding. 23 When you began your entreaty the word went out, and I have come to report it to you, because you are someone very precious. So consider the matter and understand the vision. 24 “There are 70 weeks that have been determined for your people and your holy city, in order to terminate the transgression, to finish off sin, to make atonement for error, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up the vision and the prophecy, and to anoint the Holy of Holies. 25 You should know and understand that from the issuing of the word to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Leader, there will be 7 weeks, also 62 weeks. She will be restored and rebuilt, with a public square and moat, but in times of distress. 26 “And after the 62 weeks, Messiah will be cut off, with nothing for himself. “And the people of a leader who is coming will destroy the city and the holy place. And its end will be by the flood. And until the end there will be war; what is decided upon is desolations. 27 “And he will keep the covenant in force for the many for one week; and at the half of the week, he will cause sacrifice and gift offering to cease. “And on the wing of disgusting things there will be the one causing desolation; and until an extermination, what was decided on will be poured out also on the one lying desolate.”
(2 Peter 1:20, 21) 20 For you know this first, that no prophecy of Scripture springs from any private interpretation. 21 For prophecy was at no time brought by man’s will, but men spoke from God as they were moved by holy spirit.
(2 Timothy 3:16, 17) 16 All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.
(Luke 3:15) 15 Now the people were in expectation and all of them were reasoning in their hearts about John, “May he perhaps be the Christ?”
(John 4:25) 25 The woman said to him: “I know that Messiah is coming, who is called Christ. Whenever that one comes, he will declare all things to us openly.”
Earlier Jews were given a prophecy of the coming Messiah to reveal God's message to them. The message was delivered by an angel of God, to the Jew, Daniel.
The Jews, who were not stupid, and knew better than modern scholars, understood that the Messiah had not arrived, and the prophecy of Daniel indicated the period of 29 CE, to be the time for Messiah arrival.
The same prophecy foretold the exact period of time the Messiah would be cut off, as well as other details related to the Jews. All of this was fulfilled exactly on time - the link.
This and other accurately fulfilled prophecies confirm the words of both Peter and Paul. The scriptures are God breathed - confirming, God is.
Both of these are objective evidence. Any objections?
180 "transitional"
10000000000000 fossils
0.0000000018 percent of all fossils
Yup. A handful.
What does buried bones have to do with God?
What's significant about "evidence of a once living creature; a creature different from today's creatures"?
Evidence of a once living creature; a creature different from today's creatures... many of which are not different at all but practically the same, and practically unchanged.
There is the claim the body plan of every creature in the Cambrian is the same as all living creatures today. I wonder why.
Nope. Don't even think about it.
Different time periods. Perhaps in some cases, Sure.
How long those time periods are, when and how the strata was laid, is another story.
Did it whisper in someone's ears, "Psst. Hey. I'm so old you wouldn't imagine. Here, let me tell you..."? Did it tell anyone exactly how it was laid down, and when? Really?
Can't get more objective than that, can we?
Using the simple terminology of biological evolution, without the "fine print", there is objective evidence.
However, when we read the "fine print" we realize there is nothing objective about the evidence suggested.
The alternative does not involve magic poofing.
There seems to be a lot of that going on in the theory of evolution though, and contrary to what you wish to believe, it is in shambles. There are mechanisms being proposed to fix the "gaping holes".
Man, why not admit it. It's like a boat that's so badly made, it's a mad scramble to keep it afloat.
If the pieces really fitted together perfectly, it would be complete, and not have all these alternative propositions to fix it, or make it workable.
That's some denial, to hold on to a belief that clearly has zero foundation, or stability!
We will see.
The story shows that the man (not Darwin for those who assume so), found evidence of creatures that once lived on earth - many of which still live today.
The man makes assumptions, which he interprets to be a correct assessment of the evidence.
Despite the evidence not claiming to support his position, because the man presumes his interpretation to be correct, all the evidence must fit his presumption - regardless of if there is another interpretation.
Nothing objective there, is there?
The fossil remains of such a creature remained elusive. By the turn of the 20th century the oldest fossil whales were still represented by Basilosaurus and similar forms like Dorudon and Protocetus, all of which were fully aquatic - there were no fossils to bridge the gap from land to sea. As E.D. Cope admitted in an 1890 review of whales: “The order Cetacea is one of those of whose origin we have no definite knowledge.” This state of affairs continued for decades.
While analyzing the relationships of ancient meat-eating mammals in 1966, however, the evolutionary biologist Leigh Van Valen was struck by the similarities between an extinct group of land-dwelling carnivores called mesonychids and the earliest known whales.Often called “wolves with hooves,” mesonychids were medium- to large-sized predators with long, toothy snouts and toes tipped with hooves rather than sharp claws. ...
A startling discovery made in the arid sands of Pakistan announced by University of Michigan paleontologists Philip Gingerich and Donald Russell in 1981 finally delivered the transitional form scientists had been hoping for. In freshwater sediments dating to about 53 million years ago, the researchers recovered the fossils of an animal they called Pakicetus inachus. Little more than the back of the animal’s skull had been recovered, but it possessed a feature that unmistakably connected it to cetaceans.
Cetaceans, like many other mammals, have ear bones enclosed in a dome of bone on the underside of their skulls called the auditory bulla. Where whales differ is that the margin of the dome closest to the midline of the skull, called the involucrum, is extremely thick, dense, and highly mineralized. This condition is called pachyosteosclerosis, and whales are the only mammals known to have such a heavily thickened involucrum. The skull of Pakicetus exhibited just this condition.
Even better, two jaw fragments showed that the teeth of Pakicetus were very similar to those of mesonychids. It appeared that Van Valen had been right, and Pakicetus was just the sort of marsh-dwelling creature he had envisioned. The fact that it was found in freshwater deposits and did not have specializations of the inner ear for underwater hearing showed that it was still very early in the aquatic transition, and Gingerich and Russell thought of Pakicetus as “an amphibious intermediate stage in the transition of whales from land to sea,” though they added the caveat that “Postcranial remains [bones other than the skull] will provide the best test of this hypothesis.” The scientists had every reason to be cautious, but the fact that a transitional whale had been found was so stupendous that full-body reconstructions of Pakicetus appeared in books, magazines and on television. It was presented as a stumpy-legged, seal-like creature, an animal caught between worlds.
Throughout the 1990s, the skeletons of more or less aquatically adapted ancient whales, or archaeocetes, were discovered at a dizzying pace. With this new context, however, the stubby, seal-like form for Pakicetus depicted in so many places began to make less and less sense. Then, in 2001, J.G.M. Thewissen and colleagues described the long-sought skeleton (as opposed to just the skull) of Pakicetus attocki. It was a wolf-like animal, not the slick, seal-like animal that had originally been envisioned. Together with other recently discovered genera like Himalayacetus, Ambulocetus, Remingtonocetus, Kutchicetus, Rodhocetus and Maiacetus, it fits snugly within a collection of archaeocetes that exquisitely document an evolutionary radiation of early whales. Though not a series of direct ancestors and descendants, each genus represents a particular stage of whale evolution. Together they illustrate how the entire transition took place. Studies coming out of the field of molecular biology conflicted with the conclusion of the paleontologists that whales had evolved from mesonychids, however. When the genes and amino acid sequences of living whales were compared with those of other mammals, the results often showed that whales were most closely related to artiodactyls - even-toed ungulates like antelope, pigs, and deer. Even more surprising was that comparisons of these proteins used to determine evolutionary relationships often placed whales within the Artiodactyla as the closest living relatives to hippos.
This conflict between the paleontological and molecular hypotheses seemed intractable. Mesonychids could not be studied by molecular biologists because they were extinct, and no skeletal features had been found to conclusively link the archaeocetes to ancient artiodactyls. Which were more reliable, teeth or genes? But the conflict was not without hope of resolution.
[Of course. The teeth could could not speak and say, "Me"]
Many of the skeletons of the earliest archaeocetes were extremely fragmentary, and they were often missing the bones of the ankle and foot. One particular ankle bone, the astragalus, had the potential to settle the debate. In artiodactyls this bone has an immediately recognizable “double pulley” shape, a characteristic mesonychids did not share. If the astragalus of an early archaeocete could be found it would provide an important test for both hypotheses.
In 2001, archaeocetes possessing this bone were finally described, and the results were unmistakable. Archaeocetes had a “double-pulley” astragalus, confirming that cetaceans had evolved from artiodactyls. Mesonychids were not the ancestors of whales, and hippos are now known to be the closest living relatives to whales.
Pakicetus is described as an early ancestor to modern whales. Although pakicetids were land mammals, it is clear that they are related to whales and dolphins based on a number of specializations of the ear, relating to hearing. The skull shown here displays nostrils at the front of the skull.
A skull of the gray whale that roams the seas today has its nostrils placed at the top of its skull. It would appear from these two specimens that the position of the nostril has changed over time and thus we would expect to see intermediate forms.
Note that the nostril placement in Aetiocetus is intermediate between the ancestral form Pakicetus and the modern gray whale — an excellent example of a transitional form in the fossil record!
It would appear from these two specimens that the position of the nostril has changed over time???
Can't beat that objective evidence at all, can we?
