The Evolution Chamber: Early Fossil Record

[Subduction Zone]

Of course they can. They'll probably lose their job to the Science Inquisition, but they could argue it.



Like Moses? No. Not like Moses at all. Moses recorded a history of events unfolding. In the case of Evolution it was far more likely an attempt, and an unnecessary attempt at that, to counter the _______ . Fill in the blank.

No, Moses, like the Easter Bunny, is mythical.

And though those on your side are known for inquisitions and other such evils you will not find the same in the world of the sciences.

 

[Earthling]

Isn't it wonderful that time & effort have revealed
so many useful fossils since Darwin's day.

Have they?

 

[Earthling]

There is plenty of evidence now. Making evolution of humans from apes as understood today, based of real evidence. In 19th century, there was no good reason to take that idea as justified by evidence. But today there is.

It's just piles and piles of conjecture, speculation, termed as indisputable facts and then insisting itself as such.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Have they?

One hundred and fifty years behind the times.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's just piles and piles of conjecture, speculation, termed as indisputable facts and then insisting itself as such.

Tsk tskt, breaking the Ninth Commandment.

 

[sayak83]

It's just piles and piles of conjecture, speculation, termed as indisputable facts and then insisting itself as such.

Wish to have a discussion about that?
Does this opinion of your go for all scientific fields in general, or only evolutionary biology?

 

[Earthling]

What is the alternative? That a wizard-God designed that disharmonious body?

You don't propose and accept a possible truth just because you don't like the alternative.

The Giraffe is an example of very bad, unintelligent design.
Which excludes a divine intervention a priori.
Its survival as species is a miracle

Is this humor or sarcasm?

I corrected my post. Lamarckism and Darwinism are not mutually exclusive.

You weren't addressing me, but the terminology means nothing to me.

 

[Earthling]

Wish to have a discussion about that?
Does this opinion of your go for all scientific fields in general, or only evolutionary biology?

If, 100 years ago some scientist said "A giraffe evolved a long neck so it could eat leaves." That is a nonsensical statement based on no real evidence. If, for the following 100 years similar statements are made they don't confirm each other. You don't have an undeniable amount of evidence, you have 100 years of nonsensical statements.

Does an ape become a man? What is a mule? Did the light colored Pepper Moth Exist with the dark colored Pepper Moth? Did pollution cause an evolutionary change in the case of the Pepper Moth or did evolution?

 

[Subduction Zone]

If, 100 years ago some scientist said "A giraffe evolved a long neck so it could eat leaves." That is a nonsensical statement based on no real evidence. If, for the following 100 years similar statements are made they don't confirm each other. You don't have an undeniable amount of evidence, you have 100 years of nonsensical statements.

Does an ape become a man? What is a mule? Did the light colored Pepper Moth Exist with the dark colored Pepper Moth? Did pollution cause an evolutionary change in the case of the Pepper Moth or did evolution?

You are still making an unsubstantiated claim about others. That means the odds are very high that you are breaking the Ninth Commandment.

As a supposed Christian do you follow the Commandments?

 

[sayak83]

If, 100 years ago some scientist said "A giraffe evolved a long neck so it could eat leaves." That is a nonsensical statement based on no real evidence. If, for the following 100 years similar statements are made they don't confirm each other. You don't have an undeniable amount of evidence, you have 100 years of nonsensical statements.

Does an ape become a man? What is a mule? Did the light colored Pepper Moth Exist with the dark colored Pepper Moth? Did pollution cause an evolutionary change in the case of the Pepper Moth or did evolution?

Do you wish to have a discussion about the soundness of the evidence for evolution or not?
Ancient apes did evolve into humans. We can discuss the evidence.
A mule is a hybrid between donkey and horse I believe.
Pollution caused an evolutionary change in the relative abundance of black colored moths over light moths. There may have been other factors, I need to look up the research.
Evolution is a mechanism by which an environmental change (like pollution) can impact properties of a group interbreeding organism, like the moth. This is the correct way to describe the relation between the mechanism of evolution and the environments organism interaction, which this mechanism mediates upon.

 

[Earthling]

Do you wish to have a discussion about the soundness of the evidence for evolution or not?

We are having that discussion now.

Ancient apes did evolve into humans. We can discuss the evidence.

Please do.

A mule is a hybrid between donkey and horse I believe.

So a mule can't reproduce.

Pollution caused an evolutionary change in the relative abundance of black colored moths over light moths. There may have been other factors, I need to look up the research.
Evolution is a mechanism by which an environmental change (like pollution) can impact properties of a group interbreeding organism, like the moth. This is the correct way to describe the relation between the mechanism of evolution and the environments organism interaction, which this mechanism mediates upon.

There were trees with a white trunk. The Pepper Moths gravitated to these trees. There were 2 types of Pepper Moth, dark and light. The dark stood out on the light bark, so were easy prey. The light moths blended in with the light bark so they escaped. Pollution set in and the bark was darkened in color. Now the light moths stuck out and were easy prey while the dark moths were hidden and escaped.

Nothing evolved. Unless, by evolve you mean change, and it was the color of the bark that changed, or the visibility of the moth, both of which existed from the start.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We are having that discussion now.



Please do.



So a mule can't reproduce.



There were trees with a white trunk. The Pepper Moths gravitated to these trees. There were 2 types of Pepper Moth, dark and light. The dark stood out on the light bark, so were easy prey. The light moths blended in with the light bark so they escaped. Pollution set in and the bark was darkened in color. Now the light moths stuck out and were easy prey while the dark moths were hidden and escaped.

Nothing evolved. Unless, by evolve you mean change, and it was the color of the bark that changed, or the visibility of the moth, both of which existed from the start.

So you don't even know what evolution is. Evolution is a change in the gene alleles of a population. The gene alleles of the peppered moth changed, by definition that is evolution.

 

[sayak83]

We are having that discussion now.



Please do.



So a mule can't reproduce.



There were trees with a white trunk. The Pepper Moths gravitated to these trees. There were 2 types of Pepper Moth, dark and light. The dark stood out on the light bark, so were easy prey. The light moths blended in with the light bark so they escaped. Pollution set in and the bark was darkened in color. Now the light moths stuck out and were easy prey while the dark moths were hidden and escaped.

Nothing evolved. Unless, by evolve you mean change, and it was the color of the bark that changed, or the visibility of the moth, both of which existed from the start.

Change in relative frequency of two different traits in a population is an example of evolution as well. It is not an example of speciation, but it is an example of evolution at work within species due to natural selection.
Some hybrids are fertile, some are not. Good example of fertile hybrids that occur in the wild are ducks.
Hybrid Ducks Call Definition of ‘Species’ Into Question By JOE EATON. Category: Press Releases from The Berkeley Daily Planet

Also monkeys
New poop sample analysis reveals interspecies monkey romance

Regarding human evolution. Please read my posts linked below.
The Science of Human Evolution

 

[ChristineM]

"The early theories of human evolution are really very odd, if one stops to look at them. David Pilbeam has described the early theories as ‘fossil-free.’ That is, here were theories about human evolution that one would think would require some fossil evidence, but in fact there were either so few fossils that they exerted no influence on the theory, or there were no fossils at all. So between man’s supposed closest relatives and the early human fossils, there was only the imagination of nineteenth century scientists." - The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, "Fifty Years of Studies on Human Evolution," by Sherwood Washburn, May 1982, pp. 37, 41

Imagination with photographs... Clever

 

[Altfish]

If, 100 years ago some scientist said "A giraffe evolved a long neck so it could eat leaves." That is a nonsensical statement based on no real evidence. If, for the following 100 years similar statements are made they don't confirm each other. You don't have an undeniable amount of evidence, you have 100 years of nonsensical statements.

Does an ape become a man? What is a mule? Did the light colored Pepper Moth Exist with the dark colored Pepper Moth? Did pollution cause an evolutionary change in the case of the Pepper Moth or did evolution?

You do not understand evolution and every statement you make is showing that.

Evolution does not have a target of "Must have a long neck to eat leaves"
Success in evolution is based on mutations that give an advantage.
Now I also am no expert but suspect that many years ago trees grew taller, so the animals that had an advantage were those that bred with a longer neck gene. Over many, many generations the gene was chosen because these animals were most successful and bred most successfully.

 

[Jumi]

Dobzhansky, a Russian Orthodox, wrote a famous 1973 essay entitled Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution espousing evolutionary creationism:

"I am a creationist and an evolutionist. Evolution is God's, or Nature's, method of creation. Creation is not an event that happened in 4004 BC; it is a process that began some 10 billion years ago and is still under way... Does the evolutionary doctrine clash with religious faith? It does not. It is a blunder to mistake the Holy Scriptures for elementary textbooks of astronomy, geology, biology, and anthropology. Only if symbols are construed to mean what they are not intended to mean can there arise imaginary, insoluble conflicts... the blunder leads to blasphemy: the Creator is accused of systematic deceitfulness."

Using the same quote as in another thread, in case some anti-science creationist might realize something.

 

[Mox]

It's interesting to note that creationists trust the scientific method enough to use computers and other devices, to post their bizarre comments online with, yet when it comes to evolutionary biology and the myriad sciences involved such as genetics, they lose their trust in the scientific method.

Anyone would think they were merely in denial because evolutionary theory conflicts with literal interpretations of Genesis, which to be fair, isnt a scientific treatise.

I dismiss creationism very easily, in all it's forms. Simply because it offers no theory, just erroneous claims.

As my Christian mother once said, ''Just because creation is scientifically reducible, it doesn't make it any less miraculous''

Serious christians, do not need to weigh their faith against the doctrine of creationism. It has nothing to do with Christ's message to the world.

 

[Mox]

Now I also am no expert but suspect that many years ago trees grew taller, so the animals that had an advantage were those that bred with a longer neck gene. Over many, many generations the gene was chosen because these animals were most successful and bred most successfully.

Trees certainly grow as tall they can in forests and jungles, the main reason being to outcompete other plants for sunlight. Being tall for a tree, is a good survival strategy. So it will inevitably become an evolutionary direction.

 

[Polymath257]

"The early theories of human evolution are really very odd, if one stops to look at them. David Pilbeam has described the early theories as ‘fossil-free.’ That is, here were theories about human evolution that one would think would require some fossil evidence, but in fact there were either so few fossils that they exerted no influence on the theory, or there were no fossils at all. So between man’s supposed closest relatives and the early human fossils, there was only the imagination of nineteenth century scientists." - The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, "Fifty Years of Studies on Human Evolution," by Sherwood Washburn, May 1982, pp. 37, 41

Yes. Comparative anatomy goes a long way to show the relationship of humans to the other great ape species. That is one part of the evidence for evolution.

And, once the fossils *were* discovered, the fossil evidence showed the particulars on *how* humans evolved.

 

[Polymath257]

Here we go again. Chasing our own tails. The fact was there was little to no evidence, it was based on imagination.

Past tense. There is a great deal of evidence NOW. And the evidence from comparative anatomy was enough to show humans and the great apes to be related. Past that, of course there would be speculation: that's one step in the scientific process.