Evidence showing evolution from one species to another

[SkepticThinker]

Well, what have we proved here?

1. No solid proof exists for any of the various subjects discussed.
2. People choose to interpret evidence based on their predetermined world view.

Have a good night, gentlemen.

1. Evolution is the scientific theory that best fits the available evidence, hence the reason it is the prevailing theory.
2. The word "kind" is meaningless and irrelevant in a discussion about evolution.
3. Some people choose to interpret evidence based on their predetermined belief that holy books written thousands of years ago are the words of some god that cannot be demonstrated to exist.
4. Evidence is key to scientific theory.

 

[dust1n]

Further, they are based on his belief system, which ignores the fact that no billions of years passed before the flood.

Okay, that's the number of species that exist today. How many kinds existed on the ark?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes, either their predetermined world view is the Bible which was personally dictated by God and is completely incapable of being in error, thus not looking at any science whatsoever we can conclude evolution isn't true. Or their predetermined world view isn't the sometimes incorrect Bible, which is just one of many books, so they just study biology, and we can conclude that evolution is most likely the explanation for all the diversity of life.



Okay, lets look at consensus based guess:

"Estimates on the number of Earth's current species range from 10 million to 14 million,[4] of which about 1.2 million have been documented and over 86 percent have not yet been described.[5]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_biodiversity
Eh, but their guess is probably wrong too, so we can just ignore it without actually validating that it isn't true at all.

Well they are just guesses. It's not like these people have any kind of education in the field or anything.

 

[Riverwolf]

By "evolutionarily advanced" I simply mean later in time.

I know, it's just that the word is too loaded to be an effective communicator of such simplicity.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Robert Barnes' guesses are probably not correct, to say the least. Further, they are based on his belief system, which ignores the fact that no billions of years passed before the flood. Therefore, Mr. Barnes' guesses are easily ruled out.

That's a fact according to what evidence?

So you said before that your opinions are your opinions but now you're stating that your opinions are facts? Which is it?

 

[Riverwolf]

Yes, I don't think there are any slam dunk arguments either way- but whatever the answer, this IS a tricky question, not as simple/inevitable as often portrayed

So in this example- we need not only a lucky fluke endowing the advantage of whiter skin, but this person also happens to be a very powerful criminally insane individual who conquers and personally reproduces with huge numbers of people! and THEN natural selection has something to work with!

we all understand how populations with significantly advantageous genes could prevail over those without- how they actually got that way much less obvious

What if the lucky mutation isn't given to Genghis Khan, but an unremarkable guy who- looking a little funny now- doesn't have much luck with the ladies. this lucky mutation is NOT naturally selected, NO evolution has taken place whatsoever- even when this improbably lucky fluke is granted to the individual

Add to this that the vast vast majority of 'random' mutations would be deleterious, not advantageous, and the simple algorithm of random mutation + natural selection is going to have a very tough time making a human out of a molecule- with no design goals to work from

Mutations happen all the time. Every single generation, in fact. Some of them spread, others don't. Some potentially advantageous ones end up not spreading.

The reason why this particular mutation is inevitable is because it did happen. Were there other mutations that could have been advantageous but didn't spread? Most certainly. After all, when our genus made it to Northern Europe, it sure would have been HANDY to get our fur back!

 

[dust1n]

Well they are just guesses. It's not like these people have any kind of education in the field or anything.

Well, we all know it would be impossible to count up all the observed species. You'd go from 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, to 1.5 million. How can one do that, c'mon.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Well, we all know it would be impossible to count up all the observed species. You'd go from 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, to 1.5 million. How can one do that, c'mon.

It's witchcraft! Nobody can count that high.

 

[Parsimony]

"Getting an accurate count.

We can finally begin to make some calculations. Robert D. Barnes lists the number of living species for each phylum, ranging from the sole member of Placozoa to the 923,000 in Arthropoda (pp. 12, 85-88). Using his figures, we arrive at a total of 1,177,920 species.
In addition, there are many animals that are as yet unknown. Wendt estimates that only 2 percent of all the parasitic worms are known, which would easily add another million species (p. 83). This includes as many as 500,000 nematodes, although only 15,000 have been described (Levine, p. 1). Ten thousand new species of insects are discovered every year, yet still only a small fraction of those in existence have been found (Atkins, p. 45).

All of those creatures were known at one time, for Adam gave them all names (Genesis 2:19-20), and, since they exist today, they must have been on the ark. But we shall be extremely generous to the creationists and add only 500,000 undiscovered species to our figure of 1,177,920—thus giving a mere 1,677,920 species with which Noah had to contend.

To this number, we must add the myriad of extinct prehistoric animals, which creationists assure us were alive at the time of the flood, making tracks in the Paluxy River, and which were known to Job afterward (John Morris, 1980, p. 65). This would vastly increase the numbers, since "only a tiny percentage of the animal and plant species that have ever existed are alive today" (Kear, p. 10). However, since creationists do not believe in transitional forms, we can again give them the benefit of the doubt and add to our total only the 200,000 different fossils that have been described. This brings the number to 1,877,920 species or animal pairs that were to be boarded onto the ark.

Of course, we can't forget that Genesis 7:2-3 (particularly in the Revised Standard Version) makes it clear that only unclean animals come in single pairs, male and female; the clean animals and birds come in seven pairs, male and female. That means fourteen of each clean animal and each bird. But since figures for the number of clean animals are hard to find, we will have to let creationists off the hook and ignore them. Birds are another story. There are 8,590 species of birds. Since they have already been calculated into our figure of 1,877,920 species or 3,755,840 individual animals on the ark, we need only six more pairs of each species of bird to make it come out to seven pairs. That brings our count up to a grand total of 3,858,920 animals aboard the ark—two of each species, except birds which number fourteen each."

And remember that:

"The ark is to be made out of gopher wood according to a plan that calls for the ark to be three hundred cubits long, fifty cubits wide, and thirty cubits tall (450x75x45 feet, according to most creationists. See Segraves, p. 11). It is to contain three floors, a large door in the side, and a one cubit square window at the top. The floors are to be divided into rooms, and all the walls, inside and out, are to be pitched with pitch. Since the purpose of the ark is to hold animals and plants, particularly two of "every living thing of all flesh . . . to keep them alive with thee" (Genesis 6:19), it will have to be constructed accordingly."

http://ncse.com/cej/4/1/impossible-voyage-noahs-ark

Unfortunately, those calculations don't address the proportion of species that could have been left off of the ark: i.e. marine animals. There is also the whole "kinds" vs. "species" thing. Then, some species may also have already gone extinct before the Flood. I'm not saying I accept a world-wide flood having happened, but the minimum required number of animals is probably much lower than the number calculated here.

Robert Barnes' guesses are probably not correct, to say the least. Further, they are based on his belief system, which ignores the fact that no billions of years passed before the flood. Therefore, Mr. Barnes' guesses are easily ruled out.

Whether or not life has been around for billions of years has no effect on his calculations.

 

[dust1n]

Unfortunately, those calculations don't address the proportion of species that could have been left off of the ark: i.e. marine animals. There is also the whole "kinds" vs. "species" thing. Then, some species may also have already gone extinct before the Flood. I'm not saying I accept a world-wide flood having happened, but the minimum required number of animals is probably much lower than the number calculated here.

Whether or not life has been around for billions of years has no effect on his calculations.

Then those fish came after the flood from one of the none fish animals:

"I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish." Genesis 6:17

I also did the favor of ignoring the billions and billions of fossils and extinct species that I did not include.

Also, the implication is that there is a kinds/species problem seems trivial to me. How many kinds are there. 100? Okay, how did that turn into 1.7 million species. Do all 1.7 species fit into those 100 kinds. If so, the majority of the diversity of life is still explained by evolution?

 

[dust1n]

1,518,750 cubic feet, divided by 10832 individual mammals (2 for each known mammal species). That's still an animal every 140 cubic foot. Bible says 45 feet tall, and three stories. So on average each story is 15 feet tall. So every 3X3 sq ft for each animal by floor space (unless we are talking about stacking animals. You know put the Lemur on the Hippo and hand them some food.

I was looking that the largest pig known to live now in Africa is around 7-8 ft long. Assuming a couple feet wide. 14-16 sq ft. of just one pig species. We only had 9 sq ft for each animal.

Southerner Elephant Seals (which by the way, cannot reproduce with North Elephant Seals) 8/5 to 10 ft long, and wide as ****. Like says 3 or 4 feet. On the low end that is 24 sq feet per Southerner Elephant Seal. This is also ignores the fact that Noah would had to have traveled across the entire world, including oceans, to get a couple of these guys.

 

[Shad]

And for your information there are several abiogenesis theories out there. Did you not know that?

Wrong. There are several hypothesis out there. If one was a true theory then abiogenesis is solved thus you have no point. You conflated theory with hypothesis, these are not the same.

 

[Shad]

Okay then. How and where did the first life form come from?

Irrelevant as I was pointing out you made a mistake in thinking there is a theory rather than a few hypothesis'

 

[Parsimony]

Then those fish came after the flood from one of the none fish animals:

"I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish." Genesis 6:17

That probably referred only to land creatures. I've never seen a fundamentalist argue that sea life was killed by the Flood or that the ark had any whales aboard it. However, it is an interesting thought. At first glance, a flood doesn't seem like it would kill oceanic life. However, adding all of that fresh water to the ocean could greatly reduce its salinity. That would probably be disastrous for many species of plankton, upon which many other sea life depends.Then you'd get an increase in pressure at the bottom of the ocean from all of the added water, potentially killing tube worms and other such creatures down there (though I admit I don't know their pressure tolerance). When all the waters were joined into one global ocean, you'd get a lot of species interacting that had never seen each other before (lake fish and oceanic fish could now meet). Once the waters subsided, the species would still be mixed. That would cause ecological disaster in itself. The lakes and oceans should also have had equal salinity after the Flood was over (since they mixed). Makes one wonder if there is a mechanism that can explain the differences in salinity we observe in bodies of water today that could have happened in only 4,000 years.

I also did the favor of ignoring the billions and billions of fossils and extinct species that I did not include.

Strictly speaking, do we know that there are billions of fossils? We can project that there are, but remember that we are talking to creationists here. They would want proof of billions of extinct species before accepting that they'd have to be on the ark, I'm sure.

Also, the implication is that there is a kinds/species problem seems trivial to me. How many kinds are there. 100? Okay, how did that turn into 1.7 million species. Do all 1.7 species fit into those 100 kinds. If so, the majority of the diversity of life is still explained by evolution?

They'd just call that micro-evolution.

 

[outhouse]

Makes one wonder if there is a mechanism that can explain the differences in salinity we observe in bodies of water today that could have happened in only 4,000 years.

Scientist wont chase after imaginative claims of theist refusing credible academia.

There would be many different types of evidence showing a sodium layers of equal proportion had this mythology taken place.

But your using reason and logic and people that flat refuse it to begin with.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I often here the erroneous claim that there isn't evidence of species to species evolution, but the evidence is there and abundant. Just with our human ancestors, we have discovered numerous DIFFERENT SPECIES that, over long periods of time, changed to become more evolutionarily advanced species. So, where does this claim come from?

The below article is an example of a recently discovered early species that predated human beings. There is insurmountable evidence that these were some of the predecessors of human beings. So, again, why do people claim that species to species evolution is not supported by evidence when all that is necessary is to look at the different species that predated humans?

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/10/africa/homo-naledi-human-relative-species/

It's all bull****. If we would consider it different species of humans, then we would have to consider that presently there are many different species of humans as well. It is just variation, there are no significant differences with modern day people.

 

[outhouse]

If we would consider it different species of humans, then we would have to consider that presently there are many different species of humans as well. It is just variation, there are no significant differences with modern day people

I feel sorry for you that your this confused over common knowledge accepted as fact in every credible university around the world without dispute. So sad.

 

[leibowde84]

No, sir, I am not.

You are wrong, actually. And, the fact that you cut out the part of my comment proving that you were wrong seems to support this. "Proof" is often and correctly used to mean "evidence helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement" ... or, as I stated before "supporting evidence" (see below):

proof
pro͞of/
noun

1. Evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.
   "you will be asked to give proof of your identity"
   synonyms: evidence, verification, corroboration, authentication, confirmation, certification, documentation, validation, attestation, substantiation

 

[leibowde84]

It's all bull****. If we would consider it different species of humans, then we would have to consider that presently there are many different species of humans as well. It is just variation, there are no significant differences with modern day people.

Why do you think that there are "different species of humans" living now? I've never heard this claim before.

 

[leibowde84]

I mean proof. I do not mean conjecture based on assumptive reasoning and method.

Can you answer my question, please. You merely dodged it last time. What do you mean by the word "proof"? Insurmountable or absolute proof or supporting evidence?