Best Evidence for Evolution.

[bob b]

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.

It's an inference based on the assumption of great age. Fossils frequently occur in vast profusion. Africa for instance.

Considering so few do fossilize, we have a lot of transitions.

Considering that great ages is a myth there are essentially no transitions.

If they change over time, what stops them from changing and where is the dividing line?

Protein folding and the requirement in ToE that each step be not only workable but one that will be an improvement that will be selected by Natural Selection so that it will spread throughout the population in preparation for the next stage in the fictitious process.

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.

One can calculate using Newton's theory the "escape velocity". One can't do anything comparable with a theory like evolution that is merely subjective argumentation.

So you don’t respect the opinions of scientist in this field and you don’t respect the opinions of leading creationist.

Since you never specified anything, I gave the answer that "I think for myself". If a scientist says something that make sense I respect him for that (I respect John Maynard Smith, Steven J. Gould. Ernst Mayr, etc. but if they were to say something that didn't make sense I would reject that "something". However if a scientist continually says dumb things I would not respect him (Richard Dawkins is a prime example).

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.

I do have intellectual skills that have consistently placed me in the top 99% percentile. However I also have many shortcomings in things that are more important. If I can use what skills I do have to aid people in retaining faith in scripture and not being overawed by science, perhaps God will take this into account in the calculation of plus and minuses.

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.

Classification is useful for communicatingto others what creature or finding is under discussion. It has no particular value other than that.

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?

As Gould pointed out, the general trend in skull size is to get smaller over time. Cope's Law has been discarded as merely a subjective generalization that is contradicted by numerous exceptions and downright opposite trends.

There are no "Laws" in evolutionary biology that are in anyway analogous to those discovered in Physics, but some evolutionists do seem to suffer from "Physics Envy", and hence try to pretend that there are.

 

[Jukia]

Considering that great ages is a myth there are essentially no transitions.

Wrong, but feel free to try again.

 

[Flipper]

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?

You should read the story before commenting. No one is saying that birds evolved from crocodiles, but rather that they have within their genomes the ability to express teeth that are crocodile-like (as opposed to mammalian).

The pigs you link to in your story have had their genes altered to carry this variant of hemoglobin. That's not the same thing at all.

 

[Hank]

What kind of a scientific question is that?

Well you brought it up by saying your view is that the simple story in Genesis is essentially true. What kind of scientific theory is that? Guess it’s a lot more difficult to support your views with actual evidence than to spout them off. Since you say that God “undoubtedly” did such a great design job, I was just asking why that great design job needed to be changed. Some of the statements you make are a little absurd.

God never took me aside and told me why He did what He did.

Well that’s a news flash because you sure talk like he did. But since he didn’t, he could have done it with evolution like the evidence points to.

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).

What you really mean is if it’s not in your INTERPRETATION of scripture then you have no idea. I have an idea because God gave me evidence of what he did and gave me a brain to check it out.

Of course we can always guess.

True, or we could look at the evidence with the brain God gave us and come up with rational theories that are supported by that evidence.

Who told you we don't see rapid diversification today?

If you know of any, how about an example.

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?

Do you consider creation a major catastrophe?

This comes back to, if God did it right the first time, why are there ecological niches and why do we need diversity? Besides, you don’t think the scientists are right, remember?

 

[bob b]

Well you brought it up by saying your view is that the simple story in Genesis is essentially true. What kind of scientific theory is that? Guess it’s a lot more difficult to support your views with actual evidence than to spout them off. Since you say that God “undoubtedly” did such a great design job, I was just asking why that great design job needed to be changed. Some of the statements you make are a little absurd.

If I design a computer program which can adapt to a changing user environment, would you then conclude that I did a poor design job because you found that some of the code in the program had changed to implement such an adaptation?
One feature of computer programs is that because the code is stored as "data" that it is possible for a program to modify its own coded instructions, and that is actually how "loops" were originally implemented in computer code before index registers were invented. The point I was making which apparently went over your head was that a superior design job would provide for changes to the environment.
This capability could easily be misunderstood as being due to the actionof "random mutations plus natural selection".

Well that’s a news flash because you sure talk like he did. But since he didn’t, he could have done it with evolution like the evidence points to.

Theoretically I suppose that one could say that He could have, but to me the evidence indicates that He didn't, and that the most likely scenario is the one which Genesis relates: multiple types of fully functional creatures at the beginning.

My disagreement with evolutionists is primarily regarding the starting point for the diversification process and the mechanism for it. I rejected "random mutations plus natural selections" as the mechanism even though mutations do occur and nature does cull out misfits. And a slow step-by-step modification process will not construct sophisticated automatic feedback control mechanisms as we find in great profusion within even the simplist lifeforms which exist today.

One can not build race car engines from scratch that way and expect to have them "work" at every step along the way of small modification, so why in the world would anyone believe that the far more sophisticated biological "machines" we find at every level of natural creatures would be any different?

 

[Hank]

It's an inference based on the assumption of great age. Fossils frequently occur in vast profusion. Africa for instance.

Yes but not relative to the number that decayed. We can get a pretty good measurement of that today. Knowing the ratio and knowing how many fossils there are tells about how many animals there have been on this planet. It’s just more evidence that the earth is very old.

Considering that great ages is a myth there are essentially no transitions.

You make statements but you never back it up with evidence.

Protein folding and the requirement in ToE that each step be not only workable but one that will be an improvement that will be selected by Natural Selection so that it will spread throughout the population in preparation for the next stage in the fictitious process.

Protein folding is just the most recent argument you have latched onto to try and support your silly statements. It’s already been shown not to be a barrier but you will no doubt trout it out as an argument ad nauseum until you are forced to abandon it like all your others due to it becoming completely ridiculous. Even so, WHERE is the dividing line?

One can calculate using Newton's theory the "escape velocity". One can't do anything comparable with a theory like evolution that is merely subjective argumentation.

As usual Bob, you avoided the question. WHY does a “living fossil” falsify TOE?

Since you never specified anything, I gave the answer that "I think for myself". If a scientist says something that make sense I respect him for that (I respect John Maynard Smith, Steven J. Gould. Ernst Mayr, etc. but if they were to say something that didn't make sense I would reject that "something". However if a scientist continually says dumb things I would not respect him (Richard Dawkins is a prime example).

I didn’t specify anything because you know exactly what I was talking about. It’s been discussed over and over right here at TOL and you have continually avoided the question.

I do have intellectual skills that have consistently placed me in the top 99% percentile. However I also have many shortcomings in things that are more important. If I can use what skills I do have to aid people in retaining faith in scripture and not being overawed by science, perhaps God will take this into account in the calculation of plus and minuses.

LOL. 99% of the population is in the top 99 percentile Bob. I think you meant to say you were in the top 1 percentile. I take it you didn’t major in statistics. Lol

BTW it’s either 99 percentile or 99% but not 99% percentile.

So you think in the end, God just adds up the pluses and minuses and we get a score on that. No wonder you are in the top 99% percentile. lol

As Gould pointed out, the general trend in skull size is to get smaller over time. Cope's Law has been discarded as merely a subjective generalization that is contradicted by numerous exceptions and downright opposite trends.

Are you going to give the dividing line between apes and humans in the fossil record or are you going to continue to avoid the question? By bet is on your standard avoiding the question.

 

[Evoken]

Are you going to give the dividing line between apes and humans in the fossil record or are you going to continue to avoid the question?

What type of art did the ape make?

 

[SUTG]

What type of art did the ape make?

huh?

 

[Evoken]

huh?

Art is the dividing line between apes and humans Hank is asking for?


Evo

 

[CRMRC]

Best evidence for evolution:

Ali G: Techmology (feat. Kent Hovind)

So Bob B, do you eat bananas?

 

[Flipper]

Art is the dividing line between apes and humans Hank is asking for?


Evo

Probably not.

 

[Evoken]

Probably not.

Won't do. Koko being guided by a human is not an example of natural development of art in apes.

So, what type of art did ape do?


Evo

 

[PlastikBuddha]

Won't do. Koko being guided by a human is not an example of natural development of art in apes.

So, what type of art did ape do?


Evo

Ape or apelike ancestor?

 

[Evoken]

Ape or apelike ancestor?

Whatever you guys speculate is the ancestor of humans.


Evo

 

[Flipper]

Modern art?

 

[PlastikBuddha]

Whatever you guys speculate is the ancestor of humans.


Evo

That would be an apelike ancestor, then. Why would you suppose such primitive ur-art whould have survived? We have cave paintings but it is likely these were created by modern humans. It is unknown when the first art was developed or whether it followed or preceded the development of language. I would guess it started around the time tools came into common use- there is certainly an "art" to creating chipped flint instruments. Those old fat lady fertility statues are pretty ancient also, but I think they are also modern human. Neandrathal man wore jewelry, though. Hard to pin down exactly is my point.

 

[mighty_duck]

Art is the dividing line between apes and humans Hank is asking for?

Evo

That's completely arbitrary. Why not the use of tools? burial of kin? etc.

What constitutes art? Is feces throwing an art?

And you seem to be confusing culture with biology. If we take a human baby and put it on a deserted island (or have it raised by wolves), it wouldn't necessarily have any concept of art. Does that make them an ape?

Despite what we would like, the line between a human and an ape is not very clear cut at all.

 

[The Barbarian]

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".

What they didn't tell you was that Eldridge went on to say that the subsequent evidence showed the evolution of horses was not a ladder but a bush with many twigs. His point was that there were many lines of horses from Hyracotherium, not one.

You see, bob, the guys who fed you that quote knew it was dishonestly edited, but they correctly assumed that you would uncritically accept things that you want to be true.

If you start checking for yourself, you won't be so easy for them next time.

 

[Neverfox]

What is the best evidence you have that this has occurred?

Science does not proceed by demonstrating that certain theories are irrefutably true. It demonstrates by repeated testing that they are not false. The more a theory is confirmed, the stronger the probability that the explanation it offers is correct. This process produces what amounts to the explanation which best fits the facts we have collected (even if the fit is not always complete). And how does such confirmation proceed? There are two main tests. The first is to make a series of predictions based on the theory and then to explore the validity of those predictions. If a prediction holds, the theory has been confirmed; if not, then the theory has been challenged, perhaps even disproved. The second method of confirmation is to see how the theory accounts for new, unexpected discoveries. Can these be explained in terms of the theory? If so, then the theory has been confirmed; if not, then the theory has been challenged or disproved. By these two tests, the theory of evolution is spectacularly successful: it has been confirmed countless times over the past three centuries (at least). It would take only one discovery to discredit the entire theory (e.g., the existence of a mammal fossil in the lowest rock layers). That has never occurred.

 

[Neverfox]

True or false?: All living creatures must have a living parent.

Note that I'm not talking about the original origin of life. That could be a chemical reaction of inorganic materials (in some primordial soup) or in some invasion from outer space or, yes, even a god or gods. bob's original question concerned whether "all life has descended from a single hypothetical primitive protocell" so there is no need to concern ourselves with original origin of that protocell for now. If we did, that would be a thread in and of itself.