Remarkably complete’ 3.8-million-year-old cranium of human ancestor discovered in Ethiopia

[dad]

OK, so you find two populations animals (or plants). How do you determine whether or not they are of the same 'kind'?

We know how to determine if they are the same species (see if they interbreed).

What test is there to determine if they are the same kind?.

There is none. A created kind was something from long ago. One would not look at features of the present nature, such as an ability to breed as the test.

 

[dad]

Then please explain how a species can enter the fossil record "fully formed" and then "leaving it with little or no change", if they were not the result of a previous population reproducing.

I would think that both are true, the original kinds entered fully formed, and then a lot of adapting and evolving started to go on also after this.

 

[nPeace]

Then please propose an explanation of the fossil record that has greater explanatory power and evidenciary support than the proposition that the fossil record shows a nested hierarchy that was produced via reproduction with variation over time.

That's irrelevant.
No one has to produce any alternative to a faulty system. Anyone can point out faults with something without having to show that something is better.
Strawman can't done.

Once again, Darwin was writing over 150 years ago when he was merely PROPOSING his theory. Why are you still hung up on what he wrote when science has come so far that theory is no longer even called Darwinism?

Irrelevant.
You said if "such and such" were the case, "blah blah blah".
I am saying, the same was said before, and that was not the case.

Also, do you have any examples of an organism which could not possibly has formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications?

Please, the article said, any complex organ.

Then please explain how a species can enter the fossil record "fully formed" and then "leaving it with little or no change", if they were not the result of a previous population reproducing.

Why, that's obvious. If I believe in creation, where do you think I think they came from?

 

[nPeace]

Something to think about for you:

If you do find hairs in the hat and the dna doesn't match the person's who the "witness" claims the hat belongs to, the "witness" claims will be instantly dismissed.

Because real evidence beats mere claims any day of the week.

Because indeed, make no mistake, "testimony" really is just CLAIMS and nothing else.

Insufficient evidence results in the case being thrown out by any good and fair judge.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I guess this is where we get to talk about "kinds" being true to their taxonomy. A new variety is not a new organism....it is related to its specific family....an adapted variety is still true to its kind.

A new "species" is still a member of the same family.

Eventhough "kind" is not a term with any real meaning in context of biology, I totally get what you are saying and are in full agreement so far. I'm guessing you realise the bio-technical problem with this word as well, seeing as how you yourself put it in quotation marks.

It's when we get to the process where single celled organisms, that seemingly appeared out of nowhere, can transform themselves into every kind of creature that ever existed.....that is what seems to be glossed over.....ignored.

Hold up now.... you lost me.
A multi-cellular eukaryote organism, still belongs to the euykaryote "kind".

To put it into a bit of perspective, and to use your term of "kind":
- a homo sapiens is a kind of primate
- a primate (or homo sapiens) is a kind of mammal
- a mammal (or primate or homo sapiens) is a kind of tetrapod
- a tetrapod (or mammal or primate or homo sapiens) is a kind of vertebrate
- a vertebrate (or tetrapod or mammal or primate or homo sapiens) is a kind of eukaryote

See?
So at which point do you think that there is a "switch" in "kinds"?

FYI: in evolution theory, there are no switches in "kind". Discovering such a switch, would be very problematic for evolution and a potential falsification.

How on earth can science do anything but guess about that period all those millions of years ago before taxonomies were even fixed?

Micro fossils and the genetic record.
You carry with you the genes of your ancestors. ALL your ancestors.
In mutated form, off course, but ALL your ancestors nonetheless.

When no one was there to record anything....and fossils don't talk unless scientists put words in their mouth.

Fossils give you information concerning which species lived at which times in which locations.

How do we go from a four legged land dweller to a whale with nothing but a similar earbone as evidence?

Well for starters, it's just a plain lie that a "similar earbone" is the only evidence. It is not. Not even by a long shot.

Science suggests that it "might be" or "could be" possible.

Every scientific theory uses such tentative language. It's called intellectual honest. The alternative is expressing levels of certainty that are simply not warranted in scientific context.

Does that mean it "must have" happened that way?

It means that the evidence completely fits the expectations of the model of evolution and that therefor this model holds great explanatory power concerning the origins of whales.

 

[metis]

Please, the article said, any complex organ.

But organs need not be "complex" to begin with. The eye is an example of this, whereas the "eye" in some forms of protozoa are just simple light receptacles. A fly has composite eyes, each of which is relatively simple.

According to myriads of observations over centuries, all material things appear to change over time, and genes are material things. If things didn't evolve, that actually would be the "miracle".

 

[Polymath257]

There is none. A created kind was something from long ago. One would not look at features of the present nature, such as an ability to breed as the test.

So it is a completely useless concept scientifically.

 

[sealchan]

Why does it have to be a species? I did not say that, No.

It has to be a species because an individual life cannot evolve. Evolution implies the ability of a species, not an individual, to change.

To me, it's a speculation to determine that one organism is more distant or closer to another based on DNA. Every living thing has its own DNA makeup.

It has been clearly demonstrated that DNA of an offspring derived closely from that of its parents. Furthermore the DNA of a group of interbreeding individuals is closer than that of other isolated populations of the same species. Are you saying that you dont think this is true?

We don't determine that different artists must have painted pictures based on the quantity of paint distributed on the canvas.
If organisms are designed with a specified makeup, I would expect, like any designed object, they would differ from one make to another - either closer, or further apart.

I'm not following you here, but I suspect that what you are trying to communicate to me is important in terms of us coming to a mutual understanding.

You are referring to one population, as opposed to many.
Let's refine it.
When scientists collect organisms, and take them to their labs, do you consider that a population?

To my knowledge, I am not aware that scientists have ever brought in a "population" of any organisms into a lab. To bring in a population they would need to create an entire environment or habitat that was big enough to sustain a species indefinitely without degrading that species due to insufficient diversity of its DNA.

If we extend that in nature, many populations exists in many areas. Within these populations evolution takes place - not at the same time. This is repeated.

I would say that not much in the way of evolution takes place within any population of interbreeding individuals. There is only a little movement there from time a to time b. The bifurcation of one population into two and the distinction of selection pressures between those two isolated populations does more to cause an evolution of species.

So say, we have evolution taking place within a span of just a few thousands of years. Since there are a number of populations, and evolving at different times, we don't need to wait for those few thousand years to see it, do we?

If there is change in the environment of a species we should see a change in the overall genetic makeup of a species (if we could sufficiently sample enough members of that species non-destructively and accurately resequence those genes) to a slight degree especially if there was a factor causing the species to grow or diminish its numbers over time. We might also see a change in the expression of those genes depending on the nature of the environment or we might see a change in the behavior of the organism due to the implicit adaptive abilities in that organism. These things I suppose would show us the flexing of evolution without showing the creation of a new species.

 

[nPeace]

Irrelevant to the question. How do you determine whether two populations are of the same kind?

There are different kinds of tables, different kind of chairs... They are all furniture, is true.
There are different kinds of whales, different kinds of cats... They are all 'mammals'.

Well, for one, they are both mammals. They have similar skeletal structures that they share but that are NOT shared with other mammals.

What properties are you using to determine they are NOT the same family?

There are families of human, bears, cats, dogs.... Cats are not of the human family. Bears are not of the human family.
We could do a Venn diagram, if that would help. Would you like that?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I would think that both are true, the original kinds entered fully formed, and then a lot of adapting and evolving started to go on also after this.

So constitutes a "kind" and when did they arise?

 

[Polymath257]

There are different kinds of tables, different kind of chairs... They are all furniture, is true.
There are different kinds of whales, different kinds of cats... They are all 'mammals'.

There are families of human, bears, cats, dogs.... Cats are not of the human family. Bears are not of the human family.
We could do a Venn diagram, if that would help. Would you like that?

Giving examples isn't the same as saying how you would determine when a newly discovered species is or is not part of some kind.

Process, not just examples. Without giving a process, you have not answered the question.

 

[nPeace]

But organs need not be "complex" to begin with. The eye is an example of this, whereas the "eye" in some forms of protozoa are just simple light receptacles. A fly has composite eyes, each of which is relatively simple.

According to myriads of observations over centuries, all material things appear to change over time, and genes are material things. If things didn't evolve, that actually would be the "miracle".

Please explain what relevance this has to what I said.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

That's irrelevant.

No, it's entirely relevant. Evolutionary theory is the only plausible explanation for what we see in the fossil record, and is therefore the best available conclusion we have that accounts for an explains the relevant facts. It is specific, testable, and supported by overwhelming evidence. If you do not have an alternative explanation that better explains the facts and is supported by them, you have no reason to believe anything other than that common ancestry is true.

No one has to produce any alternative to a faulty system.

You've yet to demonstrate any fault. You literally had to assert that species just "appeared" in the fossil record in order to avoid the obvious conclusion that they were the result of reproduction.

If your only way to dismiss an explanation is "magic", then you have no meaningful objection to the explanation.

Irrelevant.
You said if "such and such" were the case, "blah blah blah".
I am saying, the same was said before, and that was not the case.

You're talking jibberish. Do you or do you not understand that Darwin is not the last word on modern evolutionary theory?

Please, the article said, any complex organ.

Okay then. Do you have any examples of a complex organ which could not possibly has formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications?

Why, that's obvious. If I believe in creation, where do you think I think they came from?

So you DO believe that they just magically appeared out of nowhere, like I said.

 

[nPeace]

Giving examples isn't the same as saying how you would determine when a newly discovered species is or is not part of some kind.

Process, not just examples. Without giving a process, you have not answered the question.

Oh. You mean, how would scientists determine that?
I don't see the need to complicate matters, so could you please explain why they need to do that? What do you mean by "a newly discovered species is or is not part of some kind"?

 

[nPeace]

It has to be a species because an individual life cannot evolve. Evolution implies the ability of a species, not an individual, to change.



It has been clearly demonstrated that DNA of an offspring derived closely from that of its parents. Furthermore the DNA of a group of interbreeding individuals is closer than that of other isolated populations of the same species. Are you saying that you dont think this is true?

Yes, I am saying that scientists make the assumption that DNA can be used to map every living thing into a hierarchy.

I'm not following you here, but I suspect that what you are trying to communicate to me is important in terms of us coming to a mutual understanding.



To my knowledge, I am not aware that scientists have ever brought in a "population" of any organisms into a lab. To bring in a population they would need to create an entire environment or habitat that was big enough to sustain a species indefinitely without degrading that species due to insufficient diversity of its DNA.

The fruit flies, and bacteria experiments were used to demonstrate evolution. If they were not considered a population, then evolution did not occur. Correct?

I would say that not much in the way of evolution takes place within any population of interbreeding individuals. There is only a little movement there from time a to time b. The bifurcation of one population into two and the distinction of selection pressures between those two isolated populations does more to cause an evolution of species.



If there is change in the environment of a species we should see a change in the overall genetic makeup of a species (if we could sufficiently sample enough members of that species non-destructively and accurately resequence those genes) to a slight degree especially if there was a factor causing the species to grow or diminish its numbers over time. We might also see a change in the expression of those genes depending on the nature of the environment or we might see a change in the behavior of the organism due to the implicit adaptive abilities in that organism. These things I suppose would show us the flexing of evolution without showing the creation of a new species.

I probably am not getting you fully, on your understanding of population.
I have to go, but I will try to understand you on this later.

 

[metis]

Please explain what relevance this has to what I said.

You emphasized the word "complex". Maybe I took that wrong out of the context you were using?

 

[dad]

So it is a completely useless concept scientifically.

Science is useless at tracing back to the past and creation, yes.

 

[dad]

So constitutes a "kind" and when did they arise?

The did not arise, they were created. When? Same week man was created and the stars and sun and fish.
So what constituted a kind was that God created it one day that way. What now constitutes a kind? Nothing... science knows about because all the evolving that went on to those first created animals and man as well as the changed nature have clouded things.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The did not arise, they were created.

How? By what method?

When? Same week man was created and the stars and sun and fish.

So how come we find stars and fish to be significantly older than man?

So what constituted a kind was that God created it one day that way.

So what "kind" did he create, and if all were different "kinds" why do they all share very similar genetic makeup?

What now constitutes a kind? Nothing... science knows about because all the evolving that went on to those first created animals and man as well as the changed nature have clouded things.

Do you have any evidence of this?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

By what stretch of whose imagination are they of the same family?

By the parameters of the taxonomy and an objective evaluation of the evidence.

See, taxa have specific biological definitions. While it can get technical, in essence it is trivial to identify the taxa of a species as in its most simplistic expression, you basicly have a checklist of properties you go over.

This is why you might have heared things like

"It is impossible to come up with a definition for 'primate' which includes ALL primates, but excludes humans without arbitrarily adding "but not humans" to the definition".

Consider for example the word "mammal".

Now look at a frog or a crockodile or a bird.
Are those mammals?

How about a rabbit? Is that a mammal?

I'm sure you don't even need to look it up. You know almost instantly that frogs, crockodiles and birds aren't mammals, but rabbits are.

So how do you know this?
Could it perhaps be that there is indeed this list of objective properties which defines what a mammal is?
And that all you have to really do when trying to identify a species, is run through that list of properties and check the specimen under evaluation to see if it has or hasn't got those properties?