Evolution: Do you see the resemblence

[9-10ths_Penguin]

To say that only biologists can provide evidence pro or against toe is nonsense especially when you have a scientist of the calibre of Mr Einstein saying the Earth did'nt come about by a throw of the dice.

Einstein's quote ("God does not play dice") was made specifically in response to the idea implied by some quantum physics theories that certain events at the subatomic level might not just be unpredictable (as claimed by Heisenberg's Uncertainty Theory) but actually random and unrepeatable.

He was not making a statement about the origins of life or evolution, or even that God has laid out some sort of plan for humanity, he was stating his opinion that all events, even quantum-level events, have causes.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I assume from your other posts that by “evolution” you mean macro-evolution, ...

The Evolution of Biological Complexity

 

[England my lionheart]

It is very easy to search the net and find some garbage to support your assertions and then just copy and past it here. But if you are going to do that the very least you should do is cite a reference!

What you are doing is plagiarism! It is unethical, annoying, and I think it is against forum rules.

OK i copied and pasted that but i think it explains it well,anyway how about this,the gaps in the fossil record have'nt been filled and there is a good reason for that its because there are'nt any they are the missing missing links.
Darwin himself said that there should be many transitional fossils and there simply is'nt,all that has been produced has been proven wrong like piltdown man hoax,Nebraska man the single tooth found was a pigs tooth,the australin fossils were found to be apes and neanderthal and cro-magnan man are homosapiens.
So my question to you is simple ,can you tell me anything you know about evolution,any one thing that is true? this is a good question and one asked by a prominent evolutionist Colin patterson, he actually recieved no answer can you answer it.

 

[England my lionheart]

Einstein's quote ("God does not play dice") was made specifically in response to the idea implied by some quantum physics theories that certain events at the subatomic level might not just be unpredictable (as claimed by Heisenberg's Uncertainty Theory) but actually random and unrepeatable.

He was not making a statement about the origins of life or evolution, or even that God has laid out some sort of plan for humanity, he was stating his opinion that all events, even quantum-level events, have causes.

Of course he was'nt in any way religious i know that.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Is there a link between these 2 species ?

BEFORE​

AFTER

After the mating of the species:

 

[Autodidact]

Sorry for the delay, had to have supper few freinds around.
First i agree with you science is about evidence which is lacking in the case of toe as if it was say like the theory of relativity that dear old albert proved and made him a household name whereas the modern supporters of toe unlike albert who's theory was
actually proven or tesla who's theorys we are using every day of our lives cannot prove it.
It's all very well saying evidence this and that but the bottom dollar is proof,in England we hung a poor chap as he was found guilty with far more evidence than toe followers have yet he was later found to be innocent.
Yes i agree people should stick to the facts and as for fossils cool if you have found something new which i doubt you sadly lack facts.

Have you been reading the thread at all? I've been patiently laying out the various lines of evidence, one at a time, with no comment from you, and I'm not done yet. I doubt that you even know what the evidence is that you so blithely claim is not enough. For some reason it was enough to persuade the greatest minds in science--virtually all of them Christian and creationist--a hundred years ago. Why do you think that is?

There is much more evidence for ToE than for the theory of relativity. Did you know that the actual evidence that persuaded most physicists and astronomers to accept the theory of relativity consisted of a single observation? One. Uno. I'm getting more and more irritated with people who don't know what they're talking about, but know that they know more than the world's scientists about whose work they know next to nothing.

 

[roli]

It is very easy to search the net and find some garbage to support your assertions and then just copy and past it here. But if you are going to do that the very least you should do is cite a reference!

What you are doing is plagiarism! It is unethical, annoying, and I think it is against forum rules.

So do you think that advocates of evolution don't do exactly what your accusing lionheart of,it's just that they may be more masterful at what they do and that they either retain it or just gather information store it and relate from what professionals are spewing.It's done all over this forum, are you ignorant of this fact or just looking to exploit who you can for anything you can.

So lionheart failed to incorporate his references, as I have ignorantly done so and you exploit it for no other purpose, but to aid in supporting you position.Does this vaidate you somewhat before your supporters, it sure seems so.

Loinheart brings some excellent opposition to this thread and it seem's you grasp at straws to tear him down.

 

[England my lionheart]

So do you think that advocates of evolution don't do exactly what your accusing lionheart of,it's just that they may be more masterful at what they do and that they either retain it or just gather information store it and relate from what professionals are spewing.It's done all over this forum, are you ignorant of this fact or just looking to exploit who you can for anything you can.

So lionheart failed to incorporate his references, as I have ignorantly done so and you exploit it for no other purpose, but to aid in supporting you position.Does this vaidate you somewhat before your supporters, it sure seems so.

Loinheart brings some excellent opposition to this thread and it seem's you grasp at straws to tear him down.

Exacly straws

 

[camanintx]

A) Verification of macro-evolution

Despite all the conjectures in your previous posts, you have yet to give us ANY verifiable evidence for MACRO-evolution.* All you've given us an appeal to micro-evolution, and a claim that micro-evolution + time and predictions = macro-evolution.* But again, the issue is VERIFICATION, a mere claim isn't one.* Besides, your appeal to micro-evolution is nothing but the fallacy of illicit conversion.* Can you give us a clear example of NEW GENETIC INFO being produced naturally which created a new organ or a new functionality on an organism, resulting in a new specie of it?

If you wanted to run a marathon and went to your doctor for a physical first, would he make you run 26 miles before signing off that your fit to do it? He would probably just make you run on a treadmill for a few minutes to see if there is anything that would prevent you from going the full distance.

In the same manner, biologists don't sit around waiting for changes that took nature millions of years to accomplish. Instead they look for anything that would prevent the little changes we do see from adding up to the big changes we believe they are capable of.

That is precisely the point! I am glad evolutionist is beginning to admit their theory is flawed. The reason the observable micro-evolution cannot be extrapolated as the basis for the Unobservable macro-evolution is because it is genetically impossible.* Micro-evolution involves either maintenance or LOSS of genetic information between species.* Whereas, macro-evolution requires NEW genetic information to create the varying organs we see different animals have.* IOW, evolutions reliance on mutation and natural selection can only give you loss of sight or flight for example, but not new functionalities and organs resulting to new genetic information.

You have already contradicted yourself with this argument that micro-evolution involves either maintenance or LOSS of genetic information. In Post 359 you said that copies of existing genetic information are not "new genetic information" so an organism with repeated DNA sequences does not contain any more "genetic information" than one with only a single copy. in Post 312 you accepted that frame shifting could change entire sequences of "genetic information" in a single mutation. Now if we connect these two thoughts, an organism with repeated DNA sequences can change one of those sequences into "new genetic information" through a simple frame shift mutation.

 

[ericmurphy]

I questioned the application of your own criteria to Evolution itself, and I personally find it wanting and therefore is hard-pressed at considering MACRO-evolution as science.[/FONT][/COLOR]

Look, you can address my refutation of your claim that evolutionary theory is unfalsifiable, or you can let it stand. It's up to you. I gave you 27 falsifiable predictions made by the theory. You can address each and every one of them, or you have no choice but to admit that you were wrong on this point.

Despite all the conjectures in your previous posts, you have yet to give us ANY verifiable evidence for MACRO-evolution.

You mean, other than the 27 confirmed predictions made by the theory. Yes, other than those 27 confirmed predictions, I haven't given you any evidence.

All you've given us an appeal to micro-evolution, and a claim that micro-evolution + time and predictions = macro-evolution.

I didn't even mention microevolution. Every single prediction I listed is a prediction of macroevolutionary theory.

But again, the issue is VERIFICATION, a mere claim isn't one.* Besides, your appeal to micro-evolution is nothing but the fallacy of illicit conversion.* Can you give us a clear example of NEW GENETIC INFO being produced naturally which created a new organ or a new functionality on an organism, resulting in a new specie of it?

Those predictions have all been confirmed. List which ones you think have not been. All of them are predictions of macroevolution. Address the predictions, or admit you cannot.

I can't give you a clear example of "new genetic information" until you can define what "genetic information" is. I'm not going to give you a bunch of examples, and then have you say, "that's not new genetic information." Until you provide an actual definition of what you mean by "genetic information," there's nothing to discuss.

Falsification of macro-evolution
Because many, if not most, evolutionary scientists view their theory as "fact" it has become virtually impossible to falsify macro-evolution.* Again, for example, one known problem of this view is the Cambrian Explosion.* While you may claim that "the fossil record is complete", the Cambrian Explosion falsifies that.* It is precisely because of this problem in the fossil record that devout evolutionists like Stephen Jay Gould have invented a mechanism to explain CE away, i.e. the theory of Punctuated Equillibrium, just to keep evolution coherent.

First, "evolution" is different from the theory of evolution. That evolution happens is established fact. Evolutionary theory is an attempt to explain that fact.

Second, no one in their right mind claims the fossil record is "complete." There's no mystery as to why fossils from before the Cambrian explosion half a billion years old are rare.

So: are you going to demonstrate that none of the 27 examples I gave are actual predictions of macroevolutionary theory? Or that they cannot be falsified? Or that they have not been confirmed? I don't think you can.

And I know you can't give a coherent definition of "genetic information," one which can be measured, or you would have done so by now.

 

[Autodidact]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]A transitional fossil is the fossil remains of a creature that exhibits primitive traits in comparison with the more derived life-forms it is related to. According to evolutionary theory, a transitional form represents an evolutionary stage.[74] <snip plagiarized creationist lies>[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The predicted large numbers of fossil intermediate forms were never found.[11][/FONT]

As I have told roli, you need to stop plagiarizing creationist websites. First, it's illegal and against forum rules, and I will start requesting mod action now that I've warned you. Second, all creationist websites lie. I CAN PROVE IT TO YOU. And this one is no exception. Every actual paleontologist knows that the museums are full of transitional fossils, and the creationist claim that they don't exist is a pure, out and out, lie. If you don't want to become a liar yourself, I strongly advise you to stop quoting them. You guy won't even put him name to his lies.

Although fossils are very rare, we nonetheless have extensive listings of transitionals forms for many sequences, including fish to amphibians to reptiles to birds, horses, whales, primates to humans, and many more. It doesn't mean that there are no gaps in the record; there are many. The gaps are places where we haven't yet found that particular species.

Here's what wiki, which I hope you will agree is an unbiased source, says:
Transitional fossils are the fossilized remains of transitional forms of life that illustrate an evolutionary transition. They can be identified by their retention of certain primitive (plesiomorphic) traits in comparison with their more derived relatives, as they are defined in the study of cladistics. "Missing link" is a popular term for transitional forms. Numerous examples exist, including those of primates and early humans.
According to modern evolutionary theory, all populations of organisms are in transition and a "transitional form" is a recognition of a form that vividly represents a particular evolutionary stage. [see how I cited the source? That's what makes it legal and ethical.]
Remember when I said that creationists have the amazing ability to look right at something and deny it's there? Here's one they're doing that with right now.

Tiktaalik rosae. It's a beauty of a transitional fossil, discovered only a few years ago. Google it.


In any case, as I say, I haven't turned to the fossil record yet, which completely decimates YEC and supports evolution, so I wouldn't go there if I were you.

 

[Autodidact]

There is a problem for both sides of this argument ie creationist and toe in that they are ideas not facts are not only something agreed within a small proffesional body but something understood by all.
To say that only biologists can provide evidence pro or against toe is nonsense especially when you have a scientist of the calibre of Mr Einstein saying the Earth did'nt come about by a throw of the dice.
Biology has done a lot for mankind but until there is prof to show the world it shoud not be bandid about as actual fact.

Well, I've cited quite a few facts. Do you deny them?
Einstein?!? Einstein?!? Are you trying to argue that Einstein denied ToE? Because I assure you you're quite wrong.
Please please try to remember that no one here is arguing against the existence of God (in whom Einstein did not believe). This thread assumes there is a God. We could move a lot quicker if people would grasp and retain some basics here.

Evolution is a fact. Read your Encyclopedia Britannica, cited in this very thread.

 

[Autodidact]

I questioned the application of your own criteria to Evolution itself, and I personally find it wanting and therefore is hard-pressed at considering MACRO-evolution as science.

A) Verification of macro-evolution

Despite all the conjectures in your previous posts, you have yet to give us ANY verifiable evidence for MACRO-evolution.* All you've given us an appeal to micro-evolution, and a claim that micro-evolution + time and predictions = macro-evolution.* But again, the issue is VERIFICATION, a mere claim isn't one.* Besides, your appeal to micro-evolution is nothing but the fallacy of illicit conversion.* Can you give us a clear example of NEW GENETIC INFO being produced naturally which created a new organ or a new functionality on an organism, resulting in a new specie of it?

B) Falsification of macro-evolution

Because many, if not most, evolutionary scientists view their theory as "fact" it has become virtually impossible to falsify macro-evolution.* Again, for example, one known problem of this view is the Cambrian Explosion.* While you may claim that "the fossil record is complete", the Cambrian Explosion falsifies that.* It is precisely because of this problem in the fossil record that devout evolutionists like Stephen Jay Gould have invented a mechanism to explain CE away, i.e. the theory of Punctuated Equillibrium, just to keep evolution coherent.

I know you're not talking to me, because the evidence I'm citing in this thread is all about the Grand Theory of Evolution, which you for some reason persist in calling "macro-evolution," a completely erroneous use of the term.

The Cambrian explosion is NOT evidence against ToE. If you believe that it is, please explain how.

Inventing theories is what scientists do. And yes, S.J. Gould invented Punk Eek to keep ToE correct. That's how science works. Do you hate all science, or just Biology?

By "micro-evolution" do you mean evolution up to and including species, or only within a species?

 

[Autodidact]

That is precisely the point! I am glad evolutionist is beginning to admit their theory is flawed. The reason the observable micro-evolution cannot be extrapolated as the basis for the Unobservable macro-evolution is because it is genetically impossible.* Micro-evolution involves either maintenance or LOSS of genetic information between species.* Whereas, macro-evolution requires NEW genetic information to create the varying organs we see different animals have.* IOW, evolutions reliance on mutation and natural selection can only give you loss of sight or flight for example, but not new functionalities and organs resulting to new genetic information.

* I assume from your other posts that by “evolution” you mean macro-evolution, the molecules-to-man theory, correct me if I’m wrong.* Well for you to VERIFY for us this theory you will have to show evidence that organism can change genetically from simple organisms to more complex organisms that we human beings are.

You're once again mistaken. It doesn't mean the theory is flawed, it means that you either don't understand it, or are deliberately misunderstanding it. Which?

 

[Autodidact]

Here&#8217;s another classic example of a bluff, pretending to know more than what s/he could handle &#8211; resulting to appeal to ignorance - scrambling for help.

It is here: Call for help on another forum: "information" - Rants 'n Raves



Just so we know.

No problem. I think I have said in this very thread, or a related thread, that my scientific background is weak, and my expertise is in explaining things. Do you think it's a bad idea to bring in more knowledgeable people? I think it's helpful to everybody, don't you?

And thanks to my friend eric for joining us here; I hope everyone benefits from his expertise.

Even I, who know almost nothing about information theory, know that it doesn't make sense to deny that something exists if you don't define it.

 

[Autodidact]

Einstein's quote ("God does not play dice") was made specifically in response to the idea implied by some quantum physics theories that certain events at the subatomic level might not just be unpredictable (as claimed by Heisenberg's Uncertainty Theory) but actually random and unrepeatable.

He was not making a statement about the origins of life or evolution, or even that God has laid out some sort of plan for humanity, he was stating his opinion that all events, even quantum-level events, have causes.

And btw and OT, he turned out to be wrong.

 

[England my lionheart]

Have you been reading the thread at all? I've been patiently laying out the various lines of evidence, one at a time, with no comment from you, and I'm not done yet. I doubt that you even know what the evidence is that you so blithely claim is not enough. For some reason it was enough to persuade the greatest minds in science--virtually all of them Christian and creationist--a hundred years ago. Why do you think that is?

There is much more evidence for ToE than for the theory of relativity. Did you know that the actual evidence that persuaded most physicists and astronomers to accept the theory of relativity consisted of a single observation? One. Uno. I'm getting more and more irritated with people who don't know what they're talking about, but know that they know more than the world's scientists about whose work they know next to nothing.

You always get like this when you are cornered i will ask the question again and try and make it easier for you to understand,no i will just expect that you understand English,can you tell me anything about evolution that is true just one thing.
I hope you understood that ,now i am just going to eat a very nice chilli and watch the football results

 

[roli]

I questioned the application of your own criteria to Evolution itself, and I personally find it wanting and therefore is hard-pressed at considering MACRO-evolution as science.

A) Verification of macro-evolution

Despite all the conjectures in your previous posts, you have yet to give us ANY verifiable evidence for MACRO-evolution.* All you've given us an appeal to micro-evolution, and a claim that micro-evolution + time and predictions = macro-evolution.* But again, the issue is VERIFICATION, a mere claim isn't one.* Besides, your appeal to micro-evolution is nothing but the fallacy of illicit conversion.* Can you give us a clear example of NEW GENETIC INFO being produced naturally which created a new organ or a new functionality on an organism, resulting in a new specie of it?

B) Falsification of macro-evolution

Because many, if not most, evolutionary scientists view their theory as "fact" it has become virtually impossible to falsify macro-evolution.* Again, for example, one known problem of this view is the Cambrian Explosion.* While you may claim that "the fossil record is complete", the Cambrian Explosion falsifies that.* It is precisely because of this problem in the fossil record that devout evolutionists like Stephen Jay Gould have invented a mechanism to explain CE away, i.e. the theory of Punctuated Equillibrium, just to keep evolution coherent.

I appreciate your insight, you really bring a fresh perspective to this thread at and more than that you seemingly pose a threat to what you bring. Beautiful !!

 

[Autodidact]

You always get like this when you are cornered i will ask the question again and try and make it easier for you to understand,no i will just expect that you understand English,can you tell me anything about evolution that is true just one thing.
I hope you understood that ,now i am just going to eat a very nice chilli and watch the football results

Have you read the thread? I've posted page after page of true things about ToE. The whole theory is true. Here. Here's the core:

New species derive from old species by descent with modification plus natural selection.

I try to be very careful with my credibility. If you can find anything, in the pages of information I've given you, that is false or unsupported? If so I will gladly retract it. There really are lemurs on Madagascar. Bat wings really do use different bones from bird wings--I gave you a picture. You really do have the same number of bones in your hand as a whale does in its flipper. Every living thing can be organized into a nested hierarchy. Etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. Of these small facts is science built, like a building out of bricks. You have to put them in order to make use of them.

 

[painted wolf]

OK i copied and pasted that but i think it explains it well,anyway how about this,the gaps in the fossil record have'nt been filled and there is a good reason for that its because there are'nt any they are the missing missing links.

here is a partial list... if you want more details or have specific questions feel free to ask

• Nautiloids to Ammonoids
  • Bactritids

• Fish to Amphibians
  • Tiktaalik roseae
  • Osteolepis
  • Eusthenopteron
  • Panderichthys
  • Elginerpeton
  • Obruchevichthys
  • Hynerpeton
  • Tulerpeton
  • Acanthostega
  • Ichthyostega
  • Pederpes finneyae
  • Eryops

• Amphibians to Amniotes (early reptiles)
  • Proterogyrinus
  • Limnoscelis
  • Tseajaia
  • Solenodonsaurus
  • Hylonomus
  • Paleothyris

• Synapsid (mammal-like "reptiles") to mammals
  • Protoclepsydrops
  • Clepsydrops
  • Dimetrodon
  • Procynosuchus
  • Thrinaxodon
  • Yanoconodon

• Diapsid reptiles to birds
  • Yixianosaurus
  • Pedopenna
  • Archaeopteryx
  • Changchengornis
  • Confuciusornis
  • Ichthyornis

• Evolution of whales
  • Pakicetus
  • Ambulocetus
  • Kutchicetus
  • Artiocetus
  • Aetiocetus
  • Dorudon
  • Basilosaurus
  • Eurhinodelphis
  • Mammalodon

• Evolution of the horse
  • Hyracotherium
  • Mesohippus
  • Parahippus
  • Merychippus
  • Pliohippus
  • Equus

• Non-human apes to modern humans
  • Pierolapithecus catalaunicus
  • Ardipithecus
  • Australopithecus
  • Homo rudolfensis
  • Homo habilis
  • Homo erectus

Darwin himself said that there should be many transitional fossils and there simply is'nt,all that has been produced has been proven wrong like piltdown man hoax,Nebraska man the single tooth found was a pigs tooth,the australin fossils were found to be apes and neanderthal and cro-magnan man are homosapiens.

I'm sorry you don't understand the history of Piltdown, or that Nabraska man was never more than a newspaper story and never accepted by science. I assume you are talking about Australopithicus next, and they are indeed hominids. And yes, hominids are apes. For Neanderthal to be Homo sapien requires a lot of ignoring the facts. Including Genetics.

So my question to you is simple ,can you tell me anything you know about evolution,any one thing that is true? this is a good question and one asked by a prominent evolutionist Colin patterson, he actually recieved no answer can you answer it.

yes, evolution has been tested, observed and scrutenized for over 100 years. Evolution is the cornerstone of modern medicine, genetics, biology, botany, ecology, geology, physics, astronomy and archeology.
species have been observed to evolve, this is a fact that all but the most rabidly anti-science groups admit.

wa:do