Evolution My ToE

[Subduction Zone]

Not saying that this is what Yourstrue would do, but we have all seen creationists that ask for papers, or find them themselves, and either just look for a couple of quotes that they think are damning (like if the word "maybe" or the phrase "could have been" is used), or they totally botch the interpretation and then get all indignant and defensive when they are corrected...

As I so often say they look for excuses not to accept the theory of evolution. They are not really interested in learning. If he was interested in a good presentation that a layman could understand with specific examples I would suggest AronRa's series on YouTube. He gives the evolution from single celled life to man, with quite a few side trips, but always progressing along our line of history. He gives very specific fossil species that support him. Have you see it? It is almost finished. He has just barely touched on Homo sapiens after more than forty videos in the series.

Here is the playlist link and I see that he just released video 48 out of 49:

Systematic Classification of Life - YouTube

 

[Polymath257]

Again, even if that were true, I'd like to see & understand the findings. So you say amphibians do show up in the genetic trees under a certain branch of fish. They do? Other than saying yes, I'd like to see more than the report -- but the analysis. Thanks.

Here's a few links. if you want more detailed information, you will have to go to the research papers. And, truthfully, until you understand the basics, you won't understand those papers.

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/museums-static/obl4he/vertebratediversity/Vertebrata_cladogram2.png
Phylogeny of the Basal Vertebrates (Fish)
DNA Sequencing Reveals that Coelacanths Weren’t the Missing Link Between Sea and Land | Science | Smithsonian Magazine

 

[Polymath257]

But isn't it in your view evolution including people's minds and desires that causes them to do bad things, and causes not so good mutations, sickness, and death? Including, of course, murder, rape, and torture in various aspects, such as war? What do you think? Isn't that "evolution"?

Not usually, NO.

 

[Polymath257]

I don't know what scientists think. What do you think?

They are considered related species. But that fits into evolution quite nicely.

Never heard of them. I'll have to look them up.

Well, they are certainly relevant to discussions of elephant evolution.

Why would it affect my views?

Well, because mastodons and mammoths are usually agreed to be kin to today's elephants. If humans and chimps are genetically closer than mastodons and modern elephants, that opens up the possibility of evolution between chimps and humans: that humans and chimps might actually be the 'same kind'.

Which leads to an important question. How do you know that chimps, gorillas, and humans are not all the 'same kind'? Give a *scientific* reason, not just a statement of belief based on the Bible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"Kinds" is a huge problem for creationists. They simply cannot justify calling elephants one kind when one includes known and obvious close relatives such as the mastodon and mammoths and deny that all great apes are one kind.

 

[YoursTrue]

Via projecting yours onto me... interesting.

The eventual outcome for all living things is death regardless of the how we got here.

Here is my question about that: apparently mankind is the only group of thinking organisms that claim to worship god, whatever god they design or choose. At least that's what I understand right now. Do you know of any other group of beings that have any interest in worship something they claim is greater than themselves?

 

[YoursTrue]

They are considered related species. But that fits into evolution quite nicely.



Well, they are certainly relevant to discussions of elephant evolution.



Well, because mastodons and mammoths are usually agreed to be kin to today's elephants. If humans and chimps are genetically closer than mastodons and modern elephants, that opens up the possibility of evolution between chimps and humans: that humans and chimps might actually be the 'same kind'.

Which leads to an important question. How do you know that chimps, gorillas, and humans are not all the 'same kind'? Give a *scientific* reason, not just a statement of belief based on the Bible.

What are the scientific reasons to believe that mankind is of the same kind as chimps? Of course, despite the idea they evolved from fish, they are supposedly not of the same kind. Now we can go around in circles about this I suppose, but I have been reading about dating methods and see that when volcanoes erupt the dating determination can be rather different from what it was before the eruption.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What are the scientific reasons to believe that mankind is of the same kind as chimps?

1. "kind" is ill-defined and can really be applied to any layer of the classification system.

2. The scientific evidence that chimps and humans share an ancestor is found in comparative anatomy and comparative genetics.

Of course, despite the idea they evolved from fish, they are supposedly not of the same kind

I'ld say that fish, chimps and homo sapiens are all of the "vertebrate kind".

Now we can go around in circles about this I suppose

And it will continue to go in circles until you properly define what a "kind" is in such a way that one can do an objective test to conclude if two random species are of the same "kind".

, but I have been reading about dating methods and see that when volcanoes erupt the dating determination can be rather different from what it was before the eruption.

If you don't use dating methods correctly, they are going to yield absurd results.

 

[Polymath257]

What are the scientific reasons to believe that mankind is of the same kind as chimps? Of course, despite the idea they evolved from fish, they are supposedly not of the same kind. Now we can go around in circles about this I suppose, but I have been reading about dating methods and see that when volcanoes erupt the dating determination can be rather different from what it was before the eruption.

Well, once again, the notion of 'kind' is not a scientific concept. It is a religious concept.

So the question is, if you use the concept of kind, why do you think that chimps and humans are a different kind, but the different types of elephants we know are the same?

Let's ask a different question: are all snakes of the same kind? How about all lizards? all bacteria?

How do you distinguish two kinds?

As for dating methods, each type has different constraints, based on how it works physically. So, for example, heating will often let the Argon escape and reset or modify the 'clock' for K-Ar dating. The result is an age that is too *young*. Also, you have to be careful since not all rocks will actually melt in a lava flow and those that do not will show an age for when they solidified and not for the lava flow. But geologists can determine when this type of thing happens.

 

[Polymath257]

Here is my question about that: apparently mankind is the only group of thinking organisms that claim to worship god, whatever god they design or choose. At least that's what I understand right now. Do you know of any other group of beings that have any interest in worship something they claim is greater than themselves?

Well, we haven't learned to communicate with any other animals in that detail, so at one level we simply do not know.

But we do know that elephants mourn for dead relatives, they have burial grounds, and are very social. Whether they picked up the human delusion for God-worship, we don't know.

Same for chimps. They have activities that have been interpreted as a type of proto-religion, with rituals. What they actually believe isn't something we can tell. Maybe they are smart enough not to have an interest in worshiping anything.

And I have no idea what is going through the heads of dolphins, yet another very intelligent species. They definitely are communicating with each other as they swim, but we have no idea what they are talking about. Is it just where the next fish are congregating? Or are they discussing metaphysics? We simply don't know. And again, maybe they are smart enough to avoid that type of mumbo-jumbo.

 

[Polymath257]

What are the scientific reasons to believe that mankind is of the same kind as chimps? Of course, despite the idea they evolved from fish, they are supposedly not of the same kind. Now we can go around in circles about this I suppose, but I have been reading about dating methods and see that when volcanoes erupt the dating determination can be rather different from what it was before the eruption.

This is a post I have used several times. I collected the
basic information for it.

1) Are you made of complex cells with internal organelles? If so, you are a eucaryote.

2) Do your cells have membranes made of lipids rather than walls made from glucosides and are they surrounded by an extracellular matrix composed of collagen and glycoproteins? Then you are an Animal.

3) During embryo development, does the blastopore (the first opening) become the anus? Then you are a Deuterostome.

4) Do you have a head, backbone, brain, red blood cells, and kidneys? Then you are a Vertebrate.

5) Are air-breathing, have hair, three ear bones, sweat glands, the ability to regulate internal temperature and specialized teeth? Then you are a Mammal.

6) Do you lack an epi-pubic bone and do females like you have a uterus which produces a placenta during pregnancy? Then you are a placental Mammal.

7) Do you have a collar bone, opposable fingers, a flat nail on fingers and toes, eye sockets made from bone, stereoscopic vision, an enlarged cerebral cortex? Then you are a Primate.

8) Do you have a narrow nose and downward pointed nostrils, broad rib cage, a fused frontal bone, convoluted cerebral hemispheres, a large brain for his size of mammal, color vision, a lack of tail, and a lack of cheek pouches? Then you are an Ape.

So, yes, if you are human, then you *are* an ape.

 

[Astrophile]

OK, what did sharks supposedly evolve from? I'm not sure of the way of the so-called branching explanation. I'll leave it there for the moment.

According to Evolution of fish - Wikipedia and Acanthodii - Wikipedia , the cartilaginous fishes are descended from the class Acanthodii, the so-called 'spiny sharks', which lived from the Early Silurian to the Permian period. 'Their (i.e. the acanthodians') close relation to modern cartilaginous fish can lead them to be considered "stem-sharks"', and, in particular, the fossil fish Doliodus 'appears to display a mosaic of shark and acanthodian features, making it a transitional fossil'.

The article says they are a species.

No, it doesn't. It says that 'Four new species of tropical sharks that use their fins to walk' have been discovered in the waters off northern Australia and New Guinea,and that these discoveries 'almost doubled the total number of known [species of] walking sharks to nine.' It does not say that sharks as a group form a single species.

In fact, according to Shark - Wikipedia , 'Sharks belong to the superorder Selachimorpha in the subclass Elasmobranchii in the class Chondrichthyes', and 'There are more than 470 species of sharks split across twelve orders, including four orders of sharks that have gone extinct.'

 

[YoursTrue]

In your opinion, what is the problem with peer review? Can you also explain what you think peer review is?

This article brings out many problems with peer review. Science Is Suffering Because of Peer Review’s Big Problems
Perhaps you will read it, perhaps not. But it's an eye-opener.

 

[YoursTrue]

This is a post I have used several times. I collected the
basic information for it.
...
8) Do you have a narrow nose and downward pointed nostrils, broad rib cage, a fused frontal bone, convoluted cerebral hemispheres, a large brain for his size of mammal, color vision, a lack of tail, and a lack of cheek pouches? Then you are an Ape.

So, yes, if you are human, then you *are* an ape.

chuckle. Says you. As well as scientists that believe that.
Again, lions are lions, humans are humans. Oh yes, and fish are fish. Lions are considered mammals since females suckle their young. So do humans. But humans are humans, apes are apes, and lions are lions who all have bones that develop and suckle their young. Fish are not mammals. SO?

 

[YoursTrue]

According to Evolution of fish - Wikipedia and Acanthodii - Wikipedia , the cartilaginous fishes are descended from the class Acanthodii, the so-called 'spiny sharks', which lived from the Early Silurian to the Permian period. 'Their (i.e. the acanthodians') close relation to modern cartilaginous fish can lead them to be considered "stem-sharks"', and, in particular, the fossil fish Doliodus 'appears to display a mosaic of shark and acanthodian features, making it a transitional fossil'.



No, it doesn't. It says that 'Four new species of tropical sharks that use their fins to walk' have been discovered in the waters off northern Australia and New Guinea,and that these discoveries 'almost doubled the total number of known [species of] walking sharks to nine.' It does not say that sharks as a group form a single species.

In fact, according to Shark - Wikipedia , 'Sharks belong to the superorder Selachimorpha in the subclass Elasmobranchii in the class Chondrichthyes', and 'There are more than 470 species of sharks split across twelve orders, including four orders of sharks that have gone extinct.'

OK, so there are 470 species of sharks, but sharks are *not* a species, but supposedly *belong to a superorder subclass* or something like that. lol, geez...

 

[YoursTrue]

According to Evolution of fish - Wikipedia and Acanthodii - Wikipedia , the cartilaginous fishes are descended from the class Acanthodii, the so-called 'spiny sharks', which lived from the Early Silurian to the Permian period. 'Their (i.e. the acanthodians') close relation to modern cartilaginous fish can lead them to be considered "stem-sharks"', and, in particular, the fossil fish Doliodus 'appears to display a mosaic of shark and acanthodian features, making it a transitional fossil'.
...

They know they descended from the "class" Acanthodii because how? Jumping a few categories to humans, when I looked at pictures of the human body with veins, heart, and other organs in a book I have, there is absolutely nothing that will convince me that the human body evolved from -- that one-celled organism.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This article brings out many problems with peer review. Science Is Suffering Because of Peer Review’s Big Problems
Perhaps you will read it, perhaps not. But it's an eye-opener.

Why would you assume that we are not aware of that? Spoiler alert, it does not help your case.

 

[Audie]

There is absolutely nothing that will convince me that the human body evolved from -- that one-celled organism.

Good, we have the admission of (absolute) intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Polymath257]

chuckle. Says you. As well as scientists that believe that.
Again, lions are lions, humans are humans. Oh yes, and fish are fish. Lions are considered mammals since females suckle their young. So do humans. But humans are humans, apes are apes, and lions are lions who all have bones that develop and suckle their young. Fish are not mammals. SO?

At which point in that classification do humans fail to be apes?

 

[Polymath257]

They know they descended from the "class" Acanthodii because how? Jumping a few categories to humans, when I looked at pictures of the human body with veins, heart, and other organs in a book I have, there is absolutely nothing that will convince me that the human body evolved from -- that one-celled organism.

And yet, we know it *developed* from a single cell, right?