How would we know if a species was newly evolved?

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

Abiogenesis isn't really life starting with the first molecule, but I think I understand what you are getting at.

From the perspective of science and evidence, we do not know how life originated. It is unknown at this point whether it will be determined or not. Discovery of a natural means for it to occur does not mean that it is the specific mechanism that occurred, but it would be evidence that it could occur naturally. Even if one or more mechanism are discovered, that is not evidence that can be used to declare there is no creator or no God. Some may, but as we all know, empty claims can be dismissed without much fanfare.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

There is evidence for the relationship among the various birds. They all have feathers don't they. Even those that do not now fly have all the features that make them birds. The very fact that we can group them together and call them birds is based on the evidence of their similarity and recognition that this is the basis of a relationship.

Do we not start out as a single cell that gradually over time replicates and diversifies into the various tissues, organs and with the morphology that we recognize as a human? Change over time is an ever-present feature of life.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

Not sure what you mean by notices of rejection on rhetoric based on reason. The only rejection of the theory that I see is based on ideology and not on a logical analysis of the theory or the evidence of evolution. The intelligent design movement that arose in the US over the last 30 years was not rejected over ideological differences by scientists acting capriciously, but over a careful examination of the facts.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is evidence for the relationship among the various birds. They all have feathers don't they. Even those that do not now fly have all the features that make them birds. The very fact that we can group them together and call them birds is based on the evidence of their similarity and recognition that this is the basis of a relationship.

Do we not start out as a single cell that gradually over time replicates and diversifies into the various tissues, organs and with the morphology that we recognize as a human? Change over time is an ever-present feature of life.

Excellent point about birds and feathers. It reminded me of how adamantly creationists denied that some dinosaurs had feathers. They first observed quill marks in bones. Calling them that was called "wild speculation" by creationists. But as paleontologists found more and more evidence the shouts of the creationists became more and more quiet. Now they are just bashful mumbles.

Meanwhile we keep finding more examples:

Breaking International News & Views

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Excellent point about birds and feathers. It reminded me of how adamantly creationists denied that some dinosaurs had feathers. They first observed quill marks in bones. Calling them that was called "wild speculation" by creationists. But as paleontologists found more and more evidence the shouts of the creationists became more and more quiet. Now they are just bashful mumbles.

Meanwhile we keep finding more examples:

Breaking International News & Views

That denial has trickled down to just the occasional drip.

Your link took me to Reuters, but no specific story.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That denial has trickled down to just the occasional drip.

Your link took me to Reuters, but no specific story.

Crap. I think it must be my tablet. I don't seem to have the same problem when I use my desktop.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hmm, maybe if you search the title of the article. Meanwhile I will try to post the link again:

New dinosaur called 'fluffy feathered poodle from hell'

Breaking International News & Views

Nope, the above link does not work.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Alright, this a test. Was it my tablet or was it the website?

New dinosaur called 'fluffy feathered poodle from hell'

EDIT: It was my tablet.

 

[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

I understand that you reject the fossil evidence, as well as any other, but what is your basis for claiming this evidence is not evidence?

It is an artistic rendering intended to give an impression of the stepwise occurrence of change and not a scientific claim of the precise steps followed in that particular evolution.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Alright, this a test. Was it my tablet or was it the website?

New dinosaur called 'fluffy feathered poodle from hell'

EDIT: It was my tablet.

Yes. This link worked. Thanks for posting it too.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes. This link worked. Thanks for posting it too.

You are welcome. I tried more than once yesterday using my tablet Today I am on the desktop. No problem. The website address was rather long so the tablet may have been cutting it off.

 

[gnostic]

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.?

There you go making the "change of kind" error again. Our offspring will always be humans, Just as we are still apes. There is no "evolving into something else" in the creationist sense. It is highly unlikely, but there could be an event in the future where two different populations of humans become separated from each other and they could evolve to the point that they could not longer interbreed. They would be two different species, but they would be two different species of Homo sapiens.

Do not get too distracted by names. The naming system that we currently use is flawed since it is based upon creationism. If you work with populations your question becomes pointless. And that is the way that one should think when dealing with evolution.

I don’t think @YoursTrue understand, that most of the times, people used the word “human” with only modern humans, the Homo sapiens or more precisely the subspecies of the Homo sapiens - the Homo sapiens sapiens.

But in biology, human also referred to the genus Homo, which is a Latin word that mean “human”. So there are number of extinct species (aside from Homo sapiens) within the genus Homo that are also humans, eg Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, the Neanderthals, Denisovans (Homo denisova), etc.

The last two, Neanderthals & Denisovans, were both out-of-Africa contemporaries to the early Homo sapiens, and were close enough that they could interbreed with the early Homo sapiens eg Cro-Magnon people.

Trace DNA (more specifically, Nuclear DNA) of the Neanderthals and of the Denisovans can still be found in DNA among certain today’s populations of humans. Examples, somewhere around 3%-5% Denisovan can be found in today’s DNA of some populations of Australian Aborigines, Papuans and Melanesians.

Denisovan was firs discovered in Denisova cave in Altai Mountains, Siberia. Fossils of humans, Neanderthals and a Denisovan (finger bone). More Denisovan fossils were found elsewhere in Asia.

When populations of two species intermix, producing mix breed offspring, this type of evolutionary mechanism is called Gene Flow. It differed from the mechanism Natural Selection, in which biologists tried to find last common ancestors.

DNA of Neanderthals (1% to 3%) were found in DNA of modern populations of humans, but it is uncertain if these Neanderthal trace DNA were due to Natural Selection or Gene Flow. So there are two camps, vying over which mechanism is true than the other.

 

[YoursTrue]

I understand that you reject the fossil evidence, as well as any other, but what is your basis for claiming this evidence is not evidence?

It is an artistic rendering intended to give an impression of the stepwise occurrence of change and not a scientific claim of the precise steps followed in that particular evolution.

Actually, I don't reject the fact that fossils are discovered. I do reject the categorizing of many fossils to say they purport evolution.

 

[YoursTrue]

I understand that you reject the fossil evidence, as well as any other, but what is your basis for claiming this evidence is not evidence?

It is an artistic rendering intended to give an impression of the stepwise occurrence of change and not a scientific claim of the precise steps followed in that particular evolution.

It is presented often as if man evolved from apes that look like chimpanzees.

 

[YoursTrue]

I understand that you reject the fossil evidence, as well as any other, but what is your basis for claiming this evidence is not evidence?

It is an artistic rendering intended to give an impression of the stepwise occurrence of change and not a scientific claim of the precise steps followed in that particular evolution.

Artistic rendering that these beings had wrapped their hair up in things looking like rubber bands? Come on......

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually, I don't reject the fact that fossils are discovered. I do reject the categorizing of many fossils to say they purport evolution.

And you do not have the ability to do that.

Do you remember when we went over the concept of scientific evidence? Once someone puts an idea in hypothesis form, tests it, and gets scientific evidence as a result the deniers no longer have the luxury of saying "I don't believe that". Now you need a rational argument as to why they are wrong. If you can't do that then you have as much as admitted that it looks as if they were right. Scientific evidence puts the burden of proof upon the denier since they have already met theirs.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is presented often as if man evolved from apes that look like chimpanzees.

Only by poor artists.

One note, an unbiased look at Lucy would say that she looks more like a person than like a chimp. But we look at closely related fossils from a very biased point of view.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Actually, I don't reject the fact that fossils are discovered. I do reject the categorizing of many fossils to say they purport evolution.

That isn't how it done. Evolution explains the fossils in series over time. It is not the fossil that are forced into the theory.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Artistic rendering that these beings had wrapped their hair up in things looking like rubber bands? Come on......

I am not sure what you are referring to. The pictures in the link you provided did not have their hair done up with anything. In any event, an artistic interpretation is not a scientific conclusion.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It is presented often as if man evolved from apes that look like chimpanzees.

Artists are interpreting the science. The art is not the conclusion of the scientists. It is the work of an artist. Basing your acceptance or rejection of science on an artistic rendering is not a sound practice.