Evidence For And Against Evolution

[YoursTrue]

No. Recapitulation has been shown to be wrong.

HOWEVER, the sequence that human embryos go through *is* a result of changes accumulated from our ancestors, all the way back. So there are similarities between our embryos and those of other species.

More specifically, those similarities and the *pattern* of those similarities, is evidence for the common ancestry of ourselves and other living things on this planet.



You are correct. Humans have developed language, which allows for abstract thought to a depth not found in other species. This is a result of a fairly small biological (genetic) change, but has large consequences for our social structure.

Why do you think this is relevant?

So have you seen the genetic change you speak of in humans so they can speak languages enabling them to pass on their background and history, whereas chimpanzees and fish apparently do not pass on these histories?

 

[YoursTrue]

Here's a question. Has it been proved that water is always H2O?

I'm just learning about it, and I'm finding that (I'll simplify it) that you just can't have two moles of hydrogen and one mole of oxygen and combine them with nothing else involved and viola! there's water. I think the opposite is true, that you can't 'just' have water and separate it without anything else involved into two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. It's quite interesting. So I'm learning.
I don't think chimpanzees or fish care much about this.

 

[YoursTrue]

The ancestor that we share with modern fish would have been a fish itself. So yes, we ultimately did evolve from fish. He is desperately grappling with Haeckel. Haeckel believed that the evolution of an organism was repeated in the stages that it goes through as an embryo. That is not the case. He does not understand that even though Haeckel was wrong about his beliefs that embryos are still evidence of evolution.

I think that there must be something very convincing about embryos that eats at creationists. They will do anything to tar Haeckel with a reputation that he did not deserve. At that time, since photography did not exist, it was fairly standard to emphasize organs and structures that one was using as evidence. They were not misrepresented, but they were made clearer than they really are. Today photos are supplemented with arrows, circle etc. highlighting what is being talked about. Of course the arrows circles etc. are not there either. That does not make their use fraud. The one clear wrong thing that Haeckel did was to use the same drawing for the very early stage of some embryos because he was pressed for time. He fixed that in later editions. He should have left those drawings out. Fraud? I don't think so. An improper act, definitely. But no permanent damage done. And of course his concepts were refuted by the 1920's, but of course since his illustrations were still evidence for evolution they were still used. They were simply not evidence for recapitulation.

Sorry, I'm not grappling with Haeckel's hypotheses at all. Haeckel tried. He was wrong in many cases, quite stunningly so, since apparently, if I have this right, some of his human embryonic drawings appeared to look like pigs and birds. Again, the idea that a human embryo went through all the stages of evolution while in the womb was taught as truth for DECADES to students, later the concept of recapitulation was overturned, something you seem to have trouble admitting.

 

[YoursTrue]

There is a pretty long series of changes between the two, but we did have a type of fish as an ancestor, yes.

I love this. So I ask, you know this because?? It makes sense to think/believe that a fish of sorts developed small legs and breathing apparatus and left the ancestral body of water to live on land? Not to put Haeckel down, but he at least didn't have photographs 'proving' his point in the changes from fish or whatever in the womb to human, maybe they went through Neanderthal stages, too? I'm assuming if he were truly honest, and I so far give him the credit, he would revise his theory based on actual images of a growing embryo in the womb.

 

[YoursTrue]

All life on earth evolved as a result of evolution from earlier forms.

1. I don't think so. 2. It doesn't make sense. 3. It is incredible, meaning you'd have to figure, I guess, that plants and animals and yes, water and clouds, etc., just came about by themselves. That includes gravity. So you believe it. I don't.

 

[YoursTrue]

No. Recapitulation has been shown to be wrong.

HOWEVER, the sequence that human embryos go through *is* a result of changes accumulated from our ancestors, all the way back. So there are similarities between our embryos and those of other species.

More specifically, those similarities and the *pattern* of those similarities, is evidence for the common ancestry of ourselves and other living things on this planet.



You are correct. Humans have developed language, which allows for abstract thought to a depth not found in other species. This is a result of a fairly small biological (genetic) change, but has large consequences for our social structure.

Why do you think this is relevant?

Oh, wait. You're saying, if I understand you correctly, that the human embryo DOESN'T go through every stage of evolution from pre-fish to Neanderthal man, etc., or something like that?

 

[YoursTrue]

Again, I have always said "evidence". "Proof" was your error. As I said one must keep an open mind. But one thing that you do not understand since you do not understand the concept of scientific evidence, which is what one uses in a scientific discussion or debate, there is no scientific evidence for creationism. There are mountains of evidence for the theory of evolution. Going back to the legal standard that I brought up if you ever thought that someone was guilty of murder due to being "proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt". then you would need to accept the theory of evolution as well.

At this point, because there are soooo many undecipherable questions about evolution, I would say an honest jury is hung. You obviously don't think so. I do. I'm not even going to discuss dating of fossils and rocks yet. I'm still figuring H20 and separating the elements, realizing, I think, that someone said they need ENERGY to separate and get together. It ain't so simple.

 

[YoursTrue]

@SZ, and once again I commend you for your insistence and adherence to your beliefs for several reasons. One is that you're showing me how you think, for which I thank you. I did not always believe in God. I proclaimed myself to be an atheist. I was taught evolution, I really didn't care much about it, but I was taught it and did not challenge it. (Because, as I said, I didn't care. There were more important things in my life than that.) As I delved though more into the questions surrounding evolution, and reading some things like Behe's "Darwin's Black Box," I had different concept of what it is all about.

 

[Subduction Zone]

At this point, because there are soooo many undecipherable questions about evolution, I would say an honest jury is hung. You obviously don't think so. I do. I'm not even going to discuss dating of fossils and rocks yet. I'm still figuring H20 and separating the elements, realizing, I think, that someone said they need ENERGY to separate and get together. It ain't so simple.

That would be w very foolish, in fact stupid conclusion. What excuse do you have for that?

in a trial if there are mountains of evidence for one side and none for the other one always goes for the side with mountains of evidence. You would let a murderer go free because you don't know what he had for breakfast last Tuesday.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh. Thank you for clarifying that. Now what again was my error that you say you explained to me time after time? Please be specific. Thanks. Or if you cannot directly explain what my error was about Haeckel, and I was thinking that you override his imagined drawings of recapitulation in the human womb, and, I suppose therefore (?) stemming from that every organism in the line of mammals perhaps up until that particular organism moved on, if you get my point. I wouldn't want to be an evolutionist, but I'll tell you that you have piqued my interest in some of the sciences, including that of Lavoisier and Einstein.

If you tell a falsehood you cannot demand an answer.

Try again and see if you can post without breaking the Ninth Commandment I will answer your questions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So have you seen the genetic change you speak of in humans so they can speak languages enabling them to pass on their background and history, whereas chimpanzees and fish apparently do not pass on these histories?

This is an example of a foolish question.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry, I'm not grappling with Haeckel's hypotheses at all. Haeckel tried. He was wrong in many cases, quite stunningly so, since apparently, if I have this right, some of his human embryonic drawings appeared to look like pigs and birds. Again, the idea that a human embryo went through all the stages of evolution while in the womb was taught as truth for DECADES to students, later the concept of recapitulation was overturned, something you seem to have trouble admitting.

But it was not "taught as truth" to students. Who told you that?

And I was the first one here to tell you that recapitulation had been falsified. How is that having trouble admitting that? You are probably confused because you do not understand the concept of evidence. I said, quite correctly, that his illustrations are still evidence for evolution. But since you won't let yourself understand the concept you get extremely confused.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh, wait. You're saying, if I understand you correctly, that the human embryo DOESN'T go through every stage of evolution from pre-fish to Neanderthal man, etc., or something like that?

Wow! After being told close to twenty times you still don't get it.


An inability to learn a simple concept indicates some sort of psychological problem. You cleary are not lacking in intelligence. That tells us that your belief in myth will not allow you to reason. You need to find out what you are afraid of.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@SZ, and once again I commend you for your insistence and adherence to your beliefs for several reasons. One is that you're showing me how you think, for which I thank you. I did not always believe in God. I proclaimed myself to be an atheist. I was taught evolution, I really didn't care much about it, but I was taught it and did not challenge it. (Because, as I said, I didn't care. There were more important things in my life than that.) As I delved though more into the questions surrounding evolution, and reading some things like Behe's "Darwin's Black Box," I had different concept of what it is all about.

There is such a thing as being an atheist for a poor reason. If I said that I was a Christian for the chicks (Catholic High School Girls are hot!) you would have good reason to doubt my sincerity. From your posts here we would have to doubt your sincerity about being an atheist.

Whoever supposedly taught you evolution clearly did not understand the subject and you still have an education no better than a fifth grader's. You don't want to learn. That means that you cannot learn. Behe was shown to be wrong in all of his claims. His most embarrassing failure was during the Dover trial. And Darwin's black box came from the same liars that caused the Dover trial in the first place. You are listening to Liars, Losers, and Loons.

Tell me, why are you afraid to learn the basics of science? That is a very serious question. I do not believe that you are a liar but not letting yourself learn is very close to lying. It clearly is not an honest tactic to rely on.

Before you run away and hide from a debate that you constantly lost why not try to learn what is and what is not evidence? If you do understand this already it will take no time at all. And if you can approach the topic honestly then it will still be a very short lesson.

 

[Polymath257]

So have you seen the genetic change you speak of in humans so they can speak languages enabling them to pass on their background and history, whereas chimpanzees and fish apparently do not pass on these histories?

Actually, yes, we know of genetic changes in the Jaw and throat which allow the use of vocal language. Chimps, for example, cannot easily form words because of their anatomy (which is why they are taught sign language). Passing on histories requires some sort of language and long term memory.

 

[Polymath257]

I'm just learning about it, and I'm finding that (I'll simplify it) that you just can't have two moles of hydrogen and one mole of oxygen and combine them with nothing else involved and viola! there's water. I think the opposite is true, that you can't 'just' have water and separate it without anything else involved into two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. It's quite interesting. So I'm learning.

And has it been proven that this is always the case?

I don't think chimpanzees or fish care much about this.

So? What biological difference does that make?

 

[Polymath257]

I love this. So I ask, you know this because?? It makes sense to think/believe that a fish of sorts developed small legs and breathing apparatus and left the ancestral body of water to live on land?

Well, the fins had the bone structure that gave support and the skin was such that 'breating' happened either through the skin (which happens for many amphibians) or by gulping (which happens in many fish).

Not to put Haeckel down, but he at least didn't have photographs 'proving' his point in the changes from fish or whatever in the womb to human, maybe they went through Neanderthal stages, too? I'm assuming if he were truly honest, and I so far give him the credit, he would revise his theory based on actual images of a growing embryo in the womb.

And we have actual fossils of the different stages for the transition from fish to amphibian.

 

[Polymath257]

Oh, wait. You're saying, if I understand you correctly, that the human embryo DOESN'T go through every stage of evolution from pre-fish to Neanderthal man, etc., or something like that?

That is correct. It does not. That's what we have been saying several times. Recapitulation is wrong.

There are, however, similarities in the way the embryos develop that shows the interrelatedness of the species. New species don't just 'add on' to the end of the process, however. Changes can happen at any point in the development, not only at the end.

 

[Polymath257]

At this point, because there are soooo many undecipherable questions about evolution, I would say an honest jury is hung. You obviously don't think so. I do. I'm not even going to discuss dating of fossils and rocks yet. I'm still figuring H20 and separating the elements, realizing, I think, that someone said they need ENERGY to separate and get together. It ain't so simple.

Wow, you are struggling with high school chemistry and think that the conclusions of those who have studied and earned advanced degrees are questionable?

No, I honestly don't think that an honest, educated jury is hung. Get through some organic chemistry, then biochemistry and we can talk. Or, if you prefer, learn some physics involving calculus and we can begin to talk.

When you get to the place you want to discuss dating of fossils and rocks, there are plenty of people here who know enough to help you through the concepts.

 

[gnostic]

So have you seen the genetic change you speak of in humans so they can speak languages enabling them to pass on their background and history, whereas chimpanzees and fish apparently do not pass on these histories?

It sounds like you are confusing evolution of languages with evolutionary biology. They are not one and the same.

Evolution (referring to evolutionary biology) is study of change, where any inheritable traits are passed on future generations of descendants. The working process involved genetics.

Languages do change over times, as well as being influenced by languages outside of it.

What I mean by the later about “being influenced by” other languages. Take for instance, modern English for example, evolved from Middle English (c 1100 to c 1500), but Middle English were influenced by others languages such Norman (French) from Old French dialect from Normandy, some Old Norse because of Danish and Norwegian Vikings have settled in parts of England before the Norman Conquest (1066), and from Latin, which was universal language of Roman Catholic Church in Western Europe. Loanwords, are words borrowed from other (foreign) languages, that have become everyday words to modern English.

A lot of our scientific vocabulary make use of Latin and Greek for scientific terminology.

But I am digressing.

My point is that languages are not biological and not genetically inherited. We don’t genetically speak English. English isn’t encoded in our genes or in our DNA.

Language is something that we have learned and trained to use, like from our parents and in schools.

The evolution of languages and evolution in biology are not the same. We can be taught languages, but languages cannot be inherited via our chromosomes, our genes or our DNA.