No Evidence for Speciation?

[idav]

if we are of the ape kind, then surely we should be able to reproduce with any one of the current other ape species. There would be no easier way to prove the evolution of humans.

You gave lions, jaguars etc. I'll give you chimp, orangutan, human etc. Your describing of kinds is exactly what happened with apes.

 

[shawn001]

if we are of the ape kind, then surely we should be able to reproduce with any one of the current other ape species. There would be no easier way to prove the evolution of humans.

We did we mated with neanderthalensis.

Neanderthals, Humans Interbred, DNA Proves

A newly mapped Neanderthal genome reveals that between 1-4 percent of DNA of many humans today came from Neanderthals.

Neanderthals, Humans Interbred, DNA Proves : Discovery News


But the great apes of today are a different branch.

Again we found the genome that fused between us and the great apes.

I also showed you this before

Head-scratching puzzle: What lice have to say about human evolution

One of the more embarrassing mysteries of human evolution is that people are host to no fewer than three kinds of louse while most species have just one.
Even bleaker for the human reputation, the pubic louse, which gets its dates and residence-swapping opportunities when its hosts are locked in intimate embrace, does not seem to be a true native of the human body. Its closest relative is the gorilla louse. (Don't even think about it.)

"Louse specialists now seem at last to have solved the question of how people came by their superabundance of fellow travelers. And in doing so they have shed light on the two major turning points in the history of fashion — when people lost their body hair, and when they first made clothing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/08/health/08iht-lice.4842725.html

 

[shawn001]

Pegg, be honest with the facts. I posted above we have hundreds to 1000 of transional fossils. Look at those.

On Humans start here.

Human Evolution by The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

Not that long ago there were other "humans" on the planet and modern humans or homo sapiens sapiens lived along with other hominids.

Like homo sapiens neanderthalensis, which homo sapiens had sex with for one and some people today still have neanderthal DNA . You can be DNA tested for it.

Or homo erectus

or homo floresiensis

or homo habilis

or homo ergaster

Why is homo in front of all these speicies of hominids?

I am curious Pegg what your answer is to the above?

 

[Pegg]

Pegg, be honest with the facts. I posted above we have hundreds to 1000 of transional fossils. Look at those.

for evolution to be true, you'd need many thousands of transitional fossils for EACH specie one earth. There are millions of different animals on earth, 1,000 transitional fossils is like a drop in a bucket.

Thre are numerous biologists who dont agree that there is any evidence for giraffe evolution by transitional fossils.

Not that long ago there were other "humans" on the planet and modern humans or homo sapiens sapiens lived along with other hominids.

Like homo sapiens neanderthalensis, which homo sapiens had sex with for one and some people today still have neanderthal DNA . You can be DNA tested for it.

neanderthals were not apes though...they were every bit as modern as we are.

Or homo erectus

or homo floresiensis

or homo habilis

or homo ergaster

Why is homo in front of all these speicies of hominids?

they can call these creatures whatever they like....but sticking a 'homo' on the front of each of them does not make us a part of their family group. these animals are extinct apes...nothing more nothing less. Evolutionists would like us to believe that they are our ancestors, but that is all speculation and unproven.

 

[idav]

for evolution to be true, you'd need many thousands of transitional fossils for EACH specie one earth. There are millions of different animals on earth, 1,000 transitional fossils is like a drop in a bucket.

You set the bar very high. We are lucky to find preserved anything.

Thre are numerous biologists who dont agree that there is any evidence for giraffe evolution by transitional fossils.

Gaps. There is a huge demand and field of study for human and ape evolution. We have added orangutan to the genome with chimps and humans.

 

[Skwim]

Thre are numerous biologists who dont agree that there is any evidence for giraffe evolution by transitional fossils.

Name three non-creationist biologists who don't. (Of course we'll need evidence of such. )

neanderthals were not apes though

Does it count that they belong to the same family, Hominidae, as the gorillas and such?

they can call these creatures whatever they like....but sticking a 'homo' on the front of each of them does not make us a part of their family group.

Errr. *whispers* It kinda does. All members of Homo are part of their family.

 

[shawn001]

for evolution to be true, you'd need many thousands of transitional fossils for EACH specie one earth. There are millions of different animals on earth, 1,000 transitional fossils is like a drop in a bucket.

Thre are numerous biologists who dont agree that there is any evidence for giraffe evolution by transitional fossils.




neanderthals were not apes though...they were every bit as modern as we are.



they can call these creatures whatever they like....but sticking a 'homo' on the front of each of them does not make us a part of their family group. these animals are extinct apes...nothing more nothing less. Evolutionists would like us to believe that they are our ancestors, but that is all speculation and unproven.

"for evolution to be true"

Every science on the planet supports it and modern biology and genetics is based on it.

The gelogical record not only supports it, it proves it.

The five mass extintion events prove it, because we see life evolving back and different animals.

"you'd need many thousands of transitional fossils for EACH specie one earth."

become a paleontologist and start looking yourself and help out. You insult the ones already spending their lifes doing the research. Nor are they easy to find. There are also millions of amber fossils.

We can back engineer chickens to dinosaur traits.

The air you breath is because of cynobacteria that started evolving photosynthesis 3.8 billion years ago and created the oxygen atmophere we have today, otherwise you would be breathing methane gases. As well as the oxygen atmosphere created the ozone, or you would be fried from UV radation from the sun.

"Thre are numerous biologists who dont agree that there is any evidence for giraffe evolution by transitional fossils. "

Name them, since I just showed you the names of some of the transional fossils and history at 2010. Again here modern giraffe's didn't live with dinosaurs. Modern giraffe's didn't exist yet, because they hadn't evolved.

You still also don't understand what these extintion events mean. Life evolved back from them to new animals.

Big Five mass extinction events

Although the Cretaceous-Tertiary (or K-T) extinction event is the most well-known because it wiped out the dinosaurs, a series of other mass extinction events has occurred throughout the history of the Earth.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/extinction_events/Ordovician–Silurian_extinction_event Ordovician-Silurian mass extinction
The third largest extinction in Earth's history, the Ordovician-Silurian mass extinction had two peak dying times separated by hundreds of thousands of years. During the Ordovician, most life was in the sea, so it was sea creatures such as trilobites, brachiopods and graptolites that were drastically reduced in number.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/extinction_events/Late_Devonian_extinction Late Devonian mass extinction
Three quarters of all species on Earth died out in the Late Devonian mass extinction, though it may have been a series of extinctions over several million years, rather than a single event. Life in the shallow seas were the worst affected, and reefs took a hammering, not returning to their former glory until new types of coral evolved over 100 million years later.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/extinction_events/Permian–Triassic_extinction_event Permian mass extinction
The Permian mass extinction has been nicknamed The Great Dying, since a staggering 96% of species died out. All life on Earth today is descended from the 4% of species that survived.

"This one was called the great dying and was before the dinosaurs existed!!!!"

Triassic-Jurassic mass extinction
During the final 18 million years of the Triassic period, there were two or three phases of extinction whose combined effects created the Triassic-Jurassic mass extinction event. Climate change, flood basalt eruptions and an asteroid impact have all been blamed for this loss of life.


Cretaceous-Tertiary mass extinction
The Cretaceous-Tertiary mass extinction - also known as the K/T extinction - is famed for the death of the dinosaurs. However, many other organisms perished at the end of the Cretaceous including the ammonites, many flowering plants and the last of the pterosaurs.


BBC Nature - Big Five mass extinction events

 

[shawn001]

The first flowers started evolving around 128 million years ago.

NOVA | First Flower | PBS

 

[shawn001]

for evolution to be true, you'd need many thousands of transitional fossils for EACH specie one earth. There are millions of different animals on earth, 1,000 transitional fossils is like a drop in a bucket.

Thre are numerous biologists who dont agree that there is any evidence for giraffe evolution by transitional fossils.




neanderthals were not apes though...they were every bit as modern as we are.



they can call these creatures whatever they like....but sticking a 'homo' on the front of each of them does not make us a part of their family group. these animals are extinct apes...nothing more nothing less. Evolutionists would like us to believe that they are our ancestors, but that is all speculation and unproven.

Because you don't seem to understand DNA and genetics.

This proved it and was a prediciton that was later found to be true.

Genome sequencing leaves Creationists unable to respond

Evolution argues that we share a common ancestor with chimpanzees and gorillas. And indeed, one of our chromosomes is the result of a fusion of two primate chromosomes. Our chromosome #2 was formed by the fusion of two primate chromosomes, and scientists can prove this.

[youtube]BXdQRvSdLAs[/youtube]
Genome sequencing leaves Creationists unable to respond - YouTube

You know Pegg, your going up against one of the strongst scientific theories in all of science which has already been tested, oberserved, and proven and and some how thing you know more then the millions of actual scientists who have done all this work in every field of science you dismiss based on your beliefs. This theory is as strong as gravity. In fact more facts go into then the theory of gravity. We know less about gravity then evolution.

 

[Pegg]

You gave lions, jaguars etc. I'll give you chimp, orangutan, human etc. Your describing of kinds is exactly what happened with apes.

with apes, yes...with humans???? that is still unconfirmed.

 

[Pegg]

You set the bar very high. We are lucky to find preserved anything.

the bar should be set very high when such extraordinary claims are made. The evidence would need to be 100% convincing...and plenty of it. But the physical evidence is very poor and unconvincing.

Gaps. There is a huge demand and field of study for human and ape evolution. We have added orangutan to the genome with chimps and humans.

and the reason why there is such a huge demand is because they know the dont have the evidence needed to convince the majority of the world that human evolution is true

until they find such evidence, i would expect the demand to be huge.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

What you fail to understand Pegg, aside other details, is that teh theory came from the evidence, and not vice versa. If we have a theory, there IS evidence already. For you to keep repeating 'there's not evidence' for a theory, shows you don't understand what you are talking about. We have been trying to help you with this.

 

[johnhanks]

with apes, yes...with humans???? that is still unconfirmed.

Perhaps you'd like to tell us what, in your view, would constitute confirmation.

 

[Pegg]

Name three non-creationist biologists who don't. (Of course we'll need evidence of such. )

Ok. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig of the Max Plank institute is one such biologist. He wrote this paper on his research into giraffe evolution.
On pages 5- 6 he mentions 4 biologists by name and one who wished to remain annonymous:
"The giraffe and the okapi of the Congo rain forest are considered as sister groups, the origins of which are still not known" (Devillers and Chaline 1993, p. 247). Similarly Starck 1995, p. 999 remarks: "The ancestry of Giraffidae is disputed."
Wesson (1991, pp. 238/239) agrees with these statements about giraffe fossils, as follows (as ever, my boldface):
"The evolving giraffe line left no middling branches on the way, and there is nothing, living or fossil, between the moderate neck of the okapi and the greatly elongated giraffe. The several varieties of giraffe are all about the same height. There are a number of fossil giraffids with more or less the shape of the okapi; it would seem that one of them rather suddenly took off and grew to the practical limits of a giraffe."

Dr. X, a paleontologist and evolutionary biologist, who, according to his own statement has carefully studied and documented the fossil neck vertebrae of the Giraffidae, but would like to remain anonymous ("I am sure you understand how delicate this point is”), answered this question in an e-mail to me on March 3, 2006, as follows:

"They [the fossil cervical vertebrae] are all short except of those of Bohlinia attica from Pikermi (Miocene of Greece) and Giraffa. Bohlinia is just as long as Giraffa and certainly not an intermediate. There are differences in the short vertebrae of the various species. These vertebrae are a few and not connecting any of the fossil taxa to Giraffa. The okapi is not elated in any way to any of the fossils and there are no fossil okapis.”
r
And a couple of hours later: "The variation in the short-necked extinct forms is interesting but not leading to long necks.”

Does it count that they belong to the same family, Hominidae, as the gorillas and such?
Errr. *whispers* It kinda does. All members of Homo are part of their family.

neanderthals are ancient humans, not apes. The fact that some of us have their dna is proof of that.

Perhaps all members of 'homo' are part of the family in biology speak...but then so are all other creatures according to biologists.

 

[Pegg]

What you fail to understand Pegg, aside other details, is that teh theory came from the evidence, and not vice versa.

actually that is not true. the theory of evolution 'officially' began with Charles darwin and he presented the theory of common decsent before scientists knew anything about genetics and before he had fossil evidence. He even mentions the lack of fossil evidence in his book. So the theory came first, then everyone set out to try and prove it....that means all their research and the way they interpret the evidence is done so with a bias toward evolution being true.

, there IS evidence already. For you to keep repeating 'there's not evidence' for a theory, shows you don't understand what you are talking about. We have been trying to help you with this.

i fully accept certain aspects of evolution...the aspects of morphological changes which creates a wide variety of animals of the same family such as Dogs, or Horses or Cats etc...within such families we can see how changes occur and these changes lead to a great variety of shapes and sizes and colors.

but what i dont accept is that humans are included. Lining up a group of ape skulls and putting a human skull at the end of the line doesnt convince me that it is legitimate evidence.

 

[Pegg]

Perhaps you'd like to tell us what, in your view, would constitute confirmation.

i've said it many times... crossbreed an ape/chimp with a human and show us the offspring.

if you can get offspring (even a hybrid), that would prove that we are of the same genesis 'kind'...then i will accept it. That would be rock solid evidence .

 

[Heathen Hammer]

actually that is not true. the theory of evolution 'officially' began with Charles darwin and he presented the theory of common decsent before scientists knew anything about genetics and before he had fossil evidence. He even mentions the lack of fossil evidence in his book. So the theory came first, then everyone set out to try and prove it....that means all their research and the way they interpret the evidence is done so with a bias toward evolution being true. .

Your error continues in that Darwin was working when we still relied on sail power. that was hundreds of years ago and his early ideas have been refined and confirmed. But no, his theory came from the observations of living creatures he encountered while traveling in a sailing ship, the Beagle. Once he realized what he was finding and began to think about what he'd found, others picked up on it. He wasn't a paleontologist, he was not an archaeologist. So demanding he find these other things is a false requirement, and the fact that people never realized there were fossils to find makes it so. Do you know that the field of paleontology more or less wasn't born until about the actual decade Darwin went sailing?

i fully accept certain aspects of evolution...the aspects of morphological changes which creates a wide variety of animals of the same family such as Dogs, or Horses or Cats etc...within such families we can see how changes occur and these changes lead to a great variety of shapes and sizes and colors..

It's totally not within your skillset, experience, or authority to divide a scientific field.
It's valid, and to arbitrarily take parts out of it is simply willful ignorance. It works, and much of your life is already based on it being true. Literally. So the cow's already out of that barn.

but what i dont accept is that humans are included. Lining up a group of ape skulls and putting a human skull at the end of the line doesnt convince me that it is legitimate evidence.

Your wish that it not be true means nothing to the facts. You don't get to decide what is 'legitimate' in such cases.

I mean it sounds harsh, but you have zero understanding of what you're talking about. How do you rationally think you get to decide what part of it, which is verified by people with actual degrees in the science, is or isn't accurate? Do you not realize how ridiculous it sounds?

 

[Pegg]

It's totally not within your skillset, experience, or authority to divide a scientific field.
It's valid, and to arbitrarily take parts out of it is simply willful ignorance. It works, and much of your life is already based on it being true. Literally. So the cow's already out of that barn.

Your wish that it not be true means nothing to the facts. You don't get to decide what is 'legitimate' in such cases.

so basically the layman is being told what to believe and they do not have the capacity to question it or reason on it or come to a conscious decision about it.... we just have to accept that we are dumb ignorant fools and continue to be spoonfed by the scientific establishment.

No thank you.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

so basically the layman is being told what to believe and they do not have the capacity to question it or reason on it or come to a conscious decision about it.... we just have to accept that we are dumb ignorant fools and continue to be spoonfed by the scientific establishment.

No thank you.

But your conscious conclusion isn't based on anything related. it's based on wishful thinking.

Education isn't forcing something on you. These are the facts. Taking umbrage at being mistaken about something isn't going to help you at all.

'Dumb and ignorant' have emotional force behind them. Ignoring facts is being willfully ignorant. Is that what you wish to be, or not?

 

[johnhanks]

i've said it many times... crossbreed an ape/chimp with a human and show us the offspring.

An experiment of this kind would be ethically unacceptable (and in most countries almost certainly prohibited). In other words, you are telling us that what you would accept as 'confirmation' is safely beyond practical realisation.

if you can get offspring (even a hybrid), that would prove that we are of the same genesis 'kind'...then i will accept it. That would be rock solid evidence .

And yet you accept other 'genesis kinds' where hybridisation is strictly limited. Do you really think that any two members of the cat family - say, a jaguar and a cheetah - can hybridise? If not, what happens to your biblical 'cat kind'?