Evolution: Do you see the resemblence

[fantome profane]

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.

Then just cite your reference, that is all I am asking. Where does this come from? You still haven’t told us. If it was an honest mistake, fine. I have made many mistakes in my life. But this one can be so easily rectified if you will just tell us where you copied this from. It will take you mere seconds to do so and then I won’t have any more straws to pull at.

Where did you copy this from?

 

[England my lionheart]

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



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.


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

OK ,first i would like to know which species have been observed to evolve,and please tell me how it is the cornerstone ecology,archeology etc do doctors now take the evolutionists oath instead of Hypochrates.

 

[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?

Uh, 4, predictions is what science is all about. That's what scientific theories do, they make predictions. When the predictions are confirmed, so is the theory. That's kind of basic how-science-works stuff. So, yeah, micro-evolution + time + thousands upon thousands of confirmed predictions = ToE. That's exactly how it works.

Yes, a claim isn't verified on its own. That's why I've posted (and am not near done) page after page of VERIFICATION, exactly what you claim you're looking for. But, as I say, only a creationist can look right at something and deny it's there. It's a real skill.

I already gave you a lovely example of a a specific mutation producing a specific new functionality in a specific organism, creating a new species. Do you need more?

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.

You don't seem to understand what "falsification" means. Do you need me to explain it to you? hint: It's a theoretical, not actual, concept. The reason that ToE hasn't been falsified is that it's correct; that's why all of modern biology accepts and is based on it. All evolutionary biologists view evolution as a fact because it is one.

The fossil record is far from complete. Please don't put words in people's mouths. How could it be? Fossils are so rare.

Someone in this thread gave you a whole long list of potential falsifications of ToE, which you are ignoring. It's that creationist thing, denying the existence of something we can all see right here in this thread. What happens after a while is that you destroy your credibility, just like every creationist website on the internet.

"What elephant? Why can't someone show me an elephant? There is no elephant in this thread."

 

[Autodidact]

Then just cite your reference, that is all I am asking. Where does this come from? You still haven’t told us. If it was an honest mistake, fine. I have made many mistakes in my life. But this one can be so easily rectified if you will just tell us where you copied this from. It will take you mere seconds to do so and then I won’t have any more straws to pull at.

Where did you copy this from?

He stole it from here which is part of this which, as far as I can tell, seems to be the pet project of one right-wing extremist Christian with no credentials in anything.

 

[England my lionheart]

I am no scientist and i do not claim to be but just because some biologists say this is probably what happened,Arsenal will probably win the premier league but until the end of the season if they are top they have done so.
The difference between the toe and relativity is the latter helped to blow up half of japan whereas toe errrrrrrrm let me think er blast i cannot think of anything concrete.
So i would dearly love to see the transitional fossils as i read darwins book when i was a child and almost believed it except that it is flawed by the fact it cannot be proven to be fact.

 

[Autodidact]

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.

I don't. When I cite something, I give the cite. For several reasons: Otherwise it's illegal. You can verify it yourself (just like science). It gives credit where credit is due. It retains my credibility when I'm honest about what are my words and what someone elses. And it is consistent with forum rules.

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.

It's irrelevant to the strength of his position, but it's wrong and he needs to stop doing it, as do you. Also once I track down the places where you get this crap, we can all see that they're very, very weak. I cite things like wiki, Encyclopedia--neutral, scientific sources.

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

Lionheart, like you, knows almost nothing about science. Hey, it's no crime. A few years ago, neither did I. Ignorance can always be rectified. Until it is, though, it's a weak weapon indeed.

 

[England my lionheart]

For those interested All about science is where i got the paste so have a look.

 

[England my lionheart]

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ still waiting for an answer maybe i've got time to play golf

 

[roli]

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.

Many features of a crocodile, but of course, it is proof of one species evolving into another.

Who really knows ,what guess work at best to assume this sufficient evidence to prove anything, ...next !

 

[England my lionheart]

Many features of a crocodile, but of course, it is proof of one species evolving into another.

Who really knows ,what guess work at best to assume this sufficient evidence to prove anything, ...next !

Oh it looks like a crocodile

 

[Autodidact]

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ still waiting for an answer maybe i've got time to play golf

Here was my answer:

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.

Here was painted wolf's answer:

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.

Elephant? What elephant? Zzzzzzt. No one has posted a picture of an elephant in this thread yet.

 

[painted wolf]

Here a couple of well known instances of specieation that have been obeserved.

1. The Giant Evening Primrose, Oenothera gigas, arose from Lamarck's Evening Primrose O. lamarckiana, through polyploidy, in that the former has twice as many chromosomes as its parents (2N=28 versus 2N=14).
2. The Kew Primrose Primula kewensis arose from fertile tetraploid mutants from an otherwise sterile hybrid cross between P. floribunda and P. verticillata.
3. The Honeysuckle Maggot Fly, Rhagoletis mendax × zephyria, of North America, is descended from a hybrid between Snowberry Maggot Flies and Blueberry Maggot Flies around 250 years ago, and has been afflicting imported European honeysuckle vines used as ornamental plants in Eastern North America ever since. It was determined to be a hybrid species when scientists recreated new honeysuckle maggot flies by breeding the two parent species in laboratories.
4. The mosquito species Culex molestus lives only in the underground of the British city of London, having descended from a population of the species C. pipiens that was stranded there over a century ago. The two species are physically and genetically similar, but can not interbreed, and prefer different prey (the former prefers humans and rodents whereas the latter prefers birds).
5. Molecular tests done on the rare desert sunflower species Helianthus anomalis and H. deserticola show that they are descendants of diploid hybrids between the two widespread species, H. annuus and H. petiolaris.

If you don't know how evolution helps modern medicine, you haven't been paying attention to viruses like HIV/AIDS or to Genetic therapy or to the use of Genetic evolution to trace the inheritance of disease... or to the use of animal models for medical investigation....
and on and on.
go to any online medical journal and type in "evolution" and see what happens.

actually here go look:
MerckMedicus : Search Results
PubMed Home

here are some more examples of specieation in action:

• The Larus gulls form a ring species around the North Pole.
• The Ensatina salamanders, which form a ring round the Central Valley in California.
• The Greenish Warbler (Phylloscopus trochiloides), around the Himalayas.
• wheat
• Salsify or goatsbeard
• Cichlids of Lake Victoria, Lake Tanganyika and Lake Malawi
• Xenopus laevis, an African frog

from wikipedia.

hope you find these helpful and educational.

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

Tiktaalik isn't a crocodile... it has very few croc features.

What it does have are amphibian and fish features.
It has fish scales, an amphibian head, neck and ribs and limbs between a fish and an amphibian.
meet Tiktaalik and see for yourself. Tiktaalik roseae: The Search for Tiktaalik

It is easy to dismiss evidence when you don't have the educational background to know what you are looking at. I suggest that rather than simply dismissing this fossil you educate yourself and actually look at it.

wa:do

 

[England my lionheart]

Many features of a crocodile, but of course, it is proof of one species evolving into another.

Who really knows ,what guess work at best to assume this sufficient evidence to prove anything, ...next !

This is good news if it is transitional and will go far if it is,have they done any dna tests on it yet so that we know that is transitional or just a seperate species that like many others became extinct.

 

[painted wolf]

lol

So EmL... I guess you subscribe to the idea of a kind.

Perhaps you will tell me what a kind is as no other creationist has a definition.

wa:do

 

[England my lionheart]

Tiktaalik isn't a crocodile... it has very few croc features.

What it does have are amphibian and fish features.
It has fish scales, an amphibian head, neck and ribs and limbs between a fish and an amphibian.
meet Tiktaalik and see for yourself. Tiktaalik roseae: The Search for Tiktaalik

It is easy to dismiss evidence when you don't have the educational background to know what you are looking at. I suggest that rather than simply dismissing this fossil you educate yourself and actually look at it.

wa:do

Obviously an engineering degree is'nt great but i get by.Anyway to your fossil i say yes it is interesting and there aught to be millions more and more recent as then it would be possible to do a dna test on it which would be interesting.

 

[painted wolf]

why should there be any more recent?

wa:do

 

[Quoth The Raven]

Many features of a crocodile, but of course, it is proof of one species evolving into another.

Who really knows ,what guess work at best to assume this sufficient evidence to prove anything, ...next !

What guesswork at best to assume that one mythology on a single book sufficient evidence to prove anything. At least it's some form of physical evidence...we'll have some of that if you've got any. You can leave out the stuff like irreducible complexity and anything else that's been proven to be bollocks if you like.

 

[painted wolf]

as an engineer you should look at Tiktaalik and see the intermediate nature in the shapes of the bones and the collection of features.

I don't expect you to understand all the details of genetics and mutations and so on, but to look at Tiktaalik and dismiss it as anything but an intermediary between the fish and the amphibian is unthinkable for an educated individual who isn't a biblical literalist.

wa:do

 

[Quoth The Raven]

Obviously an engineering degree is'nt great but i get by.Anyway to your fossil i say yes it is interesting and there aught to be millions more and more recent as then it would be possible to do a dna test on it which would be interesting.

Why ought there be millions more? Fossilisation requires specific conditions, it's not like the kid next door going out and coating every dead thing in sight in plaster of Paris and calling it good. This reminds me of the guy why tried to say that if there really was a plague of locusts like it said in the bible, there should be fossil evidence.
What would you expect to gain from a DNA test, exactly?