New Evidence Found To Show Humans Came From Fish

[ratiocinator]

it's not just matter of scale, imagination, artistic impressions, lack of direct evidence, that stands between micro and macro evolution, but a fundamental, insurmountable logical paradox.

Logical paradox, eh? Do tell!

What exactly is it that polices this barrier between 'micro' and 'macro'? What stops lots of 'micro' from becoming 'macro'?

Given that you think that there is this "logical paradox", do you think the people who study evolution and genetics are idiots who can't see it or is it some sort of international conspiracy?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Logical paradox, eh? Do tell!

What exactly is it that polices this barrier between 'micro' and 'macro'? What stops lots of 'micro' from becoming 'macro'?

ask and you shall receive!

Same logical barrier that prevented classical physics being a comprehensive explanation for all physical reality- tempting as maybe- scales matter. The superficial simple 'immutable' laws were, by necessity, underwritten by an deeper layer of information which specified, predetermined, exactly how the physical cosmos would develop, produce fusion reactors, elements for life etc. Darwinism was conceived when such underlying guiding forces were still considered supernatural, it was a logical extension of classical physics

One way to understand the concept is looking at the software behind this forum- hit F12 and scroll through the code

There are many variable parameters, governing text color, size, background etc- just as there are for beak length, hair thickness etc. in the literal digital code of DNA

We can 'randomly mutate' these values all we like, and let the 'fittest be naturally selected'- we all agree on this. But by necessity, you cannot create a new software application by the same method, far less author the entire hierarchy of underlying supporting code that way. It's not just tricky, it's logically impossible.

This is not only borne out by the math- which as no philosophical hat in this ring, but by direct experimentation on life, fruit flies, bacteria etc, and also the fossil record- many corresponding lines of evidence

Given that you think that there is this "logical paradox", do you think the people who study evolution and genetics are idiots who can't see it or is it some sort of international conspiracy?

I don't think Darwinists are idiots, I used to be a very staunch one, and this is a known problem at the cutting edge of the science, even if not widely covered in pop science culture.

But asking an evolutionary biologist to unravel these problems inherent to integrated hierarchies of information systems, is a little like asking an expert electrician to debug windows 10 with a soldering iron...

 

[BilliardsBall]

Do you really not see your hypocrisy here? You're the one who made claims about "kinds", yet you've spent weeks doing everything you can to avoid actually saying what the word "kind" means. And now you're asking me to explain my taxonomy?

So maybe we should move on to the next obvious question......why can't you define the term "kind"?

Because if you won't conciliate and respond to my courteous, repeated request for YOU to use ANY definition you see fit, we shouldn't debate the other nonsense you believe, like helpful mutations:

Two thirds of cancers are unavoidable even if you live a healthy life, study finds

 

[ratiocinator]

ask and you shall receive!

Same logical barrier that prevented classical physics being a comprehensive explanation for all physical reality- tempting as maybe- scales matter. The superficial simple 'immutable' laws were, by necessity, underwritten by an deeper layer of information which specified, predetermined, exactly how the physical cosmos would develop, produce fusion reactors, elements for life etc. Darwinism was conceived when such underlying guiding forces were still considered supernatural, it was a logical extension of classical physics

One way to understand the concept is looking at the software behind this forum- hit F12 and scroll through the code

There are many variable parameters, governing text color, size, background etc- just as there are for beak length, hair thickness etc. in the literal digital code of DNA

We can 'randomly mutate' these values all we like, and let the 'fittest be naturally selected'- we all agree on this. But by necessity, you cannot create a new software application by the same method, far less author the entire hierarchy of underlying supporting code that way. It's not just tricky, it's logically impossible.

Sorry - but some empty waffle about classical science and a bad analogy, do not a logical paradox make...

This is not only borne out by the math- which as no philosophical hat in this ring...

FIFY

...but by direct experimentation on life, fruit flies, bacteria etc, and also the fossil record- many corresponding lines of evidence

So, you are effectively saying that almost all of the people who study these things are fools. Together with the people who study genetics, who say the entire case for evolution can be made from genetics alone.

I don't think Darwinists are idiots, I used to be a very staunch one, and this is a known problem at the cutting edge of the science, even if not widely covered in pop science culture.

But asking an evolutionary biologist to unravel these problems inherent to integrated hierarchies of information systems, is a little like asking an expert electrician to debug windows 10 with a soldering iron...

You say you don't think they're idiots but then claim that you can see clearly what all of those who actually study the relevant sciences, cannot. Seriously?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Small changes occur all the time in species as experimentally seen in micro-evolution of organisms. And fossils provide clear and unambiguous evidence of these small changes causing transformations like fins to limbs over time. And finally there is genetic and embroyological evidence that this transformation occured step by step.
Also there are plenty of organisms where fossil record is continuous enough to record how small changes lead to speciation over millions of years. An example below

Another example of a complete fossil record showing continuous evolution followed by speciation,
An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Abstract.— Marine planktonic microfossils have provided some of the best examples of evolutionary rates and patterns on multi-million-year time scales, including many instances of gradual evolution. Lineage splitting as a result of speciation has also been claimed, but all such studies have used subjective visual species discrimination, and interpretation has often been complicated by relatively small sample sizes and oceanographic complexity at the study sites. Here we analyze measurements on a collection of 10,200 individual tests of the Eocene planktonic foraminifer Turborotalia in 51 stratigraphically ordered samples from a site within the oceanographically stable tropical North Pacific gyre. We use novel multivariate statistical clustering methods to test the hypothesis that a single evolutionary species was present from 45 Ma to its extinction ca. 34 Ma. After identification of a set of biologically relevant traits, the protocol we apply does not require a prior assignment of individuals to species. We find that for most of the record, contemporaneous specimens form one morphological cluster, which we interpret as an evolving species that shows quasi-continuous but non-directional gradual evolutionary change (anagenesis). However, in the upper Eocene from ca. 36 to ca. 34 Ma there are two clusters that persistently occupy distinct areas of morphospace, from which we infer that speciation (cladogenesis) must have occurred. (gradual evolution followed by speciation in late Eocene shown in figure below)

Thus:-
1) Where fossil record is complete (usually for marine invertebrates with hard exoskeletons) the fossil record captures the complete trend of small scale evolution causing large scale transformations and (in some cases) speciation (shown above).

2) For vertebrates where there are quite a number of fossils (like in the transformation of fish to amphibians), the fossils are numerous enough to show the trajectory of the small changes that led to transformation of fins to limbs (along with shoulder development etc.) I have already provided multiple lines of evidence to demonstrate how this supports evolution and refutes creationism. You are free to address any of the points I discussed:-
Evidence of Evolution that was presented but never addressed

3) The entire step-by-step genetic mutation pathway that resulted in the gradual transformation of fins to limbs have also been charted. The genetic pathways once again vindicates evolution demonstrating that nothing other than gradual step by step transformation through mutation and selection of a few of the fin generating genes is needed to transform the fin of a fish to limb of a land animal. I have presented the evidence which you are free to discuss,
Evidence of Evolution that was presented but never addressed
Evidence of Evolution that was presented but never addressed

A simple and clear exposition is linked below:-

So, given that all the extensive evidence supports the evolutionary explanation and none support creationism, rationality dictates that the evolutionary explanation is accepted as true.

You have skipped several points I find compelling:

1. The lines of descent and ascent are in constant flux. The debate has raged in my lifetime--and currently remains debated--as to which links to which.

2. There are numerous gaps in the links and lines of descent. You make it sound as if I can print out a chart showing all lines and that all in the sciences have signed off on all descent lines.

3. There aren't a few fossils in museums as in Darwin's day, there are millions. ALL and EVERY of them show fully complete forms, as a matter of fact, there is so little evidence of slow accumulated changes that punctuated equilibrium, rapid change and even space seed are promulgated by VERY respected leaders in the field.

Rationality says that if we have something on the order of one billions fully realized fossils in museums (my local museum has over 4,000,000 specimens alone) and none showing any hopeful monsters or partially formed anything, that all was created.

Rationality says the 120 ancient cultures that teach a flood for the sin of man are onto something since 99% of fossils known are marine life.

Etc., etc., etc., etc. please have the last word. You don't want to have a thought-provoking discussion or assist either of us in learning, you want to cherry pick the "clear, unbroken" descent lines that most scholars say are WIND.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Sorry - but some empty waffle about classical science and a bad analogy, do not a logical paradox make...


FIFY


So, you are effectively saying that almost all of the people who study these things are fools. Together with the people who study genetics, who say the entire case for evolution can be made from genetics alone.


You say you don't think they're idiots but then claim that you can see clearly what all of those who actually study the relevant sciences, cannot. Seriously?

The wise man knows himself to be a fool. DNA decays, we cannot use it to trace single cells morphing into human beings though millions of lucky accidents, it's a remote, speculative reconstruction

Physics, software and life all operate on math, they all obey the same laws- the only truly fundamental laws, mathematics- and so that's where the crux of the question lies, and it's not just skeptics of atheism who recognize this


Here is one prominent Darwinist's attempt to tackle the problem

Dawkins intends this example to illustrate a common misunderstanding of evolutionary change, i.e. that DNA sequences or organic compounds such as proteins are the result of atoms randomly combining to form more complex structures. In these types of computations, any sequence of amino acids in a protein will be extraordinarily improbable (this is known as Hoyle's fallacy). Rather, evolution proceeds by hill climbing, as in adaptive landscapes.

Dawkins then goes on to show that a process of cumulative selection can take far fewer steps to reach any given target. In Dawkins's words:

We again use our computer monkey, but with a crucial difference in its program. It again begins by choosing a random sequence of 28 letters, just as before ... it duplicates it repeatedly, but with a certain chance of random error – 'mutation' – in the copying. The computer examines the mutant nonsense phrases, the 'progeny' of the original phrase, and chooses the one which, however slightly, most resembles the target phrase, METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL.

By repeating the procedure, a randomly generated sequence of 28 letters and spaces will be gradually changed each generation. The sequences progress through each generation:

Generation 01: WDLTMNLT DTJBKWIRZREZLMQCO P [2]
Generation 02: WDLTMNLT DTJBSWIRZREZLMQCO P
Generation 10: MDLDMNLS ITJISWHRZREZ MECS P
Generation 20: MELDINLS IT ISWPRKE Z WECSEL
Generation 30: METHINGS IT ISWLIKE B WECSEL
Generation 40: METHINKS IT IS LIKE I WEASEL
Generation 43: METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL


So I agree entirely with what Dawkins demonstrates, that random mutation can be utilized to produce predetermined given targets.

Just as physics was guided to produce all the specific complex elements necessary for life according to detailed underlying instructions. I see no reason to believe that this development of the universe abruptly reverts back to a Victorian model of blind chance at the point of the first replicator

 

[BilliardsBall]

Plain and simple, you are wrong. There are many fossils that show large and yet identifiable changes and many that show small and incremental changes, the fossil record is not only clear prospectively and retrospectively but is thoroughly supported and augmented by data from numerous other fields including immunology and genetics.

1. Please give your best three examples here of fossils that a) show small and incremental changes and b) tell us what they changed from and c) how scientists know X changed to Y.

2. Please explain why if there are many fossils that show large identifiable changes how scientists know X changed to Y rather than (Occam's) X was created and Y was created.

1 and 2 are questions you've begged because you are speaking of FOSSILS.

 

[BilliardsBall]

To you the phrase "equally evolved" won't be familiar as you get your information from creationist sources and don't have a clue what evolutionary theory involves.

It's easy. All modern organisms, from prokaryotes to whales; all modern living organisms, are equally evolved. Every currently living thing in the world. That's basic evolutionary theory.

Then you don't have a clue. I am different from my parents. You are different from your parents.

Again, you have no clue what evolutionary theory involves.

Which textbook are you quoting when you use the phrase or idiom "equally evolved"?

Are you aware that a basic Google search just now revealed sources claiming all organisms are not "equally evolved"?

 

[Jose Fly]

Because if you won't conciliate and respond to my courteous, repeated request for YOU to use ANY definition you see fit

Still you can't define the term "kind", even though it's central to many of your talking points. That you don't see that as all problematic says a lot about both you and your position.

So again the question is.....why can't you define the term "kind"?

Are you going to spend weeks dodging that question too?

we shouldn't debate the other nonsense you believe, like helpful mutations:

Two thirds of cancers are unavoidable even if you live a healthy life, study finds

And now you're trying to throw out a red herring, hoping it will distract everyone from your ridiculous inability to define your own terms. One would think the fact that you are forced to resort to such tactics would tell you something.......

 

[Jose Fly]

1. Please give your best three examples here of fossils that a) show small and incremental changes and b) tell us what they changed from and c) how scientists know X changed to Y.

2. Please explain why if there are many fossils that show large identifiable changes how scientists know X changed to Y rather than (Occam's) X was created and Y was created.

1 and 2 are questions you've begged because you are speaking of FOSSILS.

You claimed that if we saw small, incremental changes in the fossil record, "creationism would be null and void". I provided a very clear example of exactly that.....a complete fossil record of foraminifera that shows numerous small, incremental changes in their history, documents hundreds upon hundreds of species-species transitions, and validates Darwinian evolution.

Therefore by your own criterion, creationism is indeed "null and void". But it looks like your preferred tactic in the face of this data is to simply ignore it and hope no one notices. Says a lot, doesn't it?

 

[sayak83]

You have skipped several points I find compelling:

1. The lines of descent and ascent are in constant flux. The debate has raged in my lifetime--and currently remains debated--as to which links to which.

You are mistaken. I have shown you two examples where the lines of descent are clear and unbroken because the fossil record is very complete. There are many more. The degree of certainty regarding lines of descent is proportional exactly to the amount of fossils one has. Furthermore evolutionary theory is entirely about closely related evolving populations of organisms that share a gene pool. Thus the establishment of cladograms through genetic and fossil records is sufficient evidence for its validity. The idea of who begat who ala Bible or those obsessed with lineage is completely useless for validating the theory of evolution. Apart from cladograms, the only other descent tree that are useful are gene trees which do provide scientifically relevant information. The reason is simple...because sexual reproduction causes random shuffling of genes from mother-father to sibling, in only a few generation, no characteristic feature of your descent line survives the shuffling process. Hence generational descent trees are utterly useless apart from old (and unscientific) conceptions of regal lineages etc. (Its different in bacteria, who reproduce asexually and whose descent trees really do matter). Please read the article below to gain a basic understanding of how to develop cladograms that have useful scientific information.


Understanding Evolutionary Trees

2. There are numerous gaps in the links and lines of descent. You make it sound as if I can print out a chart showing all lines and that all in the sciences have signed off on all descent lines.

No evolutionary scientist cares about descent lines (as its unscientific and tells us nothing). But the cladograms for fish to amphibian evolution is indeed accepted in all science. Textbooks showing the universal scientific consensus are there:-
Gaining Ground
If new species are found (and will be found), they will be added as branches to the cladogram, but the structure of the cladogram is unlikely to change given the evidence we have for it. However there are currently no gaps in the fish to amphibian fossil record as the stages of evolution are well captured by the current fossils,and validated by genetics. New species will of course be discovered showing new variation in the theme, but while they increase understanding, they do not fill any gap. Its like this, a new coffee shop down the street may add to our experience in coffee drinking, but does not fill any gap in our knowledge of coffee. Not the case in all cases, there are places where lack of fossils create genuine gaps, like how flowers evolved and diversified, but fish to amphibian evolution is not such a case.

3. There aren't a few fossils in museums as in Darwin's day, there are millions. ALL and EVERY of them show fully complete forms, as a matter of fact, there is so little evidence of slow accumulated changes that punctuated equilibrium, rapid change and even space seed are promulgated by VERY respected leaders in the field.

Punctuated evolution is also a form of gradualism that occurs through the usual mutation and natural selection processes over millions of years. Read a book on the topic. Actually the fish to amphibian transition and all the evidence I linked to is a case of punctuated evolution. Its punctuated, because the transition happened quite rapidly..which for biologists mean 10-15 million years. Rapidity is in relation to the usual units of time in a field, and for earth's history hundreds or millions of years are usual units of time. Furthermore, every species along a transitional gradient is a fully complete form adapted to the environment it lives in. Where do you get the erroneous idea that transitional species and their organs are not fully complete and adaptive and functional in their environment? Indeed species like Tiktaalik which is transitional between fish and amphibians, was well adapted to the shallow estuarine environments it lived in, and to which its transitional fin-limb appendages were well adapted.

Rationality says that if we have something on the order of one billions fully realized fossils in museums (my local museum has over 4,000,000 specimens alone) and none showing any hopeful monsters or partially formed anything, that all was created.

Evolutionary theory will be falsified if partially formed creatures and hopeful monsters are ever uncovered. Do you even know what the theory is and what kind of fossils it predicts? Where do you get all this false information about evolution from. Who has been lying to to you?
Here is the correct theory and its predictions:-

What is Evolution?
What is Evolution?

 

[ratiocinator]

Physics, software and life all operate on math, they all obey the same laws- the only truly fundamental laws, mathematics- and so that's where the crux of the question lies, and it's not just skeptics of atheism who recognize this

Just saying that maths supports your view is not very convincing.

Here is one prominent Darwinist's attempt to tackle the problem

Dawkins intends this example to illustrate a common misunderstanding of evolutionary change, i.e. that DNA sequences or organic compounds such as proteins are the result of atoms randomly combining to form more complex structures. In these types of computations, any sequence of amino acids in a protein will be extraordinarily improbable (this is known as Hoyle's fallacy). Rather, evolution proceeds by hill climbing, as in adaptive landscapes.

Dawkins then goes on to show that a process of cumulative selection can take far fewer steps to reach any given target. In Dawkins's words:

We again use our computer monkey, but with a crucial difference in its program. It again begins by choosing a random sequence of 28 letters, just as before ... it duplicates it repeatedly, but with a certain chance of random error – 'mutation' – in the copying. The computer examines the mutant nonsense phrases, the 'progeny' of the original phrase, and chooses the one which, however slightly, most resembles the target phrase, METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL.

By repeating the procedure, a randomly generated sequence of 28 letters and spaces will be gradually changed each generation. The sequences progress through each generation:

Generation 01: WDLTMNLT DTJBKWIRZREZLMQCO P [2]
Generation 02: WDLTMNLT DTJBSWIRZREZLMQCO P
Generation 10: MDLDMNLS ITJISWHRZREZ MECS P
Generation 20: MELDINLS IT ISWPRKE Z WECSEL
Generation 30: METHINGS IT ISWLIKE B WECSEL
Generation 40: METHINKS IT IS LIKE I WEASEL
Generation 43: METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL


So I agree entirely with what Dawkins demonstrates, that random mutation can be utilized to produce predetermined given targets.

I kind of blame Dawkins for this analogy. It's actually a very good way of explaining the concept to somebody who is trying to understand it but it plays right into the hands of those who are trapped in the religious dogma that insists it needs intelligent intervention and who dare not stop and think about it.

The point is that a random variation that is subject to some selection will end up reflecting what that selection is. Whether the selection is deliberately designed or just the need to survive in a particular environment, makes no difference to the principle.

Just as physics was guided to produce all the specific complex elements necessary for life according to detailed underlying instructions. I see no reason to believe that this development of the universe abruptly reverts back to a Victorian model of blind chance at the point of the first replicator

Just like with maths, you keep on saying that this has something to do with Victorian, classical science but never actually explaining yourself.

You also neglect the fact that evidence from genetics has spectacularly confirmed the theory of evolution.

 

[SkepticThinker]

We can use synonyms. Everyone adores/craves/lusts after some things or some people or self.

Those are different than worshiping a deity, to me.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I do the same. Therefore, I accept the Bible, since it contains not only claims, but excellent, testable, verifiable, falsifiable evidence. It's goal, however, is not just knowledge but relationship.

The Bible contains claims. Proper evidence has to come from a source outside of the book making the claims.

 

[SkepticThinker]

My children are the same species as you and I. They have neither ancilliary nor vestigial ANYTHING.

They are "transitional forms", as are you and I. If our children were just clones of ourselves, you might have a point. But they aren't, and so you don't.

 

[Shad]

You think I will sit here and add over 1,000 archaeological proofs of both testaments because you said "Go"?

So you can not even provide 1 out of those thousand? More so a scattering of archaeological evidence does not support a wholesale claim of Christianity.

I have a methodology and other things, but you aren't really asking me. You are being wholly rhetorical.

Hilarious when you state above that there is all these proofs but you can not name a single one. So what is your method? Make claims then refuse to support said claims? Great method you have.

I might share my logic and methods if you actually ask.

Oh I am sure you will as you did with your thousand proofs....

 

[SkepticThinker]

I think you're missing the forest for the trees. Speciation is real. Dogs becoming cats, et al, isn't. Fruit flies at the end of years of testing . . . are fruit flies.

Who says dogs become cats??

 

[SkepticThinker]

Presuppositions that the Bible is God's Word--admittedly my own bias at this point in life--does not invalidate Bible truth, any more than presupposing math exists invalidates 2 + 2 = 4. You are being ridiculous--if we go on your presuppositions as expressed above, we should invalidate the science of Galileo, of Pascal, of . . . Ronald Reagan.

It doesn't validate it either.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Because if you won't conciliate and respond to my courteous, repeated request for YOU to use ANY definition you see fit, we shouldn't debate the other nonsense you believe, like helpful mutations:

Two thirds of cancers are unavoidable even if you live a healthy life, study finds

How is anybody supposed to know what you're talking about if you refuse to define your terms??

 

[BilliardsBall]

Still you can't define the term "kind", even though it's central to many of your talking points. That you don't see that as all problematic says a lot about both you and your position.

So again the question is.....why can't you define the term "kind"?

Are you going to spend weeks dodging that question too?


And now you're trying to throw out a red herring, hoping it will distract everyone from your ridiculous inability to define your own terms. One would think the fact that you are forced to resort to such tactics would tell you something.......

Do you have a point? I find your tactics distasteful since I seek conciliation and agreement and you are acting childishly. In a debate, it's good to define terms. Are you saying YOU WILL ACCEPT WHATEVER term I use for kind in our debate? I've already offered you the same opportunity.

If your faith in evolution is so mighty this should present a key opportunity for you. Last chance:

YOU DEFINE KINDS and I'll use your definition.