How would we know if a species was newly evolved?

[Dan From Smithville]

The question in my mind is this: scientists estimate that chimpanzees evolved so many years ago, same with hominids, yet chimpanzees remain chimpanzees, humans remain humans, platypuses remain platypuses. So where is any evidence of chimpanzees evolving, etc.?

Them changing in front of us would not be an example of evolution and is not an expectation based on the theory of evolution. It is the expectation of theory that a population viewed in real time will remain the species that they are during the time of observation. No scientist expects to be observing monkeys climbing in trees one minute only to see them fly away into the sky on newly evolved wings the next. You are looking at a snapshot and declaring it represents immutable change without considering the evidence that it is just a point in time and not the entire story.

Many people have presented and discussed a fair portion of the evidence on Religious Forums, including yourself, so I do wonder what you mean in asking a question like that about the evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What mistakes are you talking about? Just to be clear, I accept that Moses lived as written, Jesus lived as written in the holy scriptures. I accept this with reason and faith. So what mistakes are you talking about?

Well Moses appears to be fictional. We could start there.

 

[YoursTrue]

I still get the impression that your concept of evolution is a linear chain that includes all species physically transforming into the next in a single step and that species that follow are directly related to the preceding species by that chain of transformation. If I am correct in your concept, that is not how it is explained to work by science or the evidence. Evolution is a branching, with basal groups much more distantly related to other basal groups, while those within the group are increasingly more closely related. We are only distantly related to monkeys as primates, but more closely related to the other great ape species as the hominids.

Do you not think that God would be powerful enough to contrive life to follow a pattern of evolution if He chose? Do you think that Stone Age/Bronze Age people would hIave had the knowledge and understood a detailed technical explanation or the more likely metaphorical explanations found in the Bible?

1. I do not accept the claim that humans evolved from other human-types.
2. I believe and it makes sense to me that God made Adam from the ground and Eve from his rib. In fact, looking it over today, that God took Eve from Adam's rib I realize it makes more sense than thinking that somehow a human male emerged (evolved) and a human female evolved to then procreate the present type human race.
3. The unique abilities of mankind to read and write are far beyond any characteristic of any animal that scientists may closely associate genetically with humans.
4. I do not speak for God, but I do know that the Bible says He made the various forms in succession. And since I see great holes in the theory of evolution as I keep looking, as well as questions that I have not found understandable explanations for, again -- the Bible account makes sense that God created man in HIS image -- not the image of chimpanzees. And He made each type (fish, crawling animals, birds) as unique creations.
So I thank you for your respectful approach.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The question in my mind is this: scientists estimate that chimpanzees evolved so many years ago, same with hominids, yet chimpanzees remain chimpanzees, humans remain humans, platypuses remain platypuses. So where is any evidence of chimpanzees evolving, etc.?

Is it your understanding that the origin of a new species results in the termination of the ancestral species as part of the mechanism of speciation?

 

[YoursTrue]

Them changing in front of us would not be an example of evolution and is not an expectation based on the theory of evolution. It is the expectation of theory that a population viewed in real time will remain the species that they are during the time of observation. No scientist expects to be observing monkeys climbing in trees one minute only to see them fly away into the sky on newly evolved wings the next. You are looking at a snapshot and declaring it represents immutable change without considering the evidence that it is just a point in time and not the entire story.

Many people have presented and discussed a fair portion of the evidence on Religious Forums, including yourself, so I do wonder what you mean in asking a question like that about the evidence.

Ah, my friend, there IS no evidence of apes transforming from one type (chimpanzee or gorillas, let's say) to another. I'm not talking about evidence so-called of fossils. But even the picture of humanapes such as depicted in History.com is absolute conjecture and fabrication. How Did Humans Evolve? - HISTORY

 

[YoursTrue]

Is it your understanding that the origin of a new species results in the termination of the ancestral species as part of the mechanism of speciation?

It is my understanding that bugs remain bugs, chimpanzees remain chimpanzees, and whether beaks grow larger or smaller, birds remain birds.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

1. I do not accept the claim that humans evolved from other human-types.

You have a right to reject the evidence for ideological reasons and I appreciate the honest of it if not basis for it.

2. I believe and it makes sense to me that God made Adam from the ground and Eve from his rib. In fact, looking it over today, that God took Eve from Adam's rib I realize it makes more sense than thinking that somehow a human male emerged (evolved) and a human female evolved to then procreate the present type human race.

There is no evidence for that claim, but again, I recognize that you can accept it for whatever reason. I do see further indications that you don't really have a grasp of what evolution is in terms of the theory, the fact or the evidence.

Why does something without evidence convince you and something with evidence not?

3. The unique abilities of mankind to read and write are far beyond any characteristic of any animal that scientists may closely associate genetically with humans.

Many species have unique abilities that we do not have. It defines who we are as a species, but doesn't mean that we are not related to other species. Birds and bats can fly and fish can survive life fully immersed in water and we cannot. What of it?

4. I do not speak for God, but I do know that the Bible says He made the various forms in succession. And since I see great holes in the theory of evolution as I keep looking, as well as questions that I have not found understandable explanations for, again -- the Bible account makes sense that God created man in HIS image -- not the image of chimpanzees. And He made each type (fish, crawling animals, birds) as unique creations.
So I thank you for your respectful approach.

I don't speak for him either, but I consider demanding a specific interpretation of the Bible to qualify one as a believer is a step in that direction. I do not know what "creating in His image" really means. I certainly do not feel like an omnipotent, omniscient, all powerful being and that is the image of God that is popularly described.

The evidence does not support those claims of the Bible. Why is that do you think?

You're welcome. I can come off sounding disrespectful at times I know (and I also know that it sometimes isn't just sounding), but I would rather we come to understand each other.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It is my understanding that bugs remain bugs, chimpanzees remain chimpanzees, and whether beaks grow larger or smaller, birds remain birds.

As I view the world, that is a very narrow focus of understanding that ignores a lot in order to maintain the position. Sort of like ignoring all of history to declare the present is and always has been.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ah, my friend, there IS no evidence of apes transforming from one type (chimpanzee or gorillas, let's say) to another. I'm not talking about evidence so-called of fossils. But even the picture of humanapes such as depicted in History.com is absolute conjecture and fabrication. How Did Humans Evolve? - HISTORY

That is because apes did not "transition from one type to another". You do not seem to understand this simple idea. We are still apes. We never stopped being apes. And there is tons of evidence for that.

When you make posts like the above you only tell others that you do not understand the concept of evidence and you do not understand evolution.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Ah, my friend, there IS no evidence of apes transforming from one type (chimpanzee or gorillas, let's say) to another. I'm not talking about evidence so-called of fossils. But even the picture of humanapes such as depicted in History.com is absolute conjecture and fabrication. How Did Humans Evolve? - HISTORY

There is evidence that organisms evolve, including primates. While rare and difficult to observe, there are a number of examples of observed speciation have been cited on this forum many times. Evidence of evolution regardless of how you want to see it or recognize it personally.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It is my understanding that bugs remain bugs, chimpanzees remain chimpanzees, and whether beaks grow larger or smaller, birds remain birds.

Insects have diversified from the ancestral type to become one of the most diverse groups of living thins on the planet. All insects posses these characteristics in common. Invertebrates with an exoskeleton of chiton. Three body segments. Three pair of legs. A single pair of antenae. An open circulatory system with a dorsal aorta. A ventral nerve cord. Beyond these common characters the class is an excellent example of adaptive evolution to occupy niches all over the Earth including human bodies.

 

[YoursTrue]

You have a right to reject the evidence for ideological reasons and I appreciate the honest of it if not basis for it.
There is no evidence for that claim, but again, I recognize that you can accept it for whatever reason. I do see further indications that you don't really have a grasp of what evolution is in terms of the theory, the fact or the evidence.

Why does something without evidence convince you and something with evidence not?
Many species have unique abilities that we do not have. It defines who we are as a species, but doesn't mean that we are not related to other species. Birds and bats can fly and fish can survive life fully immersed in water and we cannot. What of it?
I don't speak for him either, but I consider demanding a specific interpretation of the Bible to qualify one as a believer is a step in that direction. I do not know what "creating in His image" really means. I certainly do not feel like an omnipotent, omniscient, all powerful being and that is the image of God that is popularly described.

The evidence does not support those claims of the Bible. Why is that do you think?

You're welcome. I can come off sounding disrespectful at times I know (and I also know that it sometimes isn't just sounding), but I would rather we come to understand each other.

Regarding claims or evidence, I submit the following:
Home → Evolution 101 → The history of life: looking at the patterns → The family tree
"The process of evolution produces a pattern of relationships between species. As lineages evolve and split and modifications are inherited, their evolutionary paths diverge. This produces a branching pattern of evolutionary relationships."
(A pattern of relationships between species? That proves, shows, or indicates evolution?)
..."This tree, like all phylogenetic trees, is a hypothesis about the relationships among organisms. It illustrates the idea that all of life is related."
I agree that all life is related, but how? And then yes, whether you like it or not, abiogenesis must come into the picture with "life." But for now, we'll stick with reasoning behind what some consider as fact about evolution.
The article goes further, but -- the first sentence "as lineages evolve and split..." -- what evidence is there that lineages evolved and moreso, split? By evidence I mean proof, visual, gradual, that one form evolved into another. Such as: fish gradually evolving to landdwellers. Again -- fossil remains of that which is purported to be predecessors of homo sapiens, other than claims, does not provide substantial evidence that these forms the bones came from eventually evolved to humans? That is part of my question.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Regarding claims or evidence, I submit the following:
Home → Evolution 101 → The history of life: looking at the patterns → The family tree
"The process of evolution produces a pattern of relationships between species. As lineages evolve and split and modifications are inherited, their evolutionary paths diverge. This produces a branching pattern of evolutionary relationships."
(A pattern of relationships between species? That proves, shows, or indicates evolution?)
..."This tree, like all phylogenetic trees, is a hypothesis about the relationships among organisms. It illustrates the idea that all of life is related."
I agree that all life is related, but how? And then yes, whether you like it or not, abiogenesis must come into the picture with "life." But for now, we'll stick with reasoning behind what some consider as fact about evolution.
The article goes further, but -- the first sentence "as lineages evolve and split..." -- what evidence is there that lineages evolved and moreso, split? By evidence I mean proof, visual, gradual, that one form evolved into another. Such as: fish gradually evolving to landdwellers. Again -- fossil remains of that which is purported to be predecessors of homo sapiens, other than claims, does not provide substantial evidence that these forms the bones came from eventually evolved to humans? That is part of my question.

Drop the word "proof" please. You are using it inappropriately. The sort of "evidence" that you are demanding does not appear to exist for everything.

Let's go over the concept of evidence again.

Scientific evidence is:

Scientific evidence is evidence that serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis,

That is it. Do you accept gravity? The theory of gravity relies on evidence that fits that description. Guess what? There is more evidence for evolution than there is for gravity.

And you might look at that and go "Meh. That does not look like much". But it is deceptively difficult to find that sort of evidence. For example no one here or anywhere else that I have seen has ever posted any scientific evidence for creationism. It is not as if anyone is stopping them from trying. The fact is that it just does not appear to exist. There is not much point in going over the evidence with you until you understand the concept.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Regarding claims or evidence, I submit the following:
Home → Evolution 101 → The history of life: looking at the patterns → The family tree
"The process of evolution produces a pattern of relationships between species. As lineages evolve and split and modifications are inherited, their evolutionary paths diverge. This produces a branching pattern of evolutionary relationships."
(A pattern of relationships between species? That proves, shows, or indicates evolution?)
..."This tree, like all phylogenetic trees, is a hypothesis about the relationships among organisms. It illustrates the idea that all of life is related."
I agree that all life is related, but how? And then yes, whether you like it or not, abiogenesis must come into the picture with "life." But for now, we'll stick with reasoning behind what some consider as fact about evolution.
The article goes further, but -- the first sentence "as lineages evolve and split..." -- what evidence is there that lineages evolved and moreso, split? By evidence I mean proof, visual, gradual, that one form evolved into another. Such as: fish gradually evolving to landdwellers. Again -- fossil remains of that which is purported to be predecessors of homo sapiens, other than claims, does not provide substantial evidence that these forms the bones came from eventually evolved to humans? That is part of my question.

I have nothing against abiogenesis or the mention of it. It is just that it is not a requirement of the theory of evolution and cannot be conflated as co-dependent for the acceptance of the theory of evolution as is often the case with non-scientists discussing evolution.

From a scientific perspective on the evidence, we do not know how life originated. Not knowing that does not mean we cannot observe, experiment and theorize about existing life and existing evidence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Regarding claims or evidence, I submit the following:
Home → Evolution 101 → The history of life: looking at the patterns → The family tree
"The process of evolution produces a pattern of relationships between species. As lineages evolve and split and modifications are inherited, their evolutionary paths diverge. This produces a branching pattern of evolutionary relationships."
(A pattern of relationships between species? That proves, shows, or indicates evolution?)
..."This tree, like all phylogenetic trees, is a hypothesis about the relationships among organisms. It illustrates the idea that all of life is related."
I agree that all life is related, but how? And then yes, whether you like it or not, abiogenesis must come into the picture with "life." But for now, we'll stick with reasoning behind what some consider as fact about evolution.
The article goes further, but -- the first sentence "as lineages evolve and split..." -- what evidence is there that lineages evolved and moreso, split? By evidence I mean proof, visual, gradual, that one form evolved into another. Such as: fish gradually evolving to landdwellers. Again -- fossil remains of that which is purported to be predecessors of homo sapiens, other than claims, does not provide substantial evidence that these forms the bones came from eventually evolved to humans? That is part of my question.

There is evidence from the fossil record. Homology of morphology and genetics. Existing species models. All of this viewed separately or together support the occurrence of evolution as the explanation.

Insects as a class of organisms make up about 30 different orders. Within those orders are hundreds of different families and within those families, thousands of different genera and species. All recognizable as insects based on the shared traits I have previously mentioned. In viewing the fossil record, which is admittedly scanty for class Insecta, we still see the pattern of new taxa emerging over time.

 

[YoursTrue]

Them changing in front of us would not be an example of evolution and is not an expectation based on the theory of evolution. It is the expectation of theory that a population viewed in real time will remain the species that they are during the time of observation. No scientist expects to be observing monkeys climbing in trees one minute only to see them fly away into the sky on newly evolved wings the next. You are looking at a snapshot and declaring it represents immutable change without considering the evidence that it is just a point in time and not the entire story.

Many people have presented and discussed a fair portion of the evidence on Religious Forums, including yourself, so I do wonder what you mean in asking a question like that about the evidence.

I see some examples presented of evolution of birds, calling them species perhaps, because it seems the definitions change, of one species evolving into another -- but this is not the evolution I am talking about. Because they remain birds, just as people can intermingle to produce a race of tall or short offspring, ieven if it's true that parrots somehow are connected by evolution to hawks although again, there is no proof of that, only conjecture.
The evolution I am speaking of is that of animals like fish becoming land dwellers by so-called natural selection in little increments. So I suppose at this point there is no further discussion because I don't believe life expanding to fish, lions, cockroaches, flowers, and things like that (including oceans and rocks) just came about by itself without a superior, intelligent designer behind them.

 

[YoursTrue]

Them changing in front of us would not be an example of evolution and is not an expectation based on the theory of evolution. It is the expectation of theory that a population viewed in real time will remain the species that they are during the time of observation. No scientist expects to be observing monkeys climbing in trees one minute only to see them fly away into the sky on newly evolved wings the next. You are looking at a snapshot and declaring it represents immutable change without considering the evidence that it is just a point in time and not the entire story.

Many people have presented and discussed a fair portion of the evidence on Religious Forums, including yourself, so I do wonder what you mean in asking a question like that about the evidence.

I have been reading reports pro and con regarding the validity of evolution and have come to two conclusions: one is that many piece together evidence such as fossils and determine from that how and where it fits in with the theory of evolution, and also that when notices of rejection by reason and/or scientists of the theoretical placement appear, these are often put down by those that uphold the theory.

 

[YoursTrue]

I have nothing against abiogenesis or the mention of it. It is just that it is not a requirement of the theory of evolution and cannot be conflated as co-dependent for the acceptance of the theory of evolution as is often the case with non-scientists discussing evolution.

From a scientific perspective on the evidence, we do not know how life originated. Not knowing that does not mean we cannot observe, experiment and theorize about existing life and existing evidence.

I understand that some say that abiogenesis is not a requirement to uphold the theory of evolution, but to actually believe that life started by itself in the first molecule is not only not making sense anymore to me, but I believe it cannot be duplicated by any scientific method.

 

[Astrophile]

OK, so I'll stick to apes. Since that's what so many believe, homo sapiens are part of the ape family. Anything in the ape family after homo sapiens?

I don't know. As I have already said, I am not a biologist, and I should need to be a biologist to be able to answer the question.

For what it is worth, according to Wikipedia there are two extant species in the genus Pan (chimpanzees and bonobos), two species (both critically endangered) of gorillas, five species of orang-utans, and 20 species of gibbons (including nine in the genus Hylobates), so you may be able to find out whether any of them evolved more recently than Homo sapiens.

However, on this matter, I agree with Subduction Zone.

I am not sure. I may be able to check, but before I do what difference does it make?

 

[Astrophile]

Regarding claims or evidence, I submit the following:
Home → Evolution 101 → The history of life: looking at the patterns → The family tree
"The process of evolution produces a pattern of relationships between species. As lineages evolve and split and modifications are inherited, their evolutionary paths diverge. This produces a branching pattern of evolutionary relationships."
(A pattern of relationships between species? That proves, shows, or indicates evolution?)
..."This tree, like all phylogenetic trees, is a hypothesis about the relationships among organisms. It illustrates the idea that all of life is related."
I agree that all life is related, but how? And then yes, whether you like it or not, abiogenesis must come into the picture with "life." But for now, we'll stick with reasoning behind what some consider as fact about evolution.

What would you accept as valid evidence for evolution? Do you accept the evidence from comparative anatomy, from genetics, from biogeography, from embryology, and from palaeontology as valid? If not, what are your reasons for rejecting these types of evidence? Where has the contrary evidence been published?

The article goes further, but -- the first sentence "as lineages evolve and split..." -- what evidence is there that lineages evolved and more so, split? By evidence I mean proof, visual, gradual, that one form evolved into another. Such as: fish gradually evolving to land-dwellers. Again -- fossil remains of that which is purported to be predecessors of homo sapiens, other than claims, does not provide substantial evidence that these forms the bones came from eventually evolved to humans? That is part of my question.

When I googled for 'fish-tetrapod transition', I obtained more than 60,000 results. The first one is 'The Fish-Tetrapod Transition: New Fossils and Interpretations' by Jennifer Clack (2009) - https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/track/articles/10.1007/s12052-009-0119-2 . Have you read this article, and, if so, what arguments would you put forward against the evidence that it presents?