The ToE and common ancestry of all life forms did not come from looking at the evidence

[Man of Faith]

MoF:

You still dodging the DNA question. Why?

And you never answered #583. Why?

Darwin didn't have DNA when he came up with the ToE. DNA can say anything you want it to at this point, it depends on what you want to to say.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

Have you never heard of an mudskipper?

No fossil needed. Here is a Iiving organism that can function on both land and in water.

 

[ragordon168]

Which reptile became a bird and how many changes did it take? Can we name all the different animals from bird to reptile and show their skeletons? Like Darwin said there should be millions of transitional fossiles out there to show all this evolution.
.

the raptor family of dinosaurs is one example of a reptile which has modern bird descendants.

do you know how rare decent fossils are to find? a fossil that can answer these questions has to survive millions of years of natural processes and be undamaged by human exploits.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

Darwin didn't have DNA when he came up with the ToE. DNA can say anything you want it to at this point, it depends on what you want to to say.

No, he didn't. S-o-o wh-a-a-at?

DNA says anything? Gee, we use it as evidence in criminal cases. But according to you it says anything you want it to say.

Passing strange.

 

[Amill]

Which reptile became a bird and how many changes did it take? Can we name all the different animals from bird to reptile and show their skeletons? Like Darwin said there should be millions of transitional fossiles out there to show all this evolution.

I heard that it would take about 500 different changes to go from land dwelling to a sea dwelling animal and they would have to pretty much change simultaneously. How would an animal from from lungs to gills in one day? It doesn't even make common sense.

Whales breathe air lol, no lungs to gills swap occurred.

And some fish can live outside of water, so doesn't that kind of support the fish to amphibians idea? Ever heard of a lungfish? IT CAN BREATHE AIR, pretty amazing huh? Amphibians can also breathe through their skin, so that may have been an important step in the water to land transition. It's not something that happened quickly, it's not like a fish all of a sudden grew limbs and walked out. Who knows, maybe their transition started when more and more insects were around the shallow areas of water or on land, so fish were adapting and evolving to live off this food source.

And birds are dinosaurs.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=archaeopteryx-dinosaur-bird
They still can't determine whether or not this creature was more avian dinosaur than just dinosaur lol.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/avians.html

Coelurosaurian dinosaurs are thought to be the closest relatives of birds, in fact, birds are considered to be coelurosaurs. This is based on Gauthier's and others' cladistic analyses of the skeletal morphology of these animals. Bones are used because bones are normally the only features preserved in the fossil record. The first birds shared the following major skeletal characteristics with many coelurosaurian dinosaurs (especially those of their own clade, the Maniraptora, which includes Velociraptor):

1. Pubis (one of the three bones making up the vertebrate pelvis) shifted from an anterior to a more posterior orientation (see Saurischia), and bearing a small distal "boot".
2. Elongated arms and forelimbs and clawed manus (hands).
3. Large orbits (eye openings in the skull).
4. Flexible wrist with a semi-lunate carpal (wrist bone).
5. Hollow, thin-walled bones.
6. 3-fingered opposable grasping manus (hand), 4-toed pes (foot); but supported by 3 main toes.
7. Reduced, posteriorly stiffened tail.
8. Elongated metatarsals (bones of the feet between the ankle and toes).
9. S-shaped curved neck.
10. Erect, digitgrade (ankle held well off the ground) stance with feet postitioned directly below the body.
11. Similar eggshell microstructure.
12. Teeth with a constriction between the root and the crown.
13. Functional basis for wing power stroke present in arms and pectoral girdle (during motion, the arms were swung down and forward, then up and backwards, describing a "figure-eight" when viewed laterally).
14. Expanded pneumatic sinuses in the skull.
15. Five or more vertebrae incorporated into the sacrum (hip).
16. Straplike scapula (shoulder blade).
17. Clavicles (collarbone) fused to form a furcula (wishbone).
18. Hingelike ankle joint, with movement mostly restricted to the fore-aft plane.
19. Secondary bony palate (nostrils open posteriorly in throat).
20. Possibly feathers... this awaits more study. Small, possibly feathered dinosaurs were recently found in China. It appears that many coelurosaurs were cloaked in an external fibrous covering that could be called "protofeathers."

 

[Man of Faith]

No, he didn't. S-o-o wh-a-a-at?

DNA says anything? Gee, we use it as evidence in criminal cases. But according to you it says anything you want it to say.

Passing strange.

DNA is used in courts to prove which human commited a crime, they compare human DNA to human DNA, not human DNA to other animals. Matter of fact they can look at DNA and see if it is from a human or not. This has nothing to do with evolution.

 

[Gunfingers]

I heard that it would take about 500 different changes to go from land dwelling to a sea dwelling animal and they would have to pretty much change simultaneously. How would an animal from from lungs to gills in one day? It doesn't even make common sense.

And, seriously, you know whales don't have gills right?
Here's how they evolved:
Evolution of cetaceans - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[MSizer]

Which reptile became a bird and how many changes did it take? Can we name all the different animals from bird to reptile and show their skeletons? Like Darwin said there should be millions of transitional fossiles out there to show all this evolution.

OK, let's walk through the problem with your argument by an analogy. Imagine that there was a murder, and the police had found footprints, fingerprints and DNA all showing that the butler did it.

Now, just as the jury is ready to convict based on the evidence, someone notices that there was a hidden camera in the butler's room. So, they run the tape, and find that just a few minutes before the murder, the butler went into his room, got a gun out of his drawer, loaded it, and left the room. Is that not even more evidence than they had before? Yes, it is.

But, the clever defense lawyer jumps up and says "the tape doesn't actually show my client murdering the victim, it only shows that he had a gun a few minutes before the murder, and we can't see on the tape where he went or what he did with the gun, therefore, there is reasonable doubt against my client's alleged guilt."

Would you consider that damning to the prosecuter's case? Of course not. The tape actually supports the prosecuter.

That's what the fossil record is. It's an extra piece of incomplete evidence that only supports what is already evident.

Furthermore, there should NOT be more fossils than there are. Given that mineral based biomass such as bones and carapaces are somewhat recent, we wouldn't expect to find fossils for every speicies that ever existed.

Furthermore, for every transitional fossil found (which is every fossil that exists) a new "gap" is created because now creationists say "ok, fine, so we had fossile a, e, and f, which left us with one gap between a -e. Now we have fossil c, which means we now have TWO gaps, one between a-b and one between c-f. That's foolish. The reality is the gap is filling in, not increasing.

If you want to use fossils to blow evolution out of the water, go find a rabbit or a human in the pre-cambrian layer. Then I will personally tell you that you were right all along.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

In any case MoF, we actual evidence. Working out of real results, demonstrable repeatable predictable results.

How do you explain that?

 

[OmarKhayyam]

DNA is used in courts to prove which human commited a crime, they compare human DNA to human DNA, not human DNA to other animals. Matter of fact they can look at DNA and see if it is from a human or not. This has nothing to do with evolution.

Ah young Sir, you are too simple. When we look at DNA across species we see the SAME coding. As with the yeast I have already pointed out to you. A part of our DNA is the same as the yeast.

How you explain that?

 

[Man of Faith]

MoF:

You still dodging the DNA question. Why?

And you never answered #583. Why?

I went to 583 and all I saw was a post by rgordan.

 

[ragordon168]

DNA is used in courts to prove which human commited a crime, they compare human DNA to human DNA, not human DNA to other animals. Matter of fact they can look at DNA and see if it is from a human or not. This has nothing to do with evolution.

yes it does. human DNA has specific markers that allow DNA evidence to work. human DNA is different to animal DNA so we know when its human blood and not some injured animals.

BUT the DNA of various animals have varying amounts of similarity to human DNA which shows they are related which means we share a common ancestor in the same way you share grandparents with your cousin - you might look nothing alike but you are still related.

 

[Man of Faith]

Ah young Sir, you are too simple. When we look at DNA across species we see the SAME coding. As with the yeast I have already pointed out to you. A part of our DNA is the same as the yeast.

How you explain that?

I already answered that question, that says nothing about evolution unless you want it to. Nobody knows why that happens. You want to call it evidence of evolution, you are free to do that.

 

[Man of Faith]

yes it does. human DNA has specific markers that allow DNA evidence to work. human DNA is different to animal DNA so we know when its human blood and not some injured animals.

BUT the DNA of various animals have varying amounts of similarity to human DNA which shows they are related which means we share a common ancestor in the same way you share grandparents with your cousin - you might look nothing alike but you are still related.

Again, you want it to show evidence of relatedness because that is what you believe. I prefer to say it shows evidence of a common design.

 

[MSizer]

I put a lot of work into post 628. I'd really like to hear an argument against it.

 

[Autodidact]

I don't know but they are both still lizards. Have we gone from lizard to anything else yet, and if so what is it?

Why are you hung up on lizards as a group? Are lizards a kind? How do you know?

 

[ragordon168]

what about mitochondrial DNA? its not human, it belongs to some prehistoric organism that hitched along for a ride and has stayed with us ever since.

if god created us the way we are why would he make it that we need a symbiote to respirate more effectively instead of just designing us to do it ourselves?

 

[MSizer]

Are you avoiding post 628? Please, it's my magnum opus for the day. I (being of scientific mind) would love to see it defeated.

 

[Man of Faith]

OK, let's walk through the problem with your argument by an analogy. Imagine that there was a murder, and the police had found footprints, fingerprints and DNA all showing that the butler did it.

Now, just as the jury is ready to convict based on the evidence, someone notices that there was a hidden camera in the butler's room. So, they run the tape, and find that just a few minutes before the murder, the butler went into his room, got a gun out of his drawer, loaded it, and left the room. Is that not even more evidence than they had before? Yes, it is.

But, the clever defense lawyer jumps up and says "the tape doesn't actually show my client murdering the victim, it only shows that he had a gun a few minutes before the murder, and we can't see on the tape where he went or what he did with the gun, therefore, there is reasonable doubt against my client's alleged guilt."

Would you consider that damning to the prosecuter's case? Of course not. The tape actually supports the prosecuter.

That's what the fossil record is. It's an extra piece of incomplete evidence that only supports what is already evident.

Furthermore, there should NOT be more fossils than there are. Given that mineral based biomass such as bones and carapaces are somewhat recent, we wouldn't expect to find fossils for every speicies that ever existed.

Furthermore, for every transitional fossil found (which is every fossil that exists) a new "gap" is created because now creationists say "ok, fine, so we had fossile a, e, and f, which left us with one gap between a -e. Now we have fossil c, which means we now have TWO gaps, one between a-b and one between c-f. That's foolish. The reality is the gap is filling in, not increasing.

If you want to use fossils to blow evolution out of the water, go find a rabbit or a human in the pre-cambrian layer. Then I will personally tell you that you were right all along.

Basically you are saying fossils don't matter, I disagree. You yourself used the lack off fossil evidence against creationism in your last paragraph. The lack of fossil evidence disturbed Darwin enough to mention it in the Origin of the Species.

 

[Autodidact]

Which reptile became a bird and how many changes did it take?

Well, this is a long, technical answer. I can Google it if you like, but it would take a significant investment.

Can we name all the different animals from bird to reptile and show their skeletons?

Not every, but most.

Like Darwin said there should be millions of transitional fossiles out there to show all this evolution.

And there are. Remember, we haven't even touched on the evidence yet, we're still explaining the theory.

I heard that it would take about 500 different changes to go from land dwelling to a sea dwelling animal and they would have to pretty much change simultaneously. How would an animal from from lungs to gills in one day?

It wouldn't. Have you been paying any attention? It's wearisome to have to repeat myself, so, I beg of you, pay attention. Key word: GRADUAL. If necessary, tattoo it somewhere accessible.

It doesn't even make common sense.

It doesn't make any sense, and never happened. It's very fatiguing correcting your same misconceptions over and over. If you don't understand something, please ask.