Evidence For And Against Evolution

[tas8831]

Further, there are no fossil evidences of an animal in the midst of evolving while he/she was alive, is there?

How do you propose that an animal should evolve while they were alive, and what would that look like in the fossil record?

 

[tas8831]

I was not a science major.

Huh...

But since these discussions, I'm learning.

"Further, there are no fossil evidences of an animal in the midst of evolving while he/she was alive, is there?"

Nope.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The article said that 98-99% of the DNA of gorillas, chimps and bonobos are shared with humans. Would you say this does or does not mean that humans evolved from the gorilla-chimp-bonobo family. Or, to possibly put it another way, the fact that 98-99% of their DNA is shared with humans does NOT mean that humans evolved from them.

When you share DNA, it means you share ancestry.
This is how we can tell your sibling from non-siblings when all we have is anonymous DNA samples from candidate siblings. You could test that, btw....

Have your DNA tested and compared with 10 random anonymous samples, only one of which is your siblings' DNA.

Would you say that if geneticists succeed in picking your siblings DNA purely by comparing DNA samples, it would mean that geneticists have techniques and technology to determine common ancestry based on just DNA?

 

[Subduction Zone]

When you share DNA, it means you share ancestry.
This is how we can tell your sibling from non-siblings when all we have is anonymous DNA samples from candidate siblings. You could test that, btw....

Have your DNA tested and compared with 10 random anonymous samples, only one of which is your siblings' DNA.

Would you say that if geneticists succeed in picking your siblings DNA purely by comparing DNA samples, it would mean that geneticists have techniques and technology to determine common ancestry based on just DNA?

He is swimming in an awfully long river.

 

[Astrophile]

It will be a very novel idea to transport water and oxygen within a feasible distance from earth for humans to live for a while, much less to start vegetation and animal life there. At least for a long, long while, and that while scientists are declaring disaster for the earth, one way or another anyway.

There is no suggestion that humans will be able to visit Venus, any of the asteroids, or the satellites of the outer planets, still less extrasolar planets. Attempts to find life beyond the Earth-Moon system will use telescopes (ground-based or in near-Earth space) and unmanned space probes.

 

[Astrophile]

"In the late 1800s some scientists felt that ontogeny not only could reveal something about evolutionary history, but that it also preserved a step-by-step record of that history. These scientists claimed that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny (ORP). This phrase suggests that an organism's development will take it through each of the adult stages of its evolutionary history, or its phylogeny. At the time, some scientists thought that evolution worked by adding new stages on to the end of an organism's development. Thus its development would reiterate its evolutionary history — ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny."
That was, by the way, taught as TRUTH in schools years ago. Learning about evolutionary history

It must have been a good many years ago. For one thing, I was taught very little about evolution at school, during the 1950s and 1960s, so a subject as advanced as Haeckel's 'principle of recapitulation' would never have been mentioned. For another, when I started taking an interest in science, during the same period, and started borrowing science books from the local library, Haeckel's principle was already regarded as rather doubtful. My older evolutionary books, for example those by G.G. Simpson, hardly mention either Haeckel or the principle of recapitulation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is no suggestion that humans will be able to visit Venus, any of the asteroids, or the satellites of the outer planets, still less extrasolar planets. Attempts to find life beyond the Earth-Moon system will use telescopes (ground-based or in near-Earth space) and unmanned space probes.

Unrelated to this thread, but I thought you might find this interesting:

 

[Astrophile]

Unrelated to this thread, but I thought you might find this interesting:

Thank-you. It is very interesting. I hope that I shall live to see the first results from the telescope.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thank-you. It is very interesting. I hope that I shall live to see the first results from the telescope.

The mirror itself is amazingly huge. The size of a tennis court. That is why they claim that they could see a golf ball on the Moon. I might have to break out Snell's Law and see if that is correct. Though the Moon is probably far too bright for it to ever look at.

Edit: Sorry, angular resolution. My bad.

 

[ratiocinator]

Further, there are no fossil evidences of an animal in the midst of evolving while he/she was alive, is there?

This is truly heroic ignorance of the theory you are trying to criticise. Where on earth did you get the idea that animals (or any organisms) evolve while they're alive?

 

[Earthtank]

Really?

So you have no problems with the followings...

1. God can create all “kinds” of birds (“winged fowls”), marine life, and land animals from nothing?
2. God can magically turn dust into a living adult human male (eg Adam)?
3. God can magically use and turn one of Adam’s ribs into a living adult female?
4. A serpent can talk human language? (The other example of animal that can talk in the human language is the donkey in Numbers 22:22-25, the story of Balaam.)

All my questions above, are regarding to “life” on Earth, since you think evolution “is more far-fetched than religion”, so I left out God’s creation of land, sky (heaven or firmament), sun, moon, stars, day and night, etc, and just focused on life.

Serpent or snake, and donkey are biologically incapable of speaking the human languages. I am not saying snake and donkey cannot respectively communicate to other snakes and donkeys. They are just not capable of speaking in human tongues, like in Genesis 3 and Numbers 22.

In the Qur’an, King Solomon was capable of understand the languages of birds and ants, and to speak to either.

The only times you would see other animals being able to speak in such manners, are in stories of myths, fairytales and fables, and in modern children books, in fictional novels, comics, cartoons, tv shows and movies.

Nowhere in biology, or more specifically in evolution that show snakes or lizards, donkeys or other equine animals, are capable of speaking in the human language.

Examples of modern stories, Disney’s (Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Goofy, etc) and Warner Bros’ cartoons (Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, etc), Francis the talking mule. If you think any of these cartoons are far-fetched, why are the OT’s talking serpent and donkey exception?

The talking serpent and donkey found in the OT, are far-fetched.

Do you seriously believe in talking snake or donkey?

Then you have the creation of animals as well as humans.

Do you seriously think that god can create fishes, birds and land animals from nothing?

One day, they didn’t exist, and in the next day they do exist.

How aren’t any of these creations, not be far-fetched?

Then you would dust turning into a living person, a man named later as Adam. How is that possible?

You know what dust is?

Dust are waste byproduct from inorganic or organic matters.

From inorganic matters, dust often comes the process of redox, a chemical reaction, known as reduction and oxidation, where there are transfer of electrons, so that while one matter loses electrons, other substance gain electrons. This often leave residuals in the form of dust. For instance, metals exposed to air or liquid containing oxygen, will cause oxidation known as rust, which are form of dust.

In organic matters, eg dust can come skins of humans, that have dried out, become flaky, and eventually turn to dust. These dusts coming from organic sources, are lifeless, and cannot be turn back into living cells.

Dust cannot be transformed into a living human being, so the story of Adam’s creation is “far-fetched”.

Two humans cannot suddenly appeared out of nowhere.

And a woman cannot be created from a man’s rib. A rib bone cannot magically transformed into a living adult human female.

The Eden story would also suggest that men should have fewer ribs than women, but if you looked at skeletal remains of man and woman, they have the same numbers of ribs. For centuries people who believed in Genesis thought man had one pair of rib less than a woman, but that is clearly false belief.

Someone here at RF thought this was cloning. But he clearly misunderstood what cloning is.

Cloning involved growing a cell(s) into a living organism that were taken from another living body. When you do cloning, the cloned body should have the same sex as the original. So if the cells were taken from a male, then the clone should also be male too. And it would be the same with cells from females, so any clone would also be female.

If Eve was really Adam’ clone, then she should really be a “he”.

This rib-transforming-into-woman is also far-fetched.

Seems you were in such a rush to reply to a theist that you did not notice i am agnostic.

 

[gnostic]

Seems you were in such a rush to reply to a theist that you did not notice i am agnostic.

My post is in response to your reply that you think the clarification of what occurred with Evolution to be more far-fetched than religions.

So I gave you some examples of what I find to be far-fetched with some religious claims in some scriptures.

It matter not if you are agnostic, atheist or theist, my reply was to give you examples as to what I find to be truly far-fetched.

Antony Flew is atheist and a philosopher, and yet he is affiliated with the Discovery Institute, with members responsible for advocating Intelligent Design creationism, where most members are creationists. If an atheist can follower creationism, then so can any agnostic people.

I don’t think Evolution to be far-fetched, because it is just extension of genetics, but in lot larger scale; “larger scale” in term that Evolution affect population (of species) and not merely individual offspring from parents, and in term of time in thousands of generations and not just from parents to child.

Evolution is a natural process, regarding to biology and not creation from nothing. Life have to already exist, for any evolutionary mechanisms to take place, because Evolution is still about genetics, where life must pass genetic traits to the next generations (meaning there must be “ancestors”), so Evolution isn’t about creation of first life, like the study of Abiogenesis.

So why do you think Evolution to be more far-fetched than religions?

 

[YoursTrue]

How do you propose that an animal should evolve while they were alive, and what would that look like in the fossil record?

Can an animal evolve while it's dead?

 

[YoursTrue]

This is truly heroic ignorance of the theory you are trying to criticise. Where on earth did you get the idea that animals (or any organisms) evolve while they're alive?

Again -- do they evolve while they're dead?

 

[YoursTrue]

"It doesn't matter what Einstein actually believed, I can claim what I want about the man and spread falsehoods about him because my religious beliefs conveniently enable me to assume he'd end up on my side anyway."

I'm not going to bother reading the rest of your diatribe. I'm just going to tell you plainly:

Asserting falsehoods about people who can't defend themselves is morally wrong, and claiming people who expressed nothing but contempt for your beliefs actually agreed with you also morally wrong. If you won't admit that, then you are an immoral person and a failed Christian.

You really don't know that much about my beliefs, and it could be I have a sympathy for the contempt he expressed for the God in religion as he knew it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Can an animal evolve while it's dead?

Your error was in even phrasing it as if individual animals evolve.

Let me help you, species evolve, not individuals.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You really don't know that much about my beliefs, and it could be I have a sympathy for the contempt he expressed for the God in religion as he knew it.

No, Einstein's contempt was not for "religion" as so many Christians falsely claim when they try to say that they do not have religion. He had contempt for your mythological beliefs. He did not believe in an invisible friend. He did not believe in heaven or hell and definitely not in a God that used magic to created everything.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, I have pointed out when you have failed to be honest. And at times you have actually post what have to be lies since you knew better.

And you are somewhat correct. When a child is born he has half of his fathers and half of his mothers DNA, EXCEPT for one the order of 50 to 150 mutations. Mutations are how "new information" enters the genome. Add natural selection, which is a given, and you have evolution. And you keep making the error thinking that what an organism wants is part of evolution. That is not the case. Drop the strawman arguments, they only harm your case.

You are making things up about me. But have a nice day, which by the current time in my neck of the woods, is tomorrow.
Oh, and by the way, just so you know -- I thought about what you said regarding inherited DNA, 50/50. And mutations. Oddly enough, and I'd love for you, the educator, to explain to me, the one you consider a liar and uneducated in these matters, if you consider a large population in one area with dark skin vs. a large population in another area with light skin to have been the result of -- evolution...And thanks, by the way.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are making things up about me. But have a nice day, which by the current time in my neck of the woods, is tomorrow.
Oh, and by the way, just so you know -- I thought about what you said regarding inherited DNA, 50/50. And mutations. Oddly enough, and I'd love for you, the educator, to explain to me, the one you consider a liar and uneducated in these matters, if you consider a large population in one area with dark skin vs. a large population in another area with light skin to have been the result of -- evolution...And thanks, by the way.

What did I ever make up about you?

And yes, the evolution of white skin and dark skin are well understood. There are two factors to consider: Skin cancer and Vitamin D. Can you reason it out?

 

[YoursTrue]

Your error was in even phrasing it as if individual animals evolve.

Let me help you, species evolve, not individuals.

Thanks. So where is the fossil evidence that any species evolved except that there are some fossil remains similar to an animal (dinosaur) that had feathers and is supposed to have become eventually a bird? After all, these animals died. And, of course, there is no evidence, is there, of living animals 'evolving' to another species? I have read that's a sore spot point with some, but I can honestly say I have not received a reasonable answer to this.
I can only imagine that by this time, some will accept (believe) the idea that there is no evidence written in particular because -- written communication in the form of scientific exploration hasn't been around for very long. Now if you want to go back to Copernicus and the like, well, it wasn't that long ago, in comparison to let's say, the hundreds of thousands of years that humans are said to have been around. And so amazingly, it is said they needed written communication because they built cities and began trading, after all these hundreds of thousands of years they were nomads. LOL, give me a break.