Evidence showing evolution from one species to another

[First Baseman]

"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:

The trouble with fossils like these is that the finders are assuming that the fossil only depicts the parts of one creature. Fossils are often of more than one creature's remains. The finders can create their skeleton any which way they choose, they can't prove that all of the bones in your picture are all from the same creature. Most everything in the excerpt you posted is just one assumption built on other assumptions.

And, once again, I do not deny that creatures experience small changes. Frankly, I've never seen a whale with legs and neither have you. We can go and gather bone fragments and fossil fragments and assemble them most any way we wish to. Assumptions made by learned people do not prove macro-evolution.

 

[Yorutenchi]

The point is to survive? but then if it evolves it does not actually survive, the original design is lost....

Thus evolution.

 

[dust1n]

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?

Of course I knew hundreds of thousands of scientists who all have their own lives and aspirations, often in conflict and competition for one another, are all able to set aside their differences to fraudulently perpetrate fake research to oppress the pious.

I suspect, I'm not going to find a report on the very broad topic plant hibernation that assumes that evolution is neither true nor false, not in the last fifty years at least. It's not for lack of trying. Creationists just never actually do any field research, or if they do, they probably aren't mentioning their creationism when talking about how a population of field mice are changing, or whatever.

 

[idea]

Thus evolution.

The entire premise of it is illogical.

 

[dust1n]

The trouble with fossils like these is that the finders are assuming that the fossil only depicts the parts of one creature. Fossils are often of more than one creature's remains. The finders can create their skeleton any which way they choose, they can't prove that all of the bones in your picture are all from the same creature.

So are you saying there are no real fossils. There has never been a successfully completed fossil before? Because, like a stack of 40 bones next to each other could potentially just be 40 random bones?

Most everything in the excerpt you posted is just one assumption built on other assumptions.

Like the Bible!

And, once again, I do not deny that creatures experience small changes.

How big of a change is too big? And then what evidence is there for this?

Frankly, I've never seen a whale with legs and neither have you.

Ah. Have you ever seen a virgin give birth?

We can go and gather bone fragments and fossil fragments and assemble them most any way we wish to. Assumptions made by learned people do not prove macro-evolution.

I'm sure they will.

Or

 

[Yorutenchi]

The entire premise of it is illogical.

Except it is supported by every observable piece of evidence.

 

[dust1n]

Prove they're liars.

On April 23, 2008, education board's Academic Excellence and Research Committee unanimously voted against allowing the ICR to issue science degrees citing "the institute’s program is infused with creationism and runs counter to conventions of science that hold that claims of supernatural intervention are not testable and therefore lie outside the realm of science."[41] On the following day the full Board unanimously voted against allowing the ICR to issue science degrees. The decision was "based the recommendation on two considerations:

1. ICR failed to demonstrate that the proposed degree program meets acceptable standards of science and science education.
2. The proposed degree is inconsistent with Coordinating Board rules which require the accurate labeling or designation of programs … Since the proposed degree program inadequately covers key areas of science, it cannot be properly designated either as 'science' or 'science education.'"[42]

The ICR said it would appeal the decision saying the Education Board was guilty of "viewpoint discrimination."[43] Instead, in April 2009, the ICR sued the THECB in federal court for imposing "an unconstitutional and prejudicial burden against ICRGS's academic freedom and religious liberties" and asked for the ability to award science degrees.[44][45] In June 2010, a judge ruled in favor of the Texas Higher Education saying the ICR "is entirely unable to file a complaint which is not overly verbose, disjointed, incoherent, maundering and full of irrelevant information."[46] The judge concluded, "The Court simply comes to the conclusion, which is inescapable, that the [THECB] decision was rationally related to a legitimate state interest."[47][48] In the September 2010 ICR newsletter, Henry Morris III, the ICR's chief executive officer, wrote "ICR's legal battle is over" after the Judge ruled in favor of the Texas Board.[49][50]

In 2010, the ICR board of directors voted to close the ICR Graduate School and open a School of Biblical Apologetics, offering a Master of Christian Education degree with Creation Research being one of four minors.[49][51] The ICR noted that "Due to the nature of ICR's School of Biblical Apologetics — a predominantly religious education school — it is exempt from licensing by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board.[49]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Creation_Research

The courts found out they lied about their schooling having "science" in it.

 

[idea]

Except it is supported by every observable piece of evidence.

Observable... I observe the constants of science - from the constant speed of light, to the constant forces bonding atoms to one another... The micro structures of quartz, iron, water etc. have not changed because the interaction potential between atoms does not change with time... I thought good science was supposed to be "repeatable". The idea of evolution goes against the constants of nature, and is not repeatable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_constant#Table_of_universal_constants

Tell me, if the atomic forces are not changing - if they are constant, why would you expect to see a changing micro structure?

 

[Yorutenchi]

Observable... I observe the constants of science - from the constant speed of light, to the constant forces bonding atoms to one another... The micro structures of quartz, iron, water etc. have not changed because the interaction potential between atoms does not change with time... I thought good science was supposed to be "repeatable". The idea of evolution goes against the constants of nature, and is not repeatable.

The concept of evolution only ever works because it is repeatable. You already admitted evolution exists. You have some issue with evolution making large changes. By what mechanism can small changes not amount to large changes?

 

[idea]

On April 23, 2008, .....

Is this coming down to a "who are the liars? debate?

The biologists have such a spot-filled record....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Bio-Test_Laboratories

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/24/science/24frau.html?_r=3&
At The Journal of Cell Biology, the test has revealed extensive manipulation of photos. Since 2002, when the test was put in place, 25 percent of all accepted manuscripts have had one or more illustrations that were manipulated in ways that violate the journal's guidelines,...

The above is a peer reviewed journal - and yet, even with peer review, 25% of it is fabricated and falsified...


concerning peer reviews...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2964337/

• Plagiarism (copying anther's work)
• Fabrication (made-up results)
• Falsification(manipulated results)

A real trustworthy bunch...

 

[idea]

The concept of evolution only ever works because it is repeatable. You already admitted evolution exists. You have some issue with evolution making large changes. By what mechanism can small changes not amount to large changes?

I think you are confusing me with someone else.... that, or you were unable to detect the satire in my posts...

 

[Yorutenchi]

I think you are confusing me with someone else.... that, or you were unable to detect the satire in my posts...

Are you not arguing against evolution?

 

[idea]

Here are my unanswered questions:

- Do you agree that there is a real entity which is "intelligence", that this thing "intelligence" does in fact exist, and does cause changes.

- Do you agree that physical constants exist? that the interaction potential of atoms does not change over time, and therefore atomic micro structures also do not change over time?

- Do you agree that good science is repeatable and reproducible. (repeatable is "each after their own kind".... this is what we actually observe)

- Do you agree that life is not "surviving", that everything dies, that the theory of evolution is actually a theory of extinction, not of survival?

- Do you agree that the biological sciences are filled with cases of scientific misconduct, fabrication and falsification of results? Do you understand why many people do not trust "peer reviewed" journals?

... goodnight everyone.

 

[First Baseman]

Of course I knew hundreds of thousands of scientists who all have their own lives and aspirations, often in conflict and competition for one another, are all able to set aside their differences to fraudulently perpetrate fake research to oppress the pious.

I suspect, I'm not going to find a report on the very broad topic plant hibernation that assumes that evolution is neither true nor false, not in the last fifty years at least. It's not for lack of trying. Creationists just never actually do any field research, or if they do, they probably aren't mentioning their creationism when talking about how a population of field mice are changing, or whatever.

If you really care about what the creationist scientists are doing ICR.org is a good place to find out.

 

[First Baseman]

On April 23, 2008, education board's Academic Excellence and Research Committee unanimously voted against allowing the ICR to issue science degrees citing "the institute’s program is infused with creationism and runs counter to conventions of science that hold that claims of supernatural intervention are not testable and therefore lie outside the realm of science."[41] On the following day the full Board unanimously voted against allowing the ICR to issue science degrees. The decision was "based the recommendation on two considerations:

1. ICR failed to demonstrate that the proposed degree program meets acceptable standards of science and science education.
2. The proposed degree is inconsistent with Coordinating Board rules which require the accurate labeling or designation of programs … Since the proposed degree program inadequately covers key areas of science, it cannot be properly designated either as 'science' or 'science education.'"[42]

The ICR said it would appeal the decision saying the Education Board was guilty of "viewpoint discrimination."[43] Instead, in April 2009, the ICR sued the THECB in federal court for imposing "an unconstitutional and prejudicial burden against ICRGS's academic freedom and religious liberties" and asked for the ability to award science degrees.[44][45] In June 2010, a judge ruled in favor of the Texas Higher Education saying the ICR "is entirely unable to file a complaint which is not overly verbose, disjointed, incoherent, maundering and full of irrelevant information."[46] The judge concluded, "The Court simply comes to the conclusion, which is inescapable, that the [THECB] decision was rationally related to a legitimate state interest."[47][48] In the September 2010 ICR newsletter, Henry Morris III, the ICR's chief executive officer, wrote "ICR's legal battle is over" after the Judge ruled in favor of the Texas Board.[49][50]

In 2010, the ICR board of directors voted to close the ICR Graduate School and open a School of Biblical Apologetics, offering a Master of Christian Education degree with Creation Research being one of four minors.[49][51] The ICR noted that "Due to the nature of ICR's School of Biblical Apologetics — a predominantly religious education school — it is exempt from licensing by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board.[49]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Creation_Research

The courts found out they lied about their schooling having "science" in it.

That sounds like anti-creation anti-religious bias typical of the scientific community to me. Their school didn't lie about science, they just refused to teach macro-evolution as fact. That'll get you banned every time. Anyone who would dare to challenge academia, especially macro-evolution gets slapped in the face because of bias.

Your excerpt just proves what I've been saying all along.

 

[dust1n]

Is this coming down to a "who are the liars? debate?

The biologists have such a spot-filled record....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Bio-Test_Laboratories

When hired by companies who stand to make a lot of money..

"According to a May 13 article in The Wall Street Journal, "investigators charged that three big chemical companies—[Monsanto, Olin Corporation, and FMC Corporation]—knowingly submitted flawed data to the EPA in support of a widely used swimming pool chlorinator that was suspected of causing kidney and bladder problems."[36]"

Lying to the government about the pool chlorinator you are trying to sale (about 20 in this case), because people stand to gain profit, is quite different than the 99% of the entire body of scientists agreeing on the evidence, in an instance where no one in particular stands anything to gain, and where any evidence to the contrary would make you bajillionaire and place one in the annuls of scientific history...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/24/science/24frau.html?_r=3&

At The Journal of Cell Biology, the test has revealed extensive manipulation of photos. Since 2002, when the test was put in place, 25 percent of all accepted manuscripts have had one or more illustrations that were manipulated in ways that violate the journal's guidelines,...

The above is a peer reviewed journal - and yet, even with peer review, 25% of it is fabricated and falsified...

You should consider reading the paragraph:

"At The Journal of Cell Biology, the test has revealed extensive manipulation of photos. Since 2002, when the test was put in place, 25 percent of all accepted manuscripts have had one or more illustrations that were manipulated in ways that violate the journal's guidelines, said Michael Rossner of Rockefeller University, the executive editor. The editor of the journal, Ira Mellman of Yale, said that most cases were resolved when the authors provided originals. "In 1 percent of the cases we find authors have engaged in fraud," he said."

concerning peer reviews...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2964337/

• Plagiarism (copying anther's work)
• Fabrication (made-up results)
• Falsification(manipulated results)

A real trustworthy bunch...

Ah you are right. They are basically as bad as a website that anyone in the world can create, talking about how evolution is wrong.

Unfortunately the study you provided had nothing to do with publications regarding evolution, but about stuff like drug companies influencing outcomes on product trials, etc.

 

[Yorutenchi]

Here are my unanswered questions:

- Do you agree that there is a real entity which is "intelligence", that this thing "intelligence" does in fact exist, and does cause changes.

There is no evidence for it no. I would say no.

- Do you agree that physical constants exist? that the interaction potential of atoms does not change over time, and therefore atomic micro structures also do not change over time?

They may or may not. As it seems that there are certain constants in the universe. But there are also changes in the universe as well. Irrelevant to evolution.

- Do you agree that good science is repeatable and reproducible. (repeatable is "each after their own kind".... this is what we actually observe)

Good science is about repetable observations. One does not have to have it in a lab for it to be science. If that were the case then cosmology wouldn't exist at all. Astro-physics, my favorite science, cannot by the very nature of what it is that they study, put it in a lab to see if it is correct. So no, science is not simply repitition. It is observation. If something is only to have been observed once then it is not evidence. But observing it over and over and over again millions of times is evidence and science.

- Do you agree that life is not "surviving", that everything dies, that the theory of evolution is actually a theory of extinction, not of survival?

You are alive. Your great grandfather is dead. But your genes and family still live on. Evolution is about what genes are passed on to the next generation.

- Do you agree that the biological sciences are filled with cases of scientific misconduct, fabrication and falsification of results? Do you understand why many people do not trust "peer reviewed" journals?

No. I do not believe that biology has been compromised in its integrity. I feel that there is a good many number of false science teachers and groups that are trying to usurp biology in an active disruption.

 

[dust1n]

That sounds like anti-creation anti-religious bias typical of the scientific community to me. Their school didn't lie about science, they just refused to teach macro-evolution as fact. That'll get you banned every time. Anyone who would dare to challenge academia, especially macro-evolution gets slapped in the face because of bias.

Incorrect. They found that the classes they labelled "science" agreeing to the standards set out by the "Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board" were indeed, not meeting up to those standards.

Your excerpt just proves what I've been saying all along.

That anyone who doesn't believe the infallible word of God is engaged in a mass conspiracy to keep people who insist on teaching about God in a science classroom down?

 

[dust1n]

Their school didn't lie about science, they just refused to teach macro-evolution as fact.

Also find it hilarious you would make this claim, considering you didn't go to the school in question, and would know absolutely knowing about it.

 

[Looncall]

The trouble with fossils like these is that the finders are assuming that the fossil only depicts the parts of one creature. Fossils are often of more than one creature's remains. The finders can create their skeleton any which way they choose, they can't prove that all of the bones in your picture are all from the same creature. Most everything in the excerpt you posted is just one assumption built on other assumptions.

And, once again, I do not deny that creatures experience small changes. Frankly, I've never seen a whale with legs and neither have you. We can go and gather bone fragments and fossil fragments and assemble them most any way we wish to. Assumptions made by learned people do not prove macro-evolution.

Whales have pelvic and leg bones internally. The only sensible explanation is that their ancestors had legs.
You should bear in mind that scientists want to find out what actually happens. This is in stark contrast to superstition-riddled religious fanatics.