Evolution discussion

[MVP]

....
Also to be considered is when we let the fossil record speak, its testimony is not evolution-oriented. Instead, the testimony of the fossil record is creation-oriented. It shows that many different kinds of living things suddenly appeared. .

No, it shows that many kinds of different things evolved gradually from most primitive life forms to life forms we have today. All creationists would need to do is to find a single more advanced fossil dating back to the period of time where there was only primitive creatures to shatter evolution theory. From millions of fossils not a single one? Don't you thing we would have come to one by now?

 

[carolinajazz]

Birds have scales. Have you not seen it? Some dinosaurs are known to have feathers.

Flightless birds like penguins and ostriches have only solid bones, further evidencing the link between flight and the adaptation of hollow bones

Birds have no air cooled engines ( or any engines for that matter) lol.

Birds have uncinate processes on the ribs. These are hooked extensions of bone which help to strengthen the rib cage by overlapping with the rib behind them. This feature is also found in the tuatara Sphenodon. They also have a greatly elongate tetradiate pelvis as in some reptiles. The hindlimb has an intra-tarsal joint found also in some reptiles. There is extensive fusion of the trunk vertebrae as well as fusion with the pectoral girdle. They have a diapsid skull as in reptiles with a pre-lachrymal fossa (present in some reptiles).


There is so many overhelming features which prove that birds are evolved from reptiles that I am just amazed at any person in 21st century still trying to argue that. Seriously, where I am? In middle of Amazon jungle talking to some primitive tribemen?

....just because some creatures have similar features as other do, does NOT prove in anyway, shape or form......that they "evolved" from each other! You would still have to come up with, demonstrate, show, or answer: "If this animal "evolved" how did it happen?" No theories, concepts, experiments have ever held water when you ask those questions of any kind of life in the animal kingdom! Your continuing to just brow beat us with "given enough time" anything can happen....does not cut the mustard! Nor is your assertion that only the ignorant refuse to believe it while educators and scientists believe that evolution is a fact, proves this preposterous hoax!

 

[scootsy]

Just curious. We have already seen evolution take place (what was that like white moth species whose habitat was blackened due to coal being burnt and they slowly became black to not stand out so much to predators ((white creatures on black surfaces, hard to hide)), do you think humans have reached the pinnacle point of their evolutionary progression? What stressors would bring about a genetic change in our lax, kush lifestyles? Would it be possible, considering the vast diversity of geographic location of humans to make any biological change to be evident in all humans?

 

[MVP]

....just because some creatures have similar features as other do, does NOT prove in anyway, shape or form......that they "evolved" from each other! You would still have to come up with, demonstrate, show, or answer: "If this animal "evolved" how did it happen?" No theories, concepts, experiments have ever held water when you ask those questions of any kind of life in the animal kingdom!

There is overhelming evidence of that happening within millions of years. Have you ever heard of so called "transitional species"? Obviously it is personal choice to believe scientific data and evidence proving that or believe religious literature written thousands of years ago. I see lancelets, bichirs, mudskippers, amphiumas, sirens and have no questions about evolution - it is right infront of your eyes! I do not even need to go deep into DNA similarities or metabolism or physiology to understand that we all had common ancestry.
Tell me who created London underground mosquito and nylon eating bacteria. How they appeared in our life?

 

[MVP]

.... You would still have to come up with, demonstrate, show, or answer: "If this animal "evolved" how did it happen?" No theories, concepts, experiments have ever held water when you ask those questions of any kind of life in the animal kingdom!

In 2004, three American palaeontologists, Neil Shubin, Edward Daeschler and Farish Jenkins, came across a group of Tikataalik roseae fossils. Tikataalik roseae is a transition species between primitive fishand the earliest amphibians, which lived in the Devonian period. Jenny Clack (another palaeontologist who specialises in fishevolution) said, ―the fossil combines features of fish and tetrapods such that it fits perfectly between the two…this is another gap closed that a deity no longer needs to fill.

Learning begins when you do not know the answer. Learn my friend. Study. Understand.

 

[PearlWatson]

Just curious. We have already seen evolution take place (what was that like white moth species whose habitat was blackened due to coal being burnt and they slowly became black to not stand out so much to predators ((white creatures on black surfaces, hard to hide)), do you think humans have reached the pinnacle point of their evolutionary progression? What stressors would bring about a genetic change in our lax, kush lifestyles? Would it be possible, considering the vast diversity of geographic location of humans to make any biological change to be evident in all humans?

You are probably trolling for the Peppered moth "experiment."

These Darwiniacs glued black and white moths to blackened trees to show how black moths in a polluted England were "more fit" then light moths against being eaten by birds.
The problem was that the moths only came out at night and so had no need to hide from birds while they rested on the undersides of branches, but those little factual details didn't seem to matter to the Darwiniacs who "set up" the test, or the ones who continue to include the "experiment" in government school text books as proof of natural selection.

Speculating that black moths are "more fit" than white moths during times of pollution, and then setting up a fraudulent experiment to prove this speculation, obviously doesn't support the story that all life shares a common ancestory or that natural selection was involved in that process.

 

[scootsy]

You are probably trolling for the Peppered moth "experiment."

These Darwiniacs glued black and white moths to blackened trees to show how black moths in a polluted England were "more fit" then light moths against being eaten by birds.
The problem was that the moths only came out at night and so had no need to hide from birds while they rested on the undersides of branches, but those little factual details didn't seem to matter to the Darwiniacs who "set up" the test, or the ones who continue to include the "experiment" in government school text books as proof of natural selection.

Links for proof?

Just curious, which version of the experiment are you referring to? Kettlewell and Ford, or Majerus (whose experiment validated the original results)?

Lastly, I did not say this was evidence of natural selection, but of evolution, which even Creationists agree upon. They simply claim that microevolution within a species is not the same as macroevolution to a new species altogether.

 

[PearlWatson]

Links for proof?

Just curious, which version of the experiment are you referring to? Kettlewell and Ford, or Majerus (whose experiment validated the original results)?

Lastly, I did not say this was evidence of natural selection, but of evolution, which even Creationists agree upon. They simply claim that microevolution within a species is not the same as macroevolution to a new species altogether.

Ford and Kettlewell.

https://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/25/books/the-moth-that-failed.html

The only thing anyone managed to validate was that both black and white moths exist. Woopdeedoo!

Natural selection is supposedly what brings about "evolution"

Yes, Darwiniac's have managed to confuse a lot of people, as to what Darwin's theory actually is, by labeling small differences in populations "micro-evolution."

 

[Gameface]

I'm not super invested in whether evolution is correct or not. I know as an atheist I'm supposed to beat the drum and claim that evolution is proof that God doesn't exist, but I really see evolution and debates on the reality of a supernatural creator being as not being connected. First reason being that evolution is reality based, whereas faith is based on a fantasy that plays off our basic hopes and desires. So it's hard to disprove one with the other.

I trust that every last scientist on the planet is not in on a giant con job because they're actually satan worshipers or something. They could be wrong. It wouldn't hurt my feelings.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

This thread has not failed to live up to my expectations.

 

[carolinajazz]

England’s peppered moth is referred to as a modern example of evolution in progress. The International Wildlife Encyclopedia stated: “This is the most striking evolutionary change ever to have been witnessed by man.” After observing that Darwin was plagued by his inability to demonstrate the evolution of even one species, Jastrow, in his book Red Giants and White Dwarfs, added: “Had he known it, an example was at hand which would have provided him with the proof he needed. The case was an exceedingly rare one.” The case was, of course, the peppered moth.

Just what happened to the peppered moth? At first, the lighter form of this moth was more common than the darker form. This lighter type blended well into the lighter-colored trunks of trees and so was more protected from birds. But then, because of years of pollution from industrial areas, tree trunks became darkened. Now the moths’ lighter color worked against them, as birds could pick them out faster and eat them. Consequently the darker variety of peppered moth, which is said to be a mutant, survived better because it was difficult for birds to see them against the soot-darkened trees. The darker variety rapidly became the dominant type.

But was the peppered moth evolving into some other type of insect? No, it was still exactly the same peppered moth, merely having a different coloration. Hence, the English medical journal On Call referred to using this example to try to prove evolution as “notorious.” It declared: “This is an excellent demonstration of the function of camouflage, but, since it begins and ends with moths and no new species is formed, it is quite irrelevant as evidence for evolution.”

The inaccurate claim that the peppered moth is evolving is similar to several other examples. For instance, since some germs have proved resistant to antibiotics, it is claimed that evolution is taking place. But the hardier germs are still the same type, not evolving into anything else. And it is even acknowledged that the change may have been due, not to mutations, but to the fact that some germs were immune to begin with. When the others were killed off by drugs, the immune ones multiplied and became dominant. As Evolution From Space says: “We doubt, however, that anything more is involved in these cases than the selection of already existing genes.”

The same process may also have been the case with some insects being immune to poisons used against them. Either the poisons killed those insects on which they were used, or they were ineffective. Those killed could not develop a resistance, since they were dead. The survival of others could mean that they had been immune at the start. Such immunity is a genetic factor that appears in some insects but not in others. In any event, the insects remained of the same kind. They were not evolving into something else.

 

[babe]

I'm not super invested in whether evolution is correct or not. I know as an atheist I'm supposed to beat the drum and claim that evolution is proof that God doesn't exist, but I really see evolution and debates on the reality of a supernatural creator being as not being connected. First reason being that evolution is reality based, whereas faith is based on a fantasy that plays off our basic hopes and desires. So it's hard to disprove one with the other.

I trust that every last scientist on the planet is not in on a giant con job because they're actually satan worshipers or something. They could be wrong. It wouldn't hurt my feelings.

This is like saying you're just too smart for this stupid argument. And probably you have evidence to substantiate the claim that would be just overwhelming to anyone who could understand it. But the problem with exemplary intelligence is just that nobody can properly appreciate it. So it's a useless claim.

"Scientists" who are just liars enough to take a "straw man" argument from a Bible written by people living in an age where there was no understanding of the chemical elements let alone DNA and the chemical damage that does occur to it actually don't merit their claims to be "scientists" when arguing that biology disproves the concept of "God" and the creation as described briefly in the Bible.

There are no actual scraps of writing that date back to either Moses or any other "authoritative" source for the books of Moses. What we have was put together by the scribes and priests who worked for Solomon when he was the King of Israel on a campaign to solidify a "State Religion". So I don't think you could really attribute the Biblical account of "creation" to the God of Abraham any more than you could attribute to Jesus the "Trinity" concept of the Godhead adopted by the Catholic Church hundreds of years later.

Any hack who hasn't considered the need to factually address the origin of biblical texts who can ignorantly run on about how current science disproves "God" is way out of bounds as a "scientist".

uhhhmmmm...... well, same thing about any "defender of the faith" who thinks his "faith" hangs on the infallibility of the priestly hacks who wrote what Solomon wanted them to write.