Discussion: Evolution

[ShadowBoxing]

I disagree. Nowhere in the world – neither on land nor in the sea , has any intermediate transitional form between any two species ever been uncovered.

That would be a case of a factually innaccurate assumption. Horse and it's transition species have been uncovered fully.

In fact Darwin himself was quite aware of the absence of such transitional forms. He hoped they would be found in the future but despite his hopefulness, he saw that the biggest stumbling block to his theory was the missing transitional forms. This is why, in his book The Origin of Species, he wrote:

Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?… But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?… But in the intermediate region, having intermediate conditions of life, why do we not now find closely-linking intermediate varieties? This difficulty for a long time quite confounded me.

Perhaps you should find a science book that isn't one hundred years old to quote next time

The problem bothered other evolutionists as well. A famous British paleontologist, Derek V. Ager, admits this embarrassing fact:
The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find – over and over again – not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another.

The gaps in the fossil record cannot be explained away by the wishful thinking that not enough fossils have yet been unearthed and that these missing fossils will one day be found.

hmmmm.....wait one more post.

Another evolutionist paleontologist, T. Neville George, explains the reason:
There is no need to apologise any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways, it has become almost unmanageably rich and discovery is outpacing integration… The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps.

Response:

1. There are many transitional fossils. The only way that the claim of their absence may be remotely justified, aside from ignoring the evidence completely, is to redefine "transitional" as referring to a fossil that is a direct ancestor of one organism and a direct descendant of another. However, direct lineages are not required; they could not be verified even if found. What a transitional fossil is, in keeping with what the theory of evolution predicts, is a fossil that shows a mosaic of features from an older and more recent organism.
2. Transitional fossils may coexist with gaps. We do not expect to find finely detailed sequences of fossils lasting for millions of years. Nevertheless, we do find several fine gradations of fossils between species and genera, and we find many other sequences between higher taxa that are still very well filled out.
   
   The following are fossil transitions between species and genera:
   1. Human ancestry. There are many fossils of human ancestors, and the differences between species are so gradual that it is not always clear where to draw the lines between them.
   2. The horns of titanotheres (extinct Cenozoic mammals) appear in progressively larger sizes, from nothing to prominence. Other head and neck features also evolved. These features are adaptations for head-on ramming analogous to sheep behavior (Stanley 1974).
   3. A gradual transitional fossil sequence connects the foraminifera Globigerinoides trilobus and Orbulina universa (Pearson et al. 1997). O. universa, the later fossil, features a spherical test surrounding a "Globigerinoides-like" shell, showing that a feature was added, not lost. The evidence is seen in all major tropical ocean basins. Several intermediate morphospecies connect the two species, as may be seen in the figure included in Lindsay (1997).
   4. The fossil record shows transitions between species of Phacops (a trilobite; Phacops rana is the Pennsylvania state fossil; Eldredge 1972; 1974; Strapple 1978).
   5. Planktonic forminifera (Malmgren et al. 1984). This is an example of punctuated gradualism. A ten-million-year foraminifera fossil record shows long periods of stasis and other periods of relatively rapid but still gradual morphologic change.
   6. Fossils of the diatom Rhizosolenia are very common (they are mined as diatomaceous earth), and they show a continuous record of almost two million years which includes a record of a speciation event (Miller 1999, 44-45).
   7. Lake Turkana mollusc species (Lewin 1981).
   8. Cenozoic marine ostracodes (Cronin 1985).
   9. The Eocene primate genus Cantius (Gingerich 1976, 1980, 1983).
   10. Scallops of the genus Chesapecten show gradual change in one "ear" of their hinge over about 13 million years. The ribs also change (Pojeta and Springer 2001; Ward and Blackwelder 1975).
   11. Gryphaea (coiled oysters) become larger and broader but thinner and flatter during the Early Jurassic (Hallam 1968).
   The following are fossil transitionals between families, orders, and classes:
   
   1. Human ancestry. Australopithecus, though its leg and pelvis bones show it walked upright, had a bony ridge on the forearm, probably vestigial, indicative of knuckle walking (Richmond and Strait 2000).
   2. Dinosaur-bird transitions.
   3. Haasiophis terrasanctus is a primitive marine snake with well-developed hind limbs. Although other limbless snakes might be more ancestral, this fossil shows a relationship of snakes with limbed ancestors (Tchernov et al. 2000). Pachyrhachis is another snake with legs that is related to Haasiophis (Caldwell and Lee 1997).
   4. The jaws of mososaurs are also intermediate between snakes and lizards. Like the snake's stretchable jaws, they have highly flexible lower jaws, but unlike snakes, they do not have highly flexible upper jaws. Some other skull features of mososaurs are intermediate between snakes and primitive lizards (Caldwell and Lee 1997; Lee et al. 1999; Tchernov et al. 2000).
   5. Transitions between mesonychids and whales.
   6. Transitions between fish and tetrapods.
   7. Transitions from condylarths (a kind of land mammal) to fully aquatic modern manatees. In particular, Pezosiren portelli is clearly a sirenian, but its hind limbs and pelvis are unreduced (Domning 2001a, 2001b).
   8. Runcaria, a Middle Devonian plant, was a precursor to seed plants. It had all the qualities of seeds except a solid seed coat and a system to guide pollen to the seed (Gerrienne et al. 2004).
   9. A bee, Melittosphex burmensis, from Early Cretaceous amber, has primitive characteristics expected from a transition between crabronid wasps and extant bees (Poinar and Danforth 2006).
   The following are fossil transitionals between kingdoms and phyla:
   
   1. The Cambrian fossils Halkiera and Wiwaxia have features that connect them with each other and with the modern phyla of Mollusca, Brachiopoda, and Annelida. In particular, one species of halkieriid has brachiopod-like shells on the dorsal side at each end. This is seen also in an immature stage of the living brachiopod species Neocrania. It has setae identical in structure to polychaetes, a group of annelids. Wiwaxia and Halkiera have the same basic arrangement of hollow sclerites, an arrangement that is similar to the chaetae arrangement of polychaetes. The undersurface of Wiwaxia has a soft sole like a mollusk's foot, and its jaw looks like a mollusk's mouth. Aplacophorans, which are a group of primitive mollusks, have a soft body covered with spicules similar to the sclerites of Wiwaxia (Conway Morris 1998, 185-195).
   2. Cambrian and Precambrain fossils Anomalocaris and Opabinia are transitional between arthropods and lobopods.
   3. An ancestral echinoderm has been found that is intermediate between modern echinoderms and other deuterostomes (Shu et al. 2004).

1. Generally, this claim is based on a misunderstanding of the way "transitional" fossil is or can be used as a term, or confusing the different possible meanings. It's important to note that outside of a layperson discussion, what really matters to biologists and paleontologists is not so much "transitional fossils," but the transitional features OF fossils.
2. As often envisioned by creationists, the meaning of the statement is absolutely correct in that there are no transitional fossils in the sense of the very narrow definition used by creationists (i.e. a half-lizard/half-pig creature). The point to remember here is that all creatures that have existed are fully formed and functional organisms, suited to their own particular environment. Just to name a few of the more well known examples, Archaeopteryx, Hyracotherium, and Ambulocetus are all excellent, textbook, examples of a so-called "transitional" species, which were nevertheless perfectly adapted to their own particular environments.
3. Creationists who make this claim are often not really asking for any single example, as biologists generally are used to using the term. Instead, the request is really for a full series intermediate fossils: a request that is both unecessary and also generally impossible to satisfy. When you show a transitional form between Fossil A and Z (let’s call the new fossil ‘G&#8217 creationists can always ask for fossil C and P. When C and P are dug up, then they ask for B, F, Q and W, and so on. This continues until you show a fossil from every individual organism from every population that ever existed on this planet: until then they can always ask for more intermediate forms. We know from how fossilization works that this expectation is simply wrong: we should never expect to see such a complete fossil record, and the validity of evolution does not rest on finding this impossible circumstance and never has.
4. In another sense of the word, all species that have ever lived are "transitional," except for the ones who have gone extinct and left no descendants. They are one species in the middle of a past and future species, thereby making them transitional.

No Transitional fossils huh? Would you like me to go to page 2 of my search

If your request is for every fossil of every species who ever lived and ever was in transition then sadly you are a fool and a hopeless cause no more worth arguing with than a tree. Fossils require specific conditions to be formed and no everything that ever died is fossilized, sorry. It would be utterly stupid for every fossil 1-2 that you ask for 1.2,1.3,1.32,1.325677,1.315367890. However I confess that is your folly. We have systematic gaps, which is what any evolutionist would expect and want in fact. If you fail to be able to look at a series of animal skulls and explain how their similar appearance is not a "transitional species" then yes my claim about you approaching this from a 4th grade level is quiet correct.

Macro Evolution of Humans
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/hominids.html
The Archaeopteryx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx
Horse Evolution
http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/HorseEvolution.htm
http://darwiniana.org/horses.htm

 

[C. Lee]

Invisible Tuna-Mammoth belly dancers have not been proven to not exist.
That's our burden.

Wasn't that a Sci-Fi channel original movie?

 

[raybia]

[/COLOR]
That would be a case of a factually innaccurate assumption. Horse and it's transition species have been uncovered fully.

[/COLOR]
Perhaps you should find a science book that isn't one hundred years old to quote next time

[/COLOR]

hmmmm.....wait one more post.





[/LIST]

No Transitional fossils huh? Would you like me to go to page 2 of my search

If your request is for every fossil of every species who ever lived and ever was in transition then sadly you are a fool and a hopeless cause no more worth arguing with than a tree. Fossils require specific conditions to be formed and no everything that ever died is fossilized, sorry. It would be utterly stupid for every fossil 1-2 that you ask for 1.2,1.3,1.32,1.325677,1.315367890. However I confess that is your folly. We have systematic gaps, which is what any evolutionist would expect and want in fact. If you fail to be able to look at a series of animal skulls and explain how their similar appearance is not a "transitional species" then yes my claim about you approaching this from a 4th grade level is quiet correct.

So, you are telling me that Darwin's theory of evolution has been proven? That's it is no longer a theory? This had to have been major front page news! However I seemed to have missed it.

Please proven a least one link of this earth shattering announcement.

I see a bunch of different but similar skulls pictured but I'm still waiting for the proof that each one is modern man's ancestor and not just a separate primate species or even a race of homosapiens that just died out.

 

[Addendum]

If you're an adult, it's your responsibility to read.

Belief in a god-claim doesn't remove higher brain functions, though at times I think it does

 

[raybia]

If you're an adult, it's your responsibility to read.

Belief in a god-claim doesn't remove higher brain functions, though at times I think it does

Oh I'm very much an adult thank you, and I don't believe in everything I read though my belief in G-d is the result of reading.

 

[Addendum]

Likewise my lack of belief in a god-claim is a result of reading.

But with regard to science, I'll take the word of an individual whose career is actually in the realm of science, rather than the minister of the first church of god in christ community church who went to seminary school and majored in theology.

Unless an individual knows how to fix one's car, you take your car to a mechanic, not to an accountant when you need something fixed

 

[ShadowBoxing]

Likewise my lack of belief in a god-claim is a result of reading

Ditto. And my lack of belief in the Bible as "literally true" actually came from reading and studying the Bible.

 

[raybia]

Likewise my lack of belief in a god-claim is a result of reading

So we agree to disagree. To each their own.

 

[raybia]

Ditto. And my lack of belief in the Bible as "literally true" actually came from reading and studying the Bible.

And that is what this thread is really about. The belief or non-belief of a Supreme Creator.

 

[Addendum]

Actually I thought it was about evolution.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

And that is what this thread is really about. The belief or non-belief of a Supreme Creator.

No it's about Evolution.

 

[Kent]

Listen up kids. The tactic raybia is using below is a common creationist tactic called "quote mining". Basically, you sit down and read through texts by proponents of evolution, and then you take quotes out of context to make the look as if they're supporting the creationist position, when in fact they are not... basically no better than lying.

I disagree. Nowhere in the world – neither on land nor in the sea , has any intermediate transitional form between any two species ever been uncovered.

In fact Darwin himself was quite aware of the absence of such transitional forms. He hoped they would be found in the future but despite his hopefulness, he saw that the biggest stumbling block to his theory was the missing transitional forms. This is why, in his book The Origin of Species, he wrote:

Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?… But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?… But in the intermediate region, having intermediate conditions of life, why do we not now find closely-linking intermediate varieties? This difficulty for a long time quite confounded me.

It's funny... my copy of "Origin of Species" goes on to say "But..." and then Darwin goes to great lengths to explain why all of this is not a problem. You know, this is something scientists have done for ages... they start by presenting a "problem" as well as possible, and then go on to show why it's not a problem at all... Of course this structure of writing is greatly appreciated by creationist quote miners.

Of course it's also worth noting that any problems Darwin had with the fossil record are uninteresting... He lived over a 100 years ago. It's sooooort of dated information.

The problem bothered other evolutionists as well. A famous British paleontologist, Derek V. Ager, admits this embarrassing fact:
The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find – over and over again – not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another.

The gaps in the fossil record cannot be explained away by the wishful thinking that not enough fossils have yet been unearthed and that these missing fossils will one day be found.

As soon as creationists break out the quotes talking about gaps in the fossil record you just know they're quoting someone who's in fact not saying that the fossils aren't enough evidence for evolution, but not enough for gradualism... that is... they are proponents of punctuated equilibrium. Punctuated equilibrium being the idea that evolution happens not in a veeeeery slow and extremely gradual manner, but in "bursts" (still over great amounts of time, just not as gradual).
Now, raybia hasn't cited any source, so I can't look the specific quote up, but it was easy to look up the fact that Derek V. Ager was, in fact, an early proponent of punctuated equilibrium. No surprise there.

Another evolutionist paleontologist, T. Neville George, explains the reason:
There is no need to apologise any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways, it has become almost unmanageably rich and discovery is outpacing integration… The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps.

'

This one I've seen before... in fact it's been seen by other's so many times that talkorigins has it's own little corner for it, which shows the context of the quote and why it doesn't say what the creos want to pretend it says.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-3.html#quote43

For those who are interested, talk origins has a section, called "The Quote Mine Project" which is an attempt to list the out of context quotes and what they really say in context... Just with the "Misc Quotes" (there are specialized sections as well, like "Darwin Quotes") section of this they've gathered over 80 out of context quotes...

 

[raybia]

Listen up kids. The tactic raybia is using below is a common creationist tactic called "quote mining". Basically, you sit down and read through texts by proponents of evolution, and then you take quotes out of context to make the look as if they're supporting the creationist position, when in fact they are not... basically no better than lying.



It's funny... my copy of "Origin of Species" goes on to say "But..." and then Darwin goes to great lengths to explain why all of this is not a problem. You know, this is something scientists have done for ages... they start by presenting a "problem" as well as possible, and then go on to show why it's not a problem at all... Of course this structure of writing is greatly appreciated by creationist quote miners.

Of course it's also worth noting that any problems Darwin had with the fossil record are uninteresting... He lived over a 100 years ago. It's sooooort of dated information.



As soon as creationists break out the quotes talking about gaps in the fossil record you just know they're quoting someone who's in fact not saying that the fossils aren't enough evidence for evolution, but not enough for gradualism... that is... they are proponents of punctuated equilibrium. Punctuated equilibrium being the idea that evolution happens not in a veeeeery slow and extremely gradual manner, but in "bursts" (still over great amounts of time, just not as gradual).
Now, raybia hasn't cited any source, so I can't look the specific quote up, but it was easy to look up the fact that Derek V. Ager was, in fact, an early proponent of punctuated equilibrium. No surprise there.

'

This one I've seen before... in fact it's been seen by other's so many times that talkorigins has it's own little corner for it, which shows the context of the quote and why it doesn't say what the creos want to pretend it says.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-3.html#quote43

For those who are interested, talk origins has a section, called "The Quote Mine Project" which is an attempt to list the out of context quotes and what they really say in context... Just with the "Misc Quotes" (there are specialized sections as well, like "Darwin Quotes") section of this they've gathered over 80 out of context quotes...

Call it what you will. I gave some of the reasons why I don't buy it, and its up to whoever reads it to either ponder on it or dismiss it.

Now if you are so afraid that you may lose followers of your religion based on what I posted, then knock yourself out.

I for one, rejects Darwin's theory of man and apes having a common ancestor, so don't bother with trying to convert me.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

Evolution is not a religion. You don't need a conversion experience to use common sense.

 

[Ghostrider84]

what's it ****ing matter anyways... were all going to die someday.... if beleiving there's a god makes you happy... awesome... if not... .cool....

 

[ShadowBoxing]

what's it ****ing matter anyways... were all going to die someday.... if beleiving there's a god makes you happy... awesome... if not... .cool....

Believing in God and understanding Evolution are not mutually exclusive concepts. Unfortunately some would have you believe otherwise.

 

[GarudA]

Evolution is not a religion. You don't need a conversion experience to use common sense.

Science damm you all

 

[Ice-man]

Hmmm in the end it all comes down to opinion.

 

[Halcohol]

Hmmm in the end it all comes down to opinion.

It's all about belief.

You can believe the mountains of evidence regarding evolution, or you can believe that all life on the planet was created exactly as we see it today.

Personally, I think disbelieving evolution is akin to disbelieving gravity.

 

[raybia]

Evolution is not a religion. You don't need a conversion experience to use common sense.

So now evolution is common sense and those who don't accept evolution are devoid of it? What you are devoid of is tolerance. Pretty fanatical and extermist. Sounds like a religion to me.

By the way, I'm still waiting for the link of the headlines that state Evolution is no longer a theory.

That would help support your "common sense" comment.

 

[raybia]

It's all about belief.

Not according to ShadowBoxing. Its all about common sense.

 

[Ice-man]

most of my family are somewhat religious and they always tell me such things of a god, heaven and angles. and how god put man on this earth, and we decended from adam and eve in a garden.

and honestly i always have the hardest time believing all of it. i look at the science part of it all, cause it just seems to be more logical.



so to avoid any more argumeants think of it as this.

either believe it. or dont.


unless its globally abnounced that evelution and the science of creation is true, than dont pay any attention.


like i said it all comes down to opinion.

 

[Halcohol]

Not according to ShadowBoxing. Its all about common sense.

Well, as sentient, contemplative creatures, we obtain information about the world around us by interpreting what our senses tell us and then forming a theory to explain it.

When presented with two competing theories, one backed up by evidence and the other not so much, we are likely to choose to believe the theory that is supported.

So while evolution is not a FACT per se, it's closer to being definitively true than the creationist view.

IMO. To each their own.

 

[raybia]

Well, as sentient, contemplative creatures, we obtain information about the world around us by interpreting what our senses tell us and then forming a theory to explain it.

When presented with two competing theories, one backed up by evidence and the other not so much, we are likely to choose to believe the theory that is supported.

So while evolution is not a FACT per se, it's closer to being definitively true than the creationist view.

IMO. To each their own.

I can accept that. As long of course that we all keep in mind that there is a reason its called a theory and not a fact. There have been theories that have gone on to be proven and those that have been disproven.

 

[Kent]

Call it what you will. I gave some of the reasons why I don't buy it, and its up to whoever reads it to either ponder on it or dismiss it.

You didn't give reasons. You gave quotes from authorities in evolutionary biology, intentionally taken out of context in order to give the impression that they were saying something they were not. You were, at best, propagating other people's clear attempts at deceit.

Now if you are so afraid that you may lose followers of your religion based on what I posted, then knock yourself out.

Yes indeed, everyday I and my fellow "Darwinists" pray to Darwin, and on sundays we visit the Darwin temples spread across the world. I try my best to follow all the moral laws and traditions laid out by my evolutionary religion, but sometimes it gets hard to do. And of course my religion makes many specific statements about spirituality, and how we should all better ourselves...

Oh, wait...

Belief in evolution is no more a religion than belief in gravity.

I for one, rejects Darwin's theory of man and apes having a common ancestor, so don't bother with trying to convert me.

I really have no interest in "converting" you, believe it or not. But responding to your posts have turned out to be an excellent way to expose the way creationists think and act when trying to "debate" evolution.