called_out
New member
I suppose it would depend on the dating method. What dating method do you support?
Best Evidence for Evolution.
- Thread starter bob b
- Start date
I suppose it would depend on the dating method. What dating method do you support?
PlastikBuddha
New member
I've already said its ponitless to try to find one piece of evidence that acts a keystone to the arch. The evidence comes from the fossil record, from DNA, from geology, from homology- its all interwoven. For Charles Darwin it seems the evidence responsible for pushing him "over the edge" was the sparrow specimens he collected while aboard the Beagle. The whale is a great example of a species making a physical transition from land to sea. The evolution of dinosaurs from liard-like ancestors to sauropods and theropods and theropods to modern birds is also fruitful. Fish to land-dwelling amphibians. There's a lot of evidence, Bob. Trying to narrow the issue isn't going to help your cause.
Actually I have of course, because this was the "evidence" that Ken Miller presented as the best evidence for evolution in the famous debate with his cohort Eugenie Scott when they debated Mike Behe and Philip Johnson a few years ago on a PBS special.
Miller had a couple of flip charts of several different fossils which he claimed proved that whales had evolved from a small four footed land mammal.
History repeats itself, because something similar convinced me as a freshman in college, when I heard Julian Huxley give his dog and pony show on the evolution of the horse. Time and further fossil findings have not been kind to that fairytale, since most museums have subsequently discarded their original displays that were based on Huxley's scenario. Niles Eldridge, the curator at the museum in New York noted that the horse series was "unfortunate".
It is interesting to note that Miller isn't even a paleontologist ("fossil bone guy").
JustinFoldsFive
New member
Bob B said:
Do you intentionally put words in the other people's mouths, or was that just a slip? I never said the whale is the best evidence for evolution, I simply provided a link to evidence for the evolution of the whale.
It seems to me that it isn't. It is revealing that the advocates of the theory are terribly confused because of the wealth of data in the all the different fields and since they are unable to take it all in themselves and make sense of it have decided to just depend on the conclusions that are being fed to them by educators and the media.
I am used to this because of my past experience and training. This is what always happens whenever "systems" are large and involve a lot of different experts from a lot of different fields. Each expert in one field depends on the conclusions coming out of the experts in another field and they all adjust their findings over time to reach a common and non-controversial conclusion.
The problem always occurs when the basic underlying assumptions are wrong to start with. This is the case in evolutionary theory where everyone has accepted the main premise and accept conclusions from each other's field. This is why there is agreement, not because their conclusions were arrived at independently. Of course one must have lived through this era to have noticed this slow and gradual process or else read a good history of how these ideas gradually developed and became synchronized over time.
Yes, it is all interwoven, but because the basic premise is wrong, it has led to a unified, agreed upon, yet incorrect conclusion.
I would then appreciate it if in the future you would stick to the subject and just tell us what you think is the best evidence for descent of all life from a single primitive ancestor.
Thanks for your "view" bob, unfortunately, other than an old oft mistranslated book it has no basis in fact.
noguru
Well-known member
So which "underlying assumptions" do you believe are correct?
Do you think that the only assumptions that should be used in science are those that agree with your specific religious indoctrination?
called_out
New member
I believe the universe is very old, but new planets are being formed all the time. So in light of that how can we know if the earth is "young" or "old"? It would be conjecture.
JustinFoldsFive
New member
Bob B said:
I would appreciate it if you didn't put words in my mouth.
And if I had to pick my favorite line of evidence for TOE, it would have to be anatomical vestiges.
Really? I am tempted to say 6000 year old earth. It is just sooooo silly.
I would appreciate it if you didn't put words in my mouth.
And if I had to pick my favorite line of evidence for TOE, it would have to be anatomical vestiges.
OK. I will add that one to the list. Please name some you are aware of why they support the idea that all life has descended from a single primitive ancestor.
BTW, wouldn't the concept of descent from multiple different types of fully formed creatures (as the Bible teaches) also be compatible with the existence of vestiges?
Yes you have said it many times. But just repeating something doesn’t make it the truth. I also understand this is your way of changing the subject when you are backed into a corner and can’t answer the question. You really can not debate the details because they will destroy your argument.
Common sense would tell you that if TOE is true, you could find a fossil, or multiple fossils that gradually transform from one species or genus to another. Common sense would also tell you that if creationism is true, there would not be fossils that gradually transform from one species or genus to another. That is a detailed prediction that would be made by the TOE. So I would ask you again, why is it that the leading creationist can not agree on where the dividing line is between apes and humans in the fossil record?
Can you answer this question or will you either ignore it or change the subject?
If God really did make all the different “kinds”, whatever that means, why would an all-knowing God even make diversity? A master designer wouldn’t need to plan ahead, he’d just make it right to begin with. And why don’t we see this rapid diversification today?
This is why I said that there is nothing in the theory that makes any specific predictions: it is merely common sense that if creatures descend from a common ancestor that some record of this should be available in the fossil record, that is if the fossil record is really a record of what happened slowly in a step-by-step manner over millions of years. But common sense would also indicate that thousands of transitions must have occurred if that scenario is true and the fossil record is devoid of such thousands of transitions.
Why not? These terms are human invented and for fossils quite subjective. You aren't one of those who claim that creationists do not believe that creatures change over time are you?
There is nothing in the theory itself that predicts this. People claim that "living fossils" do not falsify evolution. The theory is retained whether creatures change over time or if they don't.
How would I know considering you haven't identified him or what he said or asked me if I agreed or didn't. What makes you think I take "marching orders" from what others say? Or is this so standard among you guys that you automatically think I would do the same?
I think you might consider asking me a question that doesn't involve my being clairvoyant.
What kind of a scientific question is that?
God never took me aside and told me why He did what He did. If it isn't in scripture then I have no more idea why He did it the way He did than you would (assuming you even believe in God in the first place).
Of course we can always guess.
Who told you we don't see rapid diversification today? And besides wouldn't this be more likely to occur before the Earth was filled with creatures and before available ecological niches were filled? Isn't this why scientists say there is always rapid diversification following major catastrophes?
Yes it’s common sense and a prediction of the theory if it is true even thought you don’t want to admit it. Apparently you did know that fossils rarely happen. And that’s a proven fact, not an assumption. Considering so few do fossilize, we have a lot of transitions.
If they change over time, what stops them from changing and where is the dividing line?
Why would a “living fossil” falsify TOE. When we shoot an object into the sky, sometimes it falls back to earth and sometimes it continues on into space. Neither one falsifies the theory of gravity.
So you don’t respect the opinions of scientist in this field and you don’t respect the opinions of leading creationist. You must be one mental giant to gather all this information on your own and then tell scientist they don’t know what they are talking about. But I guess I’m not surprised, religious leaders have been making a fool of themselves for years doing exactly the same thing.
Well you’re not rational or logical so clairvoyant was my last hope. Lol
Okay, I’d guess you know all the different fossil skulls that have been found and all the species scientist have classified them. I’d also bet you don’t agree with the classification scientist have given them. But regardless of that, you can easily see the skulls getting larger and changing shape, so where would YOU draw the line between apes and humans?
Imagine
New member
Wouldn't that depend upon how big the tree is? And doesn't most things such as trees, make sounds when the fall? The tree itself isn't actually making the sound anyway, rather the impact.
Flipper
New member
There are so many great pieces of evidence, and more come in every month it seems. I think though, that it's quite limiting to focus on any one particular piece when the most compelling part is the great mass of evidence from a wide variety of disciplines that are coming into agreement that makes evolution so puissant as an explanation for why things are the way they are.
But, if we want to be limiting, why not pick the fossil and genetic evidence linking birds with dinosaurs?
The discovery of a large number of feathered dinosaur fossils, some able to fly and others not. Some with wings that also have claws, others with therapod limbs that have feathers. They share very similar pulmonary systems with birds. These dinosaurs, like the birds, have feathers, large sternums, hollow limb bones. They are also found to share certain birdlike habits - fossils finds of Oviraptors show that they splayed their three-clawed fingers protectively over egg clutchs, just as we see hens splay their wings to protect their nests today. In sleeping, some of them tucked their heads under their forelimbs , just as birds do today. When they died, they took on death pose similar to that which we see in many birds.
We discover when looking at avian genetics, there are surprises that support the common descent argument.
Birds typically don't have teeth, but experiments using mouse mesenchyme in bird jaw tissue showed that birds could be induced to form mammalian teeth. Why would this even be possible? Then, in February last year, teeth formation without any outside recombination was induced in a chicken, and the teeth that grew were not mammalian but crocodilian, and grew in a jaw that spontaneously altered to sustain them. That makes little sense outside the Darwinian paradigm. It seems that most birds retain the ability to make reptilian-like teeth.
Finally, no one expected to be able to test the link between dinosaurs and birds genetically from the dinosaur side. So the recent discovery of collagen proteins in a T-rex fossil was a bonus. The analysis of the few sequences actually recovered showed more links with birds than any other living creature, which is what we would expect if the current model is correct.
I should point out that it's not yet clear whether birds evolved from therapods, or whether both therapods and birds had a close common ancestor - it doesn't really matter as far as evidence of evolution goes. It just makes some telling points in favor of common descent over, say, intelligent design (which is so far failing badly as an explanation when compared to evolution, but that's another story).
But, if we want to be limiting, why not pick the fossil and genetic evidence linking birds with dinosaurs?
The discovery of a large number of feathered dinosaur fossils, some able to fly and others not. Some with wings that also have claws, others with therapod limbs that have feathers. They share very similar pulmonary systems with birds. These dinosaurs, like the birds, have feathers, large sternums, hollow limb bones. They are also found to share certain birdlike habits - fossils finds of Oviraptors show that they splayed their three-clawed fingers protectively over egg clutchs, just as we see hens splay their wings to protect their nests today. In sleeping, some of them tucked their heads under their forelimbs , just as birds do today. When they died, they took on death pose similar to that which we see in many birds.
We discover when looking at avian genetics, there are surprises that support the common descent argument.
Birds typically don't have teeth, but experiments using mouse mesenchyme in bird jaw tissue showed that birds could be induced to form mammalian teeth. Why would this even be possible? Then, in February last year, teeth formation without any outside recombination was induced in a chicken, and the teeth that grew were not mammalian but crocodilian, and grew in a jaw that spontaneously altered to sustain them. That makes little sense outside the Darwinian paradigm. It seems that most birds retain the ability to make reptilian-like teeth.
Finally, no one expected to be able to test the link between dinosaurs and birds genetically from the dinosaur side. So the recent discovery of collagen proteins in a T-rex fossil was a bonus. The analysis of the few sequences actually recovered showed more links with birds than any other living creature, which is what we would expect if the current model is correct.
I should point out that it's not yet clear whether birds evolved from therapods, or whether both therapods and birds had a close common ancestor - it doesn't really matter as far as evidence of evolution goes. It just makes some telling points in favor of common descent over, say, intelligent design (which is so far failing badly as an explanation when compared to evolution, but that's another story).
Just because it is possible to grow one type of teeth in another animal does that prove that birds evolved from crocs?
In a similar story (http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-1070433.html) pigs are able to carry human hemoglobin. Does that provide evidence that pigs evolved from man?