Evolution My ToE

[Polymath257]

Sorry, I apologize, some of that I didn't edit well enough. So going on today --
OK, as an *evolving* outcome of this conversation, shall we use the term 'evolving', I looked up lions and whence did they *come from." And here's the first several words from Wikipedia: (I am only going over the so-called lineage.) Of course lions still do give birth to lions, humans to humans and chimpanzees to chimpanzees, BUT you say none of their evolution stopped, so, if I understand you correctly in your mind, they all just keep evolving, is that right?

Yes, all species evolve to match their environment.

But going on,
"The lion (Panthera leo) is a species in the family Felidae..." So I can learn more about the theory of evolution, let's perhaps start there. "Panthera leo" is a species in the family Felidae. OK, Panthera leo is a species in the family Felidae. That's what it says.
Then it goes on later on in the article (Lion - Wikipedia) to say, and I put in bold certain phrases right now at this juncture,
"The lion's closest relatives are the other species of the genus Panthera, namely tiger, snow leopard, jaguar, and leopard. Results of phylogenetic studies published in 2006 and 2009 indicate that the jaguar and the lion belong to one sister group that diverged about 2.06 million years ago.[9][10] Results of later studies indicate that the leopard and the lion belong to the same sister group, which diverged 3.1–1.95 million years ago"
Other species of the genus Panthera? The first sentence says that the lion (or Panthera leo) is a species in the family Felidae. So according to that, the lion is a species in the family Felidae. Then it says the lion's closest relatives are other species of the genus Panthera.

It looks like your confusion is the difference between species, genus, family and order. The *genus* Pantera is a collection of large cats and is a genus in the *family* Felidae.

So, a lion is in the kingdom Animalia (animals), in the phylum Chordata (vertebrates), in the class Mammalia (mammals), in the order Carnivora (carnivorous mammals), in the family Felidae, in the genus Pantera and is the species Pantera leo.

This is a more and more refined classification of the species of lion. So, the other species most related to lions will all be in the genus Pantera, in the family Felidae, in the order Carnivora, etc.

Rather than going into every word right now, I looked up Felidae, and this is the first explanation of that word (according to wikipedia): "Felidae is a family of mammals in the order Carnivora, colloquially referred to as cats," So lions are a species in the family called Felidae, which is in the order Carnivora. I figure carnivora means mammals that are flesh eating (carnivores). All classification of the scientific sort, but no proof of -- evolution. All conjecture with the presumption that each "family" evolved by so-called natural selection.

Actually not true. The original classification was done bfore evolution was formulated. But evolution does explain *why* the classification into such nested schemes works. Furthermore, it also shows why even extinct species will fall into this 'nested hierarchy' scheme of classification.

If I didn't believe that God created the heavens and earth according to His interests, I may go along with the theory and like going into "classifications" and so forth, shrug my shoulders and consider it a great intellectual exercise, but instead what I have found is that the ToE is a concept that for the most part, I no longer go along with. Because -- no one was there when it all "happened." And more importantly, I believe that "in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." (Genesis 1:1)
Basically, here is where I leave it, I may answer in the future, I most likely will, but thanks everyone for their discussion of -- *evolution.*

We don't need to be there *when it happened* because we have a number of ways of revealing the past through evidence today. Fossils, genetics, comparative anatomy, etc all point in the same direction.

**Note - maybe carnivores are not only mammals--since some bugs and worms (which I don't think are mammals) eat flesh.

While true, this isn't relevant to the methods of classification. The order Carnivora is classified by a number of characteristics, including specialized teeth for tearing flesh. Other families in the order Carnivora are Canidae (dog family), Ursidae (bear family), Mustelidae (fur-bearing: weasels, badgers, otters, etc), Hyaenidae (hyenas), Odobenidae (walruses), etc.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

OK, I get your point. Maybe humans didn't come after dinosaurs either. Oh, no, maybe after birds which are said to come from dinosaurs. Maybe humans and bonobos emerged at the same time. I see what you're saying, because you really don't know, you're just surmising.

Dinosaurs, then birds, then humans. This is based on evidence. No guess work. No speculation. No religious opinion.

Anyone can look this up and see this for themselves.

 

[Polymath257]

What criteria are you talking about? I said, Looking at it from a straight biological viewpoint, at the point that man's intellectual capability is greater than chimpanzees, gorillas, bonobos, etc. So what criteria are you talking about that nullifies the difference between the reasoning and learning ability of man and chimpanzees?

Not at all. That is one of the reasons we are classified as a different species from the other apes.

 

[tas8831]

So I did all this for nothing, @YoursTrue ?

You can start here:
Living Amphibians

That is the Tree of Life Web project. That page is Living Amphibians. It provides a few citations for the group as a whole. On the phylogenetic tree you will notice a little arrow point to the left at the 'root' of the tree. Click on that, and it takes a 'step back' to all terrestrial vertebrates. That page has a bunch of information on it, like general characteristics for terrestrial vertebrates, etc., a bit of vertebrate history, then about maybe 100 citations (didn't count them, but looks like a lot). I'm sure some of them are premised on genetics.

The terrestrial vertebrate phylogenetic tree also has a little arrow point to the left at the root - click it.

That takes you to:

Sarcopterygii
The lobe-finned fishes & terrestrial vertebrates

Click on the arrow on that tree, and it takes you to :

Gnathostomata
Jawed Vertebrates

Under the picture of the hippo, you will see this:

Note the top branches - Sarcopterygii and Actinopterygii. Those are modern bony fishes (Actinopterygii) and lobe-finned fishes and terrestrial vertebrates (Sarcopterygii).
They make up the Osteichthyes, the bony fishes.

They share a branch with an extinct group (Acanthodii), tyhen they join with the Cartilaginous fishes (sharks and such), which then join the Placodermi, the armored jawed vertebrates (fish).

Feel free to look at those pages, they all have citations supporting the shown groupings, and I am sure some are genetic in nature.​

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I saw reports about a scientist who tried to get a human to produce a monkey, so far hasn't worked. Monkeys still produce monkeys and humans produce humans. Maybe not enough time, someone might say, especially without human intervention.
Let me put it this way: upon examining your beliefs (which I would have fallen for hook, line, and pulled fish before I believed what the Bible has to say about creation), I am convinced that while I surely don't know everything as to the 'how' of how God did it, I'm realizing that the human body is not, and could not be, a product of chance "natural selection," by that I mean as evolving with all its complexities from whatever it is said to have evolved from. I say could not be because I can't imagine that the heart with its electrical impulses, the brain with its connections, the skin covering, the eyes, the bones, the blood, came about as a result of sheer mindless yes, by chance "natural selection" evolution.

What report is this? I would like to see it.

My beliefs are Christian. What do they have to do with science and the evidence?

Now you are just telling us that YOU cannot imagine something that you do not understand. I do not understand banking and finance, but that has no bearing on the reality of banking and finance.

 

[YoursTrue]

What report is this? I would like to see it.

My beliefs are Christian. What do they have to do with science and the evidence?

Now you are just telling us that YOU cannot imagine something that you do not understand. I do not understand banking and finance, but that has no bearing on the reality of banking and finance.

It's not a matter of not understanding it. I see no hard "proof" of the theories. For instance, you can say evolution exists, but I see no proof that one form morphs (evolves) into another as living time goes on. I mean that according to mankind's observations while alive and *writing* it down as it happened, for the past several thousand years, there is no evidence that any form evolved into another. And of course, yes, the idea that writing of the humankind has only been in existence for the past few thousand years is another reason for me to believe the positive value of the Bible and not what scientists say in contrast to it.
I used to believe that fishes developed legs, became aphibians, and when was in school I didn't question these things. I accepted them as taught because -- that's what it seemed to be according to the teachers. And now I know that there are those that will say it happened in a very long period of time, therefore -- no evolving can be directly observed, but yes, frankly, I don't go along with that idea any more, because it's all conjecture based on fossils which really does not "prove" evolution at all. It PROVES that there are skelatons or fossils. Skelatons do not prove evolution.

 

[McBell]

I saw reports about a scientist who tried to get a human to produce a monkey,

Source please

 

[YoursTrue]

What report is this? I would like to see it.

My beliefs are Christian. What do they have to do with science and the evidence?

Now you are just telling us that YOU cannot imagine something that you do not understand. I do not understand banking and finance, but that has no bearing on the reality of banking and finance.

Yes, there was a Russian scientist who tried to artificially inseminate women from apes. Blasts from the past: The Soviet ape-man scandal
It didn't work. But really the important point is: where is evolution in this? it got lost?

 

[YoursTrue]

Not at all. That is one of the reasons we are classified as a different species from the other apes.

Now why is that again?
Oh yes, and while we're at it, why are the 'other apes' classified in different species (as you call it)? "Let us create man in OUR image." That means not in the lion's image, or a gorilla's image. So man was made different by God from chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, and more.

 

[Astrophile]

It's not a matter of not understanding it. I see no hard "proof" of the theories. For instance, you can say evolution exists, but I see no proof that one form morphs (evolves) into another as living time goes on. I mean that according to mankind's observations while alive and *writing* it down as it happened, for the past several thousand years, there is no evidence that any form evolved into another. And of course, yes, the idea that writing of the humankind has only been in existence for the past few thousand years is another reason for me to believe the positive value of the Bible and not what scientists say in contrast to it.
I used to believe that fishes developed legs, became amphibians, and when was in school I didn't question these things. I accepted them as taught because -- that's what it seemed to be according to the teachers. And now I know that there are those that will say it happened in a very long period of time, therefore -- no evolving can be directly observed, but yes, frankly, I don't go along with that idea any more, because it's all conjecture based on fossils which really does not "prove" evolution at all. It PROVES that there are skeletons or fossils. Skeletons do not prove evolution.

I have made this point before, but I suppose that I shall have to repeat it. How do you explain the appearance of new 'kinds' in the fossil record? For example, there are fossil whales in Cenozoic rocks, but not in Mesozoic or Palaeozoic rocks. The whales that lived during the Cenozoic era and that are preserved as fossils must have had Mesozoic and Palaeozoic ancestors (remember 'all life comes from life'); since there are no Mesozoic or Palaeozoic fossil whales, these ancestors were not whales; therefore fossil and living whales must have evolved from non-whales. The same conclusion follows from the absence of Palaeozoic dinosaurs and mammals, of Eocene and Mesozoic apes, and even of Cambrian coelacanths. All extant and fossil 'kinds' must have had ancestors that lived before the first appearance of the 'kind' in the fossil record, and therefore they must have evolved from a different 'kind'.

Please think carefully about this before you reply, and consider the implications both of the fact that all life comes from pre-existing life of the same 'kind' and of the observed nature of the fossil record.

 

[Polymath257]

Now why is that again?
Oh yes, and while we're at it, why are the 'other apes' classified in different species (as you call it)? "Let us create man in OUR image." That means not in the lion's image, or a gorilla's image. So man was made different by God from chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, and more.

We are a different species from chimps, just like chimps are a different species from gorillas.

But all are apes, primates, mammals, vertebrates, animals, etc.

Every species is different than other species (which is why we call them different species), but are related to other, similar species (which is why our classification system works).

 

[YoursTrue]

I have made this point before, but I suppose that I shall have to repeat it. How do you explain the appearance of new 'kinds' in the fossil record? For example, there are fossil whales in Cenozoic rocks, but not in Mesozoic or Palaeozoic rocks. The whales that lived during the Cenozoic era and that are preserved as fossils must have had Mesozoic and Palaeozoic ancestors (remember 'all life comes from life'); since there are no Mesozoic or Palaeozoic fossil whales, these ancestors were not whales; therefore fossil and living whales must have evolved from non-whales. The same conclusion follows from the absence of Palaeozoic dinosaurs and mammals, of Eocene and Mesozoic apes, and even of Cambrian coelacanths. All extant and fossil 'kinds' must have had ancestors that lived before the first appearance of the 'kind' in the fossil record, and therefore they must have evolved from a different 'kind'.

Please think carefully about this before you reply, and consider the implications both of the fact that all life comes from pre-existing life of the same 'kind' and of the observed nature of the fossil record.

It does? Stay, if you will, with what you call the fact that all life comes from pre-existing life of the same 'kind' to begin with. Now of course, abiogenesis is out of the discussion because that supposedly is not evolution, but rather the beginning of life by evolution. So please discuss how it is that it is a FACT that all life comes from pre-existing life of the same 'kind' to begin with. Thank you.

 

[YoursTrue]

We are a different species from chimps, just like chimps are a different species from gorillas.

But all are apes, primates, mammals, vertebrates, animals, etc.

Every species is different than other species (which is why we call them different species), but are related to other, similar species (which is why our classification system works).

Somehow homo sapiens of the modern variety (the past 5000+ years or so) have a somewhat higher intellect than gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos with reading, writing, and for the most part of the human race wearing clothes. Now I'm supposing some tribes can't read or write.

 

[Astrophile]

It does? Stay, if you will, with what you call the fact that all life comes from pre-existing life of the same 'kind' to begin with. Now of course, abiogenesis is out of the discussion because that supposedly is not evolution, but rather the beginning of life by evolution. So please discuss how it is that it is a FACT that all life comes from pre-existing life of the same 'kind' to begin with. Thank you.

It is an observed fact: mammals give birth to live young; birds, reptiles, fish, insects, etc. lay eggs that hatch to produce young of the same kind; plants produce seeds that grow into plants of the same kind; fungi produce spores that develop into new fungi; bacteria reproduce by fission, and so on. The only alternative to living things coming from pre-existing life-forms of the same kind is spontaneous generation from non-living matter, which has never been observed and which was effectively disproved during the 19th century.

 

[Astrophile]

Just as a matter of interest, why is this astounding miracle not recorded in the synoptic gospels?

Why was it not imprinted on baseball cards either?? These are all burning questions.

Can anybody give a more sensible answer to my question?

 

[dad]

Can anybody give a more sensible answer to my question?

So why would we care what was in the synoptic 'gospels'?

 

[YoursTrue]

What report is this? I would like to see it.

My beliefs are Christian. What do they have to do with science and the evidence?

Now you are just telling us that YOU cannot imagine something that you do not understand. I do not understand banking and finance, but that has no bearing on the reality of banking and finance.

Here is something I do understand, and which I have found people to deny global warming is happening and a risk to life as we know it. Is it, do you think, a part of evolution?
Iceberg a third the size of Dublin breaks off in Antarctica

 

[YoursTrue]

It is an observed fact: mammals give birth to live young; birds, reptiles, fish, insects, etc. lay eggs that hatch to produce young of the same kind; plants produce seeds that grow into plants of the same kind; fungi produce spores that develop into new fungi; bacteria reproduce by fission, and so on. The only alternative to living things coming from pre-existing life-forms of the same kind is spontaneous generation from non-living matter, which has never been observed and which was effectively disproved during the 19th century.

I have been saying that for a while now -- that it (usually) takes two humans, male and female, to produce offspring. They just don't pop up by themselves. And so far, they (humans) don't give birth to chimpanzees. Or birds.

 

[Polymath257]

Somehow homo sapiens of the modern variety (the past 5000+ years or so) have a somewhat higher intellect than gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos with reading, writing, and for the most part of the human race wearing clothes. Now I'm supposing some tribes can't read or write.

And yet, they are still homo sapiens. Our species goes back at least 100,000 years and has only had writing for the last 5000 or so. Clothes don't tend to preserve well, so we don't know when it started to be worn.

 

[Polymath257]

Here is something I do understand, and which I have found people to deny global warming is happening and a risk to life as we know it. Is it, do you think, a part of evolution?

Well, do you think this is biological? if not, then it isn't part of evolution.

Now, when the climate changes, there will be changes in populations and those changes will be evolution. But no, glaciers breaking up is not, itself, evolution.