Evidence For And Against Evolution

[YoursTrue]

None of it was "erroneous". Let's go over this again. The only thing that Haeckel did wrong was to rush to publish. For some very early embryos he used the same drawings. That was wrong.

And no, Jay Gould is making the error of applying modern standards when modern equipment did not work. Embryology is still studied today, but today they use photos. Haeckel's approach was wrong but it still is evidence for evolution.

But thank you for continuing to admit that you are wrong.

I think not. Were educators so stupid that they continued teaching Haeckel's imaginings represented by erroneous drawings for decades? Was Gould telling an untruth about Haeckel's propositions? And of course you'd consider to be evidence for evolution, even though his drawings were wrong. Meantime, back to fish gills for a while maybe. Have a good evening. (I guess the enzymes, human sac and other elements wouldn't allow the fish type embryo to stop there and turn into a fish if taken out and put in an environment that would sustain it as it grew into a fish rather than go through more stages.)

 

[YoursTrue]

They don't. That is where Haeckel was wrong. That does not mean that embryos are not evidence for evolution. You have been wasting your time trying to make a strawman argument.

How long ago did I tell you that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" was refuted a long time ago. It was dead by the 1920's. But like it or not embryos are still evidence for evolution. Haven't you ever heard about someone being right for the wrong reason? That was Haeckel. Embryos are evidence for evolution. They are not evidence for evolution for the reason that Haeckel thought.

Despite the fact (yes, fact) that ORP was refuted by some a long time ago, it was astonishingly taught and promoted as truth for decades. Later for fish gills.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think not. Were educators so stupid that they continued teaching Haeckel's imaginings represented by erroneous drawings for decades? Was Gould telling an untruth about Haeckel's propositions? And of course you'd consider to be evidence for evolution, even though his drawings were wrong. Meantime, back to fish gills for a while maybe. Have a good evening. (I guess the enzymes, human sac and other elements wouldn't allow the fish type embryo to stop there and turn into a fish if taken out and put in an environment that would sustain it as it grew into a fish rather than go through more stages.)

Try again, I stopped at the false claim of "imaginings". If you want an answer you cannot be dishonest.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Despite the fact (yes, fact) that ORP was refuted by some a long time ago, it was astonishingly taught and promoted as truth for decades. Later for fish gills.

Nope. That is not the case. And yes, you did still have gill slits regardless of ORP.

Come on, you can do better than this, I hope.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Didn't these macro-evolved organisms have to first microevolve?

Yes. Because macro-evolution is merely a lot of micro-evolution.

So I can only guess that according to evolutionists, the fossils showing these little changes in complete organisms disappeared. And so the fossils are not there. Well,let me rephrase. Evolutionists have not found these fossils of the inbetween micro type changed organisms yet.

What on earth are you talking about? We have thousands of fossils.

What exactly do you mean by "micro-type change organisms"? What would one of those look like?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Again -- biology does not conflict with truth. Postulating that humans emerged from organisms that had (or have) fish gills is weird and absurd. Fish are still alive and in their present form. So are humans. To say that because a fossil is said to have been dated millions of years ago and resembles a different form of life means evolution is absurd.

That's great, because evolution is the backbone of modern biology!

 

[YoursTrue]

Try again, I stopped at the false claim of "imaginings". If you want an answer you cannot be dishonest.

You can stop, and perhaps I'm wrong about the following, since I'm just learning about this because so many (probably I'm thinking, including Gould who went to school during the time period Haeckel's drawings were taught in the school system as truth absolute without any qualification) that the human embryo went through all the stages of evolution -- so -- did Haeckel see any realtime images of the 'evolving' embryo in the womb? I don't think images in real-life real time were produced until much later. If you have any evidence to the contrary about Haeckel having seen actual images of any sort of a burgeoning (growing) fetus in a woman's womb,please let me know. Thanks.

 

[YoursTrue]

That's great, because evolution is the backbone of modern biology!

LOL, from what I see of scientific advances, I don't think you quite have that right. And, I might add, from examining more about the polio vaccine, it seems apparent that Sabin and Salk had their differences. But thankfully polio has been near about eradicated. I truly don't see that examining microbes and microscopic evidences in looking for cures for polio or disease is linked with evolution. It can be linked with using microscopes and other instruments to study what is being examined. Such as tissue and cells. Science is still progressing in many ways, studies are still being done in medical fields, yet let's say things like Epstein Barr syndrome can be linked with somehow not good functioning dna. But then we have the situation of growing old and then leaving 'life.' Also in the dna. At least Dr. Salk took the vaccine himself, I haven't really read all about it. I haven't been to medical school but not sure if they teach evolution there.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes. Because macro-evolution is merely a lot of micro-evolution.


What on earth are you talking about? We have thousands of fossils.

What exactly do you mean by "micro-type change organisms"? What would one of those look like?

I am aware there are thousands of fossils.
That's what I'm asking you about the fossils you say prove evolution. Do these fossils show actual developmental change from previous organisms to the next one to observe their incremental changes? Not 'population change,' but individual changes leading to what you call population evolution, because that's what was told me -- that populations change from one organism to the other, not little small incremental changes (or something like that). So either one, either population showing micro evolution producing eventually some other such as, I guess(?) bonobos or a close relative to Neanderthals, and then the micro or macro distinctive growth from Neanderthal to homo sapien, please do let me know. By fossil discovery. Bonobos or chimpanzees cannot write down or speculate in writings about their previous history, except of course, you might say in their dna. Which isn't like humans figuring that they evolved from unicellular organisms emerging. In other words, please show the micro evolution for these organisms in actual fossils, and I do mean micro, which apparently is supposed to lead to macro, isn't it? Or do we classify it as simply populations and not individual micro leading to macro. Which?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You can stop, and perhaps I'm wrong about the following, since I'm just learning about this because so many (probably I'm thinking, including Gould who went to school during the time period Haeckel's drawings were taught in the school system as truth absolute without any qualification) that the human embryo went through all the stages of evolution -- so -- did Haeckel see any realtime images of the 'evolving' embryo in the womb? I don't think images in real-life real time were produced until much later. If you have any evidence to the contrary about Haeckel having seen actual images of any sort of a burgeoning (growing) fetus in a woman's womb,please let me know. Thanks.

You would be wrong. Gould was nowhere near that old.

Haeckel made the mistake of misinterpreting what he saw. His drawings were still fairly accurate. That is one reason that you still see them. Even though his conclusions were wrong it does not mean that they are not evidence for evolution.

Can you tell me why you are having so much trouble understanding such a simple concept?

You really should take a break from this nonsense so that we can go over the concept of evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

LOL, from what I see of scientific advances, I don't think you quite have that right. And, I might add, from examining more about the polio vaccine, it seems apparent that Sabin and Salk had their differences. But thankfully polio has been near about eradicated. I truly don't see that examining microbes and microscopic evidences in looking for cures for polio or disease is linked with evolution. It can be linked with using microscopes and other instruments to study what is being examined. Such as tissue and cells. Science is still progressing in many ways, studies are still being done in medical fields, yet let's say things like Epstein Barr syndrome can be linked with somehow not good functioning dna. But then we have the situation of growing old and then leaving 'life.' Also in the dna. At least Dr. Salk took the vaccine himself, I haven't really read all about it. I haven't been to medical school but not sure if they teach evolution there.

And you confirm your lack of knowledge once again. Instead of blindly denying you should be trying to learn.

You will never learn if you do not let yourself learn. I can tell that you are bright enough, but sadly your self induced ignorance is causing you to make one huge mistake after another.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I am aware there are thousands of fossils.
That's what I'm asking you about the fossils you say prove evolution.

I've never said "fossils prove evolution". Why do you have to lie?

Do these fossils show actual developmental change from previous organisms to the next one to observe their incremental changes? Not 'population change,' but individual changes leading to what you call population evolution, because that's what was told me -- that populations change from one organism to the other, not little small incremental changes (or something like that).

Again, what are you talking about? These questions make no sense.

Are you expecting the fossil record to be a catalogue of every living things that has ever been born? Because that would be the only way to produce a clear picture of every incremental change leading to population evolution. And you seem to be very confused about this concept of population evolution and small, incremental changes. One leads to the other - they are the same.

So either one, either population showing micro evolution producing eventually some other such as, I guess(?) bonobos or a close relative to Neanderthals, and then the micro or macro distinctive growth from Neanderthal to homo sapien, please do let me know.

Again, what are you asking for? What do you expect me to produce?

By fossil discovery. Bonobos or chimpanzees cannot write down or speculate in writings about their previous history, except of course, you might say in their dna. Which isn't like humans figuring that they evolved from unicellular organisms emerging. In other words, please show the micro evolution for these organisms in actual fossils, and I do mean micro, which apparently is supposed to lead to macro, isn't it? Or do we classify it as simply populations and not individual micro leading to macro. Which?

Again, you're not making sense. Micro-evolution is evolution below the level of species (so, small-scale changes in allele frequency within a single population). Macro-evolution is evolution above the level of species (so, larger-scale changes in allele frequency by which one population becomes a new species from the population it previously belonged to). It's the same process, only the SCALE is different. Lots of micro-evolution in a single population eventually tends to lead to macro-evolution.

What are you finding difficult to grasp?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I've never said "fossils prove evolution". Why do you have to lie?


Again, what are you talking about? These questions make no sense.

Are you expecting the fossil record to be a catalogue of every living things that has ever been born? Because that would be the only way to produce a clear picture of every incremental change leading to population evolution. And you seem to be very confused about this concept of population evolution and small, incremental changes. One leads to the other - they are the same.


Again, what are you asking for? What do you expect me to produce?


Again, you're not making sense. Micro-evolution is evolution below the level of species (so, small-scale changes in allele frequency within a single population). Macro-evolution is evolution above the level of species (so, larger-scale changes in allele frequency by which one population becomes a new species from the population it previously belonged to). It's the same process, only the SCALE is different. Lots of micro-evolution in a single population eventually tends to lead to macro-evolution.

What are you finding difficult to grasp?

I do believe that he does not understand that evidence is not "proof".

Too many creationists live in a black and white world where no gray exists much less colors.

 

[YoursTrue]

Why on earth would you think that?

According to the theory of evolution, didn't homo sapiens (humans) evolve from fish?

 

[YoursTrue]

I've never said "fossils prove evolution". Why do you have to lie?

OK, so is it that fossils don't prove evolution. Or perhaps they do. Which is it? Do they or don't they prove evolution?

 

[YoursTrue]

I do believe that he does not understand that evidence is not "proof".

Too many creationists live in a black and white world where no gray exists much less colors.

So now it's that they're evidence of evolution but not proof. Is that closer to your belief? Not proof but evidence. And the evidence is not proof, is that right? So like footprints of something called Bigfoot is not proof he (it) was there, the footprints are "evidence," but not "proof." I got it.

 

[YoursTrue]

I've never said "fossils prove evolution". Why do you have to lie?


Again, what are you talking about? These questions make no sense.

Are you expecting the fossil record to be a catalogue of every living things that has ever been born? Because that would be the only way to produce a clear picture of every incremental change leading to population evolution. And you seem to be very confused about this concept of population evolution and small, incremental changes. One leads to the other - they are the same.


Again, what are you asking for? What do you expect me to produce?


Again, you're not making sense. Micro-evolution is evolution below the level of species (so, small-scale changes in allele frequency within a single population). Macro-evolution is evolution above the level of species (so, larger-scale changes in allele frequency by which one population becomes a new species from the population it previously belonged to). It's the same process, only the SCALE is different. Lots of micro-evolution in a single population eventually tends to lead to macro-evolution.

What are you finding difficult to grasp?

So fossils are not proof but evidence that...(Perhaps you can complete the sentence.)

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK, so is it that fossils don't prove evolution. Or perhaps they do. Which is it? Do they or don't they prove evolution?

They are evidence for evolution

"Prove" is an improper term to use in the sciences, unless you add some sort of qualifier. Nothing is proven in the sciences. Concepts are accepted when well supported by evidence. But if you accept gravity then by the same standard you should accept evolution. Now if you want to use the legal standard of "proven beyond a reasonable doubt", then yes one could say that fossils "prove" evolution. But in the sciences one must keep an open mind. The word is not used by scientists.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So fossils are not proof but evidence that...(Perhaps you can complete the sentence.)

" . . . evolution is the explanation of the diversity we observe in life."

 

[Ouroboros]

What on earth are you talking about? We have thousands of fossils.

Or rather hundreds of thousands. I remember looking into some database years ago... there's a lot. I read somewhere there are too many fossils when it comes to the evolution of horses. A majority of them haven't even been studied. Might be different now, but my point is the same as yours, there's plenty.