Evidence For And Against Evolution

[Dan From Smithville]

Schoolchildren and adults alike were taught that there were NINE PLANETS in the solar system just a few years ago. That was TRUTH for them. Now it's not truth, is it? Or is it? I'd love to hear your explanation about this.

Did Pluto vanish or did it come to be considered not to have existed when it was reclassified? Come on.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So the fact that many genes are similar in humans and bonobos, according to you and other evolutionists, means that humans evolved from "close relatives" or something like that, right, because they still don't really know which "relative" it is, do they. OR -- do they? Bonobos and humans still can't interbreed, can they? But scientists surmise that Neanderthals and some other population of humanoids did interbreed, don't they? But doubtful if bonobos and Neanderthals did. Unless you and other evolutionists think so because of similar genes between the two.

Humans don't normally breed with siblings due to cultural restrictions, but these relatives share some genes. Those genes demonstrate a relationship. Breeding compatibility is not necessary to establish the hereditary relationship.

Male Neanderthals successfully bred with female H. sapiens because the biological barriers were incomplete. This alone does not rule out that were a separate species, but we're certainly very closely related to us. Because this relationship is so close genetically, no one with an understanding of biology would expect Neanderthals to breed with bonobos or reproduce if they tried. No scientist would raise such a silly question of point to that end and it is something I only hear about from creationists.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Again -- and you are so reluctant to provide information or a decent answer.
Does the human embryo start out exclusively and entirely as a human embryo without going through the various stages said to be in the evolutionary progression from whatever is the earliest to the latest? (in other words -- recapitulation?) I don't believe you will answer. But thanks. You HAVE taught me a lot.

it would always be a human embryo. Similarities that it shares with other species wouldn't change that. It bears similarities to embryos from other animal classes. It doesn't become those other organisms in some cascade of fantastical and unclaimed leaps through the animal kingdom. At the beginning of it's existence, it is a single cell, but it a human cell and not bacteria even though both are one-celled.

I thought you claimed to have studied this stuff and got good grades. This is basic material you should be aware under those circumstances.

 

[Astrophile]

So while this may be an elementary grade question, surely you as the advanced teacher should simply answer. Does the human embryo go through every form of evolution from whatever the earliest form is in the womb, to the latest "evolutionary" form, which is, of course, the human?

No, it doesn't. Why do you keep harping on this point? Perhaps you should forget about Haeckel and should read some modern books on embryology.

 

[Astrophile]

So, excuse me, how many planets are taught there are in the Solar System these days? How many planets were taught there are a few decades ago?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.org/news/2013-05-planets-solar.amp

According to the IAU definition - IAU definition of planet - Wikipedia , a planet is a celestial body which:

1. 
   
   
   • is in orbit around the Sun,
   • has sufficient mass to assume hydrostatic equilibrium (a nearly round shape), and
   • has "cleared the neighborhood" around its orbit.

From this definition, there are eight known planets in the solar system. Pluto, Eris, Haumea, Makemake and Ceres have not 'cleared the neighbourhood' around their orbits, and are therefore dwarf planets. This is merely a change in definition (which may not be permanent), not in the observable physical properties of any of these bodies.

 

[Subduction Zone]

-

Again -- and you are so reluctant to provide information or a decent answer.
Does the human embryo start out exclusively and entirely as a human embryo without going through the various stages said to be in the evolutionary progression from whatever is the earliest to the latest? (in other words -- recapitulation?) I don't believe you will answer. But thanks. You HAVE taught me a lot.

I offered you a deal. You ran away from that. It is a sign of dishonesty to keep asking a question that has a cost to the answer.

If you take me up on my deal you can get your questions answered.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Schoolchildren and adults alike were taught that there were NINE PLANETS in the solar system just a few years ago. That was TRUTH for them. Now it's not truth, is it? Or is it? I'd love to hear your explanation about this.

And because you are a literalist you can never know what is true or not. This is rather sad since it is largely a self imposed defect. If you truly cared about the truth you would try to learn. It appears that you prefer dogma do truth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, it doesn't. Why do you keep harping on this point? Perhaps you should forget about Haeckel and should read some modern books on embryology.

He is irritated by the fact that though Haeckel was wrong that his drawings are still evidence for evolution. I gave him a basic link on embryology but he either did not read it (most likely) or he did not understand it (and he probably knew ahead of time that he would not understand it or would not let himself understand it which was why he probably did not click on the link in the first place). He incorrectly tried to claim that Haeckel's drawings were "imagined" "false" etc. when that was not what Haeckel did wrong. His main "sin" and it was a significant one, was to use the same drawings for part of the first edition of his book when pressed for time rather than either drawing the embryos out or leaving them out altogether. That those wrongs were corrected in later editions did not make what he did in the first edition "okay" but it did show that he was not an out and out fraud. Just a bit irresponsible and that does not go with his narrative.

I think he may realize that I am correct and that even though Haeckel was wrong that those drawings are still evidence for evolution since they can be used in embryology. Though of course today scientists use photographs. The drawings he made still show real features that can be seen in pictures. Such as pharyngeal arches (gill slits in layman's language):

Pharyngeal arches - Embryology

Oh noes!!!! We can see them even without Haeckel! Woes is me!

 

[Polymath257]

Schoolchildren and adults alike were taught that there were NINE PLANETS in the solar system just a few years ago. That was TRUTH for them. Now it's not truth, is it? Or is it? I'd love to hear your explanation about this.

So the *definition* of the term 'planet' changed.

Using the current definition, there were 8 planets decades ago. Using the old definition, there are *more* than 9 planets now.

The only thing that changed is the language *we* use to describe the objects out there. For example, Pluto was, by the old definition, a planet. It is not a planet by the new definition. But, for example, Eris might well have been considered a planet before (except it wasn't known about), which would have given 10 planets.

One of the reasons the definition changed is that we learned more (discovered more orbiting objects) and needed to make a distinction in our terminology (between 'planet' and 'dwarf planet').

the *truth* is that all of these objects are out there. They each have properties, many of which we are still investigating. So we use our language to help in our classification.

 

[gnostic]

So do you believe that the human embryo goes through the various stages of evolution from those beings humans are said to evolve from in the womb?

This is not Evolution.

If we only study just human reproduction, from fertilization of egg, to the whole cycle of embryonic stage that would include cell divisions and growth of news cells that become fetus, to the stage where the baby is being born. That is accepted as human reproduction, where the unborn baby undergo growth from just just two cells at the beginning (egg and sperm).

But human reproduction and the whole growth through embryonic stage in the women’s womb, it is a wonder of biology, but that’s not Evolution.

You keep confusing individual’s changes and growth with Evolution.

Evolution involved changes to whole population, and not just individuals’ changes. For instance, an overweight can lose these excessive weight, through diet and exercise, as well as willpower. Such transformation that person goes through during his or her lifetime, have no bearing to Evolution, because one person’s losing weight, doesn’t effect the rest of the population.

Now if you want to know about Evolution, like how and when it started, then you have to look at the biology of humans with all other clades of tetrapod vertebrates (mammals, reptiles, birds, fishes and amphibians) and see what they have in common and where they differed.

Let’s get the fishes and amphibians are all anamniotes, where they all lay their eggs in water, and that where they differed from all other tetrapods, which categorized these others as amniotes.

All amniotes - mammals, reptiles and birds - have fertilized eggs, that have membranes surrounding the fetuses, known as amnion. This amnion is a protective sac that keep the embryo alive, developing and growing.

What distinguishes mammals, reptiles and birds, are that mammals are all synapsids where the fertilized eggs are retained the females’ wombs or uteruses, while reptiles and birds are all sauropods that laid their eggs on dry lands. The eggs of birds and reptiles have the protective shells that keep all the amnion and fetuses enclosed.

Humans are like all mammals, where the embryos grow in the mothers’ uteruses (wombs).

The questions are when the first amniotes first appeared, and when did the first synapsids appeared and diverge/split from the sauropods (reptiles, birds and dinosaurs, because dinosaurs are also sauropods, and the first true birds have evolved from avian dinosaurs).

i think I will leave the earliest amniotes and synapsids for others to explain to you, since it is far too complicated for me to say anything more than that all mammals evolved from the synapsid-type families/species.

If you want to know which species of animals (synapsids) were responsible for mammals, then you are better off asking someone who already knows the subject, since I am still learning.

 

[gnostic]

@YoursTrue

Regarding to the planets, and particularly Pluto’s status.

You must remember, that for the longest time, we didn’t have telescopes to observe the sky, relying the strength of the person’s naked eye, until the early 17th century with Galileo’s observation with basic telescope.

BEFORE Galileo, they could only see 5 planets, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. The planets Uranus and Neptune were unknown to the prehistoric, ancient and medieval people. And Pluto wasn’t discovered until 1930.

Even back then, in 1930s and 40s, the status of Pluto was questioned. More so with the discoveries of more dwarf planets on the Kuiper Belt, including Eris (2005).

Eris was slightly larger than Pluto in size, but 27% more massive than Pluto.

Anyway, my points are that scientists, especially astronomers always must be ready to accept changes, whenever anything new evidence have been discovered, and sometimes they revised their positions on certain knowledge.

For instance, the Andromeda was known for quite some times, but during the 18th century, Charles Messier have categorized Andromeda as being a nebula located within the Milky Way, not a galaxy. And to every other astronomers in his time and later, before Edwin Hubble, thought there was only one galaxy, the Milky Way. That’s because the telescopes used in the 18th, 19th and even early 20th centuries, weren’t powerful enough to see clearly.

It was until 1919, when Edwin Hubble discovered that Andromeda and Triangulum weren’t nebulas, but complete galaxies separate from the Milky Way. Hubble changed our view about the universe, and it was lot larger than the Milky Way.

This is why during the 1920s, Alexander Friedmann (1922), Howard Percy Robertson (1924-25) and Georges Lemaître (1927) started the hypothesis of the physical cosmology of expanding universe, which you would know it now as the Big Bang theory.

This theory was revised and expanded in 1948 (which included the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN) & the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR)), and again in 1990s (“standard model”, adding dark matter and dark energy to explain why the universe is still expanding).

Science is always about learning new things, which also include revising or modifying existing theory, when new evidence and new data become available.

I don’t understand your position as to thinking it is better that science should remain static and unchanging. That often leads to science stagnating, and science being wrong.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, it doesn't. Why do you keep harping on this point? Perhaps you should forget about Haeckel and should read some modern books on embryology.

The reference here is to what is taught as truth to unsuspecting students and the public.

He is irritated by the fact that though Haeckel was wrong that his drawings are still evidence for evolution. I gave him a basic link on embryology but he either did not read it (most likely) or he did not understand it (and he probably knew ahead of time that he would not understand it or would not let himself understand it which was why he probably did not click on the link in the first place). He incorrectly tried to claim that Haeckel's drawings were "imagined" "false" etc. when that was not what Haeckel did wrong. His main "sin" and it was a significant one, was to use the same drawings for part of the first edition of his book when pressed for time rather than either drawing the embryos out or leaving them out altogether. That those wrongs were corrected in later editions did not make what he did in the first edition "okay" but it did show that he was not an out and out fraud. Just a bit irresponsible and that does not go with his narrative.

I think he may realize that I am correct and that even though Haeckel was wrong that those drawings are still evidence for evolution since they can be used in embryology. Though of course today scientists use photographs. The drawings he made still show real features that can be seen in pictures. Such as pharyngeal arches (gill slits in layman's language):

Pharyngeal arches - Embryology

Oh noes!!!! We can see them even without Haeckel! Woes is me!

Woes may be you, but there is nothing, absolutely nothing to indicate there that the HUMAN embryo (not what is deemed to be a "close relative's embryo, such as that like indeterminate of the great ape 'family') is anything BUT human from the onset. Tell me otherwise, why don't youse? And tell me, while you is at it, that I'm just too unlearned to understand that the human embryo starts out as a human embryo, and that it continues growing in the womb as a human embryo, and not anything else. OK??? Yes, why don't you prevaricate, evade, and tell me that I don't understand, ok?

 

[YoursTrue]

@YoursTrue

Regarding to the planets, and particularly Pluto’s status.

You must remember, that for the longest time, we didn’t have telescopes to observe the sky, relying the strength of the person’s naked eye, until the early 17th century with Galileo’s observation with basic telescope.

BEFORE Galileo, they could only see 5 planets, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. The planets Uranus and Neptune were unknown to the prehistoric, ancient and medieval people. And Pluto wasn’t discovered until 1930.

Even back then, in 1930s and 40s, the status of Pluto was questioned. More so with the discoveries of more dwarf planets on the Kuiper Belt, including Eris (2005).

Eris was slightly larger than Pluto in size, but 27% more massive than Pluto.

Anyway, my points are that scientists, especially astronomers always must be ready to accept changes, whenever anything new evidence have been discovered, and sometimes they revised their positions on certain knowledge.

For instance, the Andromeda was known for quite some times, but during the 18th century, Charles Messier have categorized Andromeda as being a nebula located within the Milky Way, not a galaxy. And to every other astronomers in his time and later, before Edwin Hubble, thought there was only one galaxy, the Milky Way. That’s because the telescopes used in the 18th, 19th and even early 20th centuries, weren’t powerful enough to see clearly.

It was until 1919, when Edwin Hubble discovered that Andromeda and Triangulum weren’t nebulas, but complete galaxies separate from the Milky Way. Hubble changed our view about the universe, and it was lot larger than the Milky Way.

This is why during the 1920s, Alexander Friedmann (1922), Howard Percy Robertson (1924-25) and Georges Lemaître (1927) started the hypothesis of the physical cosmology of expanding universe, which you would know it now as the Big Bang theory.

This theory was revised and expanded in 1948 (which included the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN) & the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR)), and again in 1990s (“standard model”, adding dark matter and dark energy to explain why the universe is still expanding).

Science is always about learning new things, which also include revising or modifying existing theory, when new evidence and new data become available.

I don’t understand your position as to thinking it is better that science should remain static and unchanging. That often leads to science stagnating, and science being wrong.

I agree that ideas and facts change. But there are so many things which have been taught as unfailing, unflagging truth and then these same things are changed when, let's say, it's found that Pluto is NOT a planet. But we are really speaking of evolution here, and/or scientific posits, conjectures, and discoveries. So if you went to school in the 60's, as Gould (YES, he was a believer of evolution) did, if you wanted to pass a test that said Haeckel's theory about recaptulation was true, you'd have to agree it was true. That's what they taught. So, I say again -- that while the human embryo has parts similar to other organisms, that does not mean humans came about as a result of mindless evolution, the human being coming from??? early humanoids, coming from??? another mammal??? hmmm, I doubt it. But that's me. Not others. Oh, and there is simply no proof real-time (OK, evidence) that humans evolved. Chimpanzees are not evolving or interbreeding, neither are bonobos, and -- neither are the "youngest" specimens, humans.

 

[YoursTrue]

@YoursTrue

Regarding to the planets, and particularly Pluto’s status.

You must remember, that for the longest time, we didn’t have telescopes to observe the sky, relying the strength of the person’s naked eye, until the early 17th century with Galileo’s observation with basic telescope.

BEFORE Galileo, they could only see 5 planets, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. The planets Uranus and Neptune were unknown to the prehistoric, ancient and medieval people. And Pluto wasn’t discovered until 1930.

Even back then, in 1930s and 40s, the status of Pluto was questioned. More so with the discoveries of more dwarf planets on the Kuiper Belt, including Eris (2005).

Eris was slightly larger than Pluto in size, but 27% more massive than Pluto.

Anyway, my points are that scientists, especially astronomers always must be ready to accept changes, whenever anything new evidence have been discovered, and sometimes they revised their positions on certain knowledge.

For instance, the Andromeda was known for quite some times, but during the 18th century, Charles Messier have categorized Andromeda as being a nebula located within the Milky Way, not a galaxy. And to every other astronomers in his time and later, before Edwin Hubble, thought there was only one galaxy, the Milky Way. That’s because the telescopes used in the 18th, 19th and even early 20th centuries, weren’t powerful enough to see clearly.

It was until 1919, when Edwin Hubble discovered that Andromeda and Triangulum weren’t nebulas, but complete galaxies separate from the Milky Way. Hubble changed our view about the universe, and it was lot larger than the Milky Way.

This is why during the 1920s, Alexander Friedmann (1922), Howard Percy Robertson (1924-25) and Georges Lemaître (1927) started the hypothesis of the physical cosmology of expanding universe, which you would know it now as the Big Bang theory.

This theory was revised and expanded in 1948 (which included the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN) & the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR)), and again in 1990s (“standard model”, adding dark matter and dark energy to explain why the universe is still expanding).

Science is always about learning new things, which also include revising or modifying existing theory, when new evidence and new data become available.

I don’t understand your position as to thinking it is better that science should remain static and unchanging. That often leads to science stagnating, and science being wrong.

Never said that science should be static and unchanging.

 

[YoursTrue]

@YoursTrue

Regarding to the planets, and particularly Pluto’s status.

You must remember, that for the longest time, we didn’t have telescopes to observe the sky, relying the strength of the person’s naked eye, until the early 17th century with Galileo’s observation with basic telescope.

BEFORE Galileo, they could only see 5 planets, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. The planets Uranus and Neptune were unknown to the prehistoric, ancient and medieval people. And Pluto wasn’t discovered until 1930.

Even back then, in 1930s and 40s, the status of Pluto was questioned. More so with the discoveries of more dwarf planets on the Kuiper Belt, including Eris (2005).

Eris was slightly larger than Pluto in size, but 27% more massive than Pluto.

Anyway, my points are that scientists, especially astronomers always must be ready to accept changes, whenever anything new evidence have been discovered, and sometimes they revised their positions on certain knowledge.

For instance, the Andromeda was known for quite some times, but during the 18th century, Charles Messier have categorized Andromeda as being a nebula located within the Milky Way, not a galaxy. And to every other astronomers in his time and later, before Edwin Hubble, thought there was only one galaxy, the Milky Way. That’s because the telescopes used in the 18th, 19th and even early 20th centuries, weren’t powerful enough to see clearly.

It was until 1919, when Edwin Hubble discovered that Andromeda and Triangulum weren’t nebulas, but complete galaxies separate from the Milky Way. Hubble changed our view about the universe, and it was lot larger than the Milky Way.

This is why during the 1920s, Alexander Friedmann (1922), Howard Percy Robertson (1924-25) and Georges Lemaître (1927) started the hypothesis of the physical cosmology of expanding universe, which you would know it now as the Big Bang theory.

This theory was revised and expanded in 1948 (which included the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN) & the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR)), and again in 1990s (“standard model”, adding dark matter and dark energy to explain why the universe is still expanding).

Science is always about learning new things, which also include revising or modifying existing theory, when new evidence and new data become available.

I don’t understand your position as to thinking it is better that science should remain static and unchanging. That often leads to science stagnating, and science being wrong.

Many, many have been taught and believe that the universe started with a "big bang." While the following does not deal exclusively with evolution, it does in a sense, because it is 'thought' proposals based on what is deemed as evidence followed by conjecture based on humans figuring things out. Even though 'evidence' changes, followed by some pundits figuring things out -- again.
Stephen Hawking Says He Knows What Happened Before the Big Bang | Live Science
The universe by the way, is generally understood to be older than the beginning of humans.

 

[YoursTrue]

So the *definition* of the term 'planet' changed.

Using the current definition, there were 8 planets decades ago. Using the old definition, there are *more* than 9 planets now.

The only thing that changed is the language *we* use to describe the objects out there. For example, Pluto was, by the old definition, a planet. It is not a planet by the new definition. But, for example, Eris might well have been considered a planet before (except it wasn't known about), which would have given 10 planets.

One of the reasons the definition changed is that we learned more (discovered more orbiting objects) and needed to make a distinction in our terminology (between 'planet' and 'dwarf planet').

the *truth* is that all of these objects are out there. They each have properties, many of which we are still investigating. So we use our language to help in our classification.

The truth is also that they are round-ish, maybe not perfect round, but very like a ball in my opinion. Not sure if any of them emit light like a star does. They may reflect light. But my point is that science can be wrong about their conjectures, therefore revise its viewpoints and teachings. Since some scientists like to ponder over things like, when did the universe start, or did it start, it is almost like a sci-fi movie or comic book. And many, obviously, spend their lifetime thinking hard about these things. It's almost like a Star Trek convention where many attend and enjoy themselves.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The reference here is to what is taught as truth to unsuspecting students and the public.

Woes may be you, but there is nothing, absolutely nothing to indicate there that the HUMAN embryo (not what is deemed to be a "close relative's embryo, such as that like indeterminate of the great ape 'family') is anything BUT human from the onset. Tell me otherwise, why don't youse? And tell me, while you is at it, that I'm just too unlearned to understand that the human embryo starts out as a human embryo, and that it continues growing in the womb as a human embryo, and not anything else. OK??? Yes, why don't you prevaricate, evade, and tell me that I don't understand, ok?

No one here has claimed that it was not. It appears that you have some sort of problem reading and understanding posts.

And as long as you refuse to even try to learn you are in no position to be making any demands.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The truth is also that they are round-ish, maybe not perfect round, but very like a ball in my opinion. Not sure if any of them emit light like a star does. They may reflect light. But my point is that science can be wrong about their conjectures, therefore revise its viewpoints and teachings. Since some scientists like to ponder over things like, when did the universe start, or did it start, it is almost like a sci-fi movie or comic book. And many, obviously, spend their lifetime thinking hard about these things. It's almost like a Star Trek convention where many attend and enjoy themselves.

Science is wrong quite often. But you need to look at the patterns of its errors. They keep getting smaller and smaller. Meanwhile the Bible errors seem to grow. As we learn more and more the Bible errors get worse and worse.

 

[YoursTrue]

No one here has claimed that it was not. It appears that you have some sort of problem reading and understanding posts.

And as long as you refuse to even try to learn you are in no position to be making any demands.

So you refuse to answer if the human embryo is always human or does it pass through related but nonhuman stages? I detect from the image you posted that you believe yes, it passes through earlier nonhuman stages until it reaches full human stage.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you refuse to answer if the human embryo is always human or does it pass through related but nonhuman stages? I detect from the image you posted that you believe yes, it passes through earlier nonhuman stages until it reaches full human stage.

No, I will gladly answer that question. You have a price to pay first. Why are you so afraid to learn what is and what is not evidence?