-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Evidence showing evolution from one species to another
- Thread starter leibowde84
- Start date
First Baseman
Retired athlete
Who are you talking to? Yes, I've been lied to. So has everyone.
First Baseman
Retired athlete
Prove they're liars.
Yorutenchi
Member
The initial split between two groups to the point they can no longer breed is the definition of speciation. The change of that over time is still speciation.
Why do whales have leg bones?
Why do humans have the DNA for fur all over our bodies?
Nothing in evolution makes sense through creationism. It only makes sense through evolution.
First Baseman
Retired athlete
Who says whales have leg bones? I don't see legs on whales.
Why do you ask? You really think we share an ancestor with monkeys and apes?
That depends entirely on your point of view. It makes good sense to me and the folks at ICR.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
How about lungs in whales? Kinda out of place for a walking mammal unless it had ancestors that returned to the water and adapted.
Yorutenchi
Member
I don't think that. I know that based on the evidence.
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/02/10/the-hind-legs-of-whales/
First Baseman
Retired athlete
Lungs in whales don't prove evolution. It just shows me that God elected to give them lungs.
First Baseman
Retired athlete
The reference says whales don't have hind legs. It is speculated that they have leg bones. To me, no legs, no leg bones sounds more logical. This simply means that someone is trying to see something that simply isn't there. That is pretty much the house of cards that macro-evolution is built on.
Yorutenchi
Member
Do you want more links? Or will you simply cast them aside? Whales have leg bones from where they were once four legged animals. The bones have been found. We have them. We have dissected them and found them.
idea
Question Everything
All life is endowed with intelligence. Intelligence is measurable, we can measure IQ's, spend a good portion of our life in school to gain intelligence - it is a real entity, with real influence over the progression of life. We choose where to live, we choose what types of food to eat, we choose when to sleep, and how much time to spend in the sun - all of these choices lead to physical changes within our bodies. The life expectancy of humans is now longer due to intelligent design etc. Mind over matter. To deny the existence and influence of intelligence is strange...
dust1n
Zindīq
"In the same area that Pakicetus was found, but in sediments about 120 meters higher, Thewissen and colleagues (1994) discovered Ambulocetus natans, 'the walking whale that swims', in 1992. Dating from the early to middle Eocene, about 50 million years ago, Ambulocetus is a truly amazing fossil. It was clearly a cetacean, but it also had functional legs and a skeleton that still allowed some degree of terrestrial walking. The conclusion that Ambulocetus could walk by using the hind limbs is supported by its having a large, stout femur....It is obvious from the anatomy of the spinal column that Ambulocetus must have swum with its spine swaying up and down, propelled by its back feet, oriented to the rear. As with other aquatic mammals using this method of swimming, the back feet were quite large. Unusually, the toes of the back feet terminated in hooves, thus advertising the ungulate ancestry of the animal. The only tail vertebra found is long, making it likely that the tail was also long. The cervical vertebrae were relatively long, compared to those of modern whales; Ambulocetus must have had a flexible neck. Ambulocetus's skull was quite cetacean (Novacek 1994). It had a long muzzle, teeth that were very similar to later archaeocetes, a reduced zygomatic arch, and a tympanic bulla (which supports the eardrum) that was poorly attached to the skull. Although Ambulocetus apparently lacked a blowhole, the other skull features qualify Ambulocetus as a cetacean." (from The Origin of Whales below, by Raymond Sutera)
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/p65.htm
From a Catholic "Creationist" who believes evolution is true...
Modern Killer Whale:
idea
Question Everything
Survival of the fittest... tell me, is there more to your life than just survival? and has any living thing actually been able to survive? The rocks survive longer than we do, and they do not evolve in order to survive. The entire premise and motivation behind all of it is flawed....
What has survived? The cockroach has survived unchanged for quite a few years.... Entities that change are not preserving anything - we say it has not survived if we cannot find any duplicates of it anywhere.
The point is to survive? but then if it evolves it does not actually survive, the original design is lost....
What has survived? The cockroach has survived unchanged for quite a few years.... Entities that change are not preserving anything - we say it has not survived if we cannot find any duplicates of it anywhere.
The point is to survive? but then if it evolves it does not actually survive, the original design is lost....
dust1n
Zindīq
Wow, must be setting the standards high when creationists are aiming at the FAQ on websites. Have they considered a peer reviewed paper in a biology journal yet?
First Baseman
Retired athlete
Even if whales do have leg bones evolution is not proved. You haven't proven that whales ever existed on land, that is simply an assumption.
Why didn't they also evolve gills to breathe the water? Why did they go to the water in the first place? The answers to these questions and questions like them are all based on assumption only.
Why didn't they also evolve gills to breathe the water? Why did they go to the water in the first place? The answers to these questions and questions like them are all based on assumption only.
First Baseman
Retired athlete
Show us a paper that isn't biased toward evolution instead of assuming it. Do any such papers exist in your journals? No, because the journal's editors would not publish creationist's papers because of bias. Did you not know this?
dust1n
Zindīq
Alright, let's just take a lookyyyy...
5.1.1.3, “Tragopogon”
Summary: Two plant species could hybridize into populations showing
small scale changes compared to the “parent species the
greatest of which is color changes of the kind well known within
plants. Since hybrids are “extremely sterile,” it does not seem
that speciation has occurred."
I already have a retort, but mine as well dig in.
"The FAQ states that “Owenby (1950) demonstrated that two species in this genus were produced
by polyploidization from hybrids.”
Again, the notion that plants can hybridize is nothing new.
And it is noteworthy that in this case, we’re hybridizing two species
that are already within the same genus in other words, they were already thought to be highly similar and closely related.
But do hybrids show the production of a “new species”? During plant hybridization, the genomes of two plants merge. Even under an evolutionary paradigm, such hybridization would likely be interpreted as two species which recently diverged coming together to form a hybrid.
If anything, it would seem to entail collapse, loss, and decrease of diversity rather than the generation of new diversity."
Well, if you are dumb, it would entail that. A hybridization is an increase of diversity. Any offspring is. If it is in anyway different from the parents, then diversity is being increased... Let's move on...
"Indeed, Owenby (1950) indicates that new traits are no
t necessarily being generated.
Thus,
Owenby finds that the hybrids simply contained a mix of the dominant traits from the two parent
species:
“They combine certain dominant characteristics derived from the parents involved, and on this basis form three additional classes. In most features, they are not intermediate, but display are combination of the characteristics which mark their parents.”
Such examples of hybridization don’t necessarily show that something “new” has been created,
but rather seem to show that pre existing traits are perpetuated.
Indeed, in this case, Owenby (1950) also observed that “All three hybrid combinations are
extremely sterile,” leading to questions about their viability.
The sterility of the hybrids implies
that functionality is being lost in this process of hybridization leading to questions about whether
this is a viable mechanism for speciation.
The FAQ boasts that “[e]vidence from chloroplast DNA
suggests that T. mirus has originated independently by hybridization in eastern Washington and western Idaho at least three ti mes (Soltis and Soltis 1989).” But this mundane point was also obvious from Owenby (1950)’s paper,
which stated “Wherever any two of the three introduced diploid species grow together, natural
hybrids can be expected.”
The ease with which these species hybridize implies they are already
closely related, and what we’re seeing is loss of pre existing diversity."
http://www.discovery.org/f/8411
Wow.. that's the best argument. the false assumption that their no hybrids that can breed, and apparent lack of understanding of the word diversity, and the general, few, selective quote mining from a study.
Grant listed six mechanisms by which the breeding behavior of
hybrids could be stabilized, thus providing the potential for speciation:
1. asexual reproduction;
2. permanent translocation heterozygosity;
3. permanent odd polyploidy;
4. allopolyploidy;
5. the stabilization of a rare hybrid segregate isolated by postmating barriers;
6. the stabilization of a rare hybrid segregate isolated by premating barriers.
The first three of these mechanisms generate flocks of clonal or uniparental
microspecies that span the range of morphological variability between the
parental species. Sexual reproduction among microspecies is limited or ab-
sent, making it difficult to discuss their origin and evolution in the context
of sexual isolation and speciation. By contrast, the latter three mechanisms
generate sexual derivatives and therefore have the potential to give rise to new
biological species.
http://www.botany.wisc.edu/courses/...ieseberg 1997 Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst.pdf
Why am I suppose to go through these retorts seriously as if they are even going to make a dent in any actual science, again?
And yeah, also not fun retrieving the text from PDF's for other people.
idea
Question Everything
Still waiting....
Here is the definition of "survive"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/survive
ull Definition of SURVIVE
intransitive verb
1
: to remain alive or in existence : live on
2
: to continue to function or prosper
If a new species comes about, and the old species ceases to exist - then the old species has not survived.
The meaning of life is not mere survival, it is progression.
The rocks survive longer than we do... we don't spend our lives trying to survive, we spend our time trying to progress.
Why do we try to progress?
Here is the definition of "survive"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/survive
ull Definition of SURVIVE
intransitive verb
1
: to remain alive or in existence : live on
2
: to continue to function or prosper
If a new species comes about, and the old species ceases to exist - then the old species has not survived.
The meaning of life is not mere survival, it is progression.
The rocks survive longer than we do... we don't spend our lives trying to survive, we spend our time trying to progress.
Why do we try to progress?