Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Are there any unexplained branches of evolution?
extremophile
Member (Idle past 5595 days)
Posts: 53
Joined: 08-23-2003


Message 31 of 35 (107646)
05-12-2004 12:20 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by almeyda
05-11-2004 2:56 AM


As was stated before, no one but you said that there's no evidence.
There is: living beings do reproduce, and their descents are not clones of themselves, that led us to "descent with modification", unavoidable.
So, if we do not invent anything to explain the existance of actual or past's lifeforms, and knowing that there was old lifeforms, the logic suposition is that the nowadays ones are descendats of the old ones. Genetics says to us things about inheritance and the expected patterns of modification by descendance. Horses, as any other living being known, fits the expectancies. There are the fossil pattern, and the genetic pattern itself, with things like atavisms, and vestigial developments, that may disapear laterly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by almeyda, posted 05-11-2004 2:56 AM almeyda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by almeyda, posted 05-13-2004 1:45 AM extremophile has not replied

  
almeyda
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 35 (107822)
05-13-2004 1:45 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by extremophile
05-12-2004 12:20 AM


...
You guys actually believe all that crap?. Such excuses used by evolutionists just dont make sense at all to me. Nothing but excuses to reject God as the creator. Evolutionary genetics yes would show that they must descend somehow. But this is nothing more than evolutionary opinion and imagination.
{ Can you please stop putting three dots in the subtitle of your post. Thanks. AdminSylas }
This message has been edited by AdminSylas, 05-13-2004 01:55 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by extremophile, posted 05-12-2004 12:20 AM extremophile has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Gary, posted 05-13-2004 2:50 AM almeyda has not replied
 Message 35 by mark24, posted 05-13-2004 6:21 AM almeyda has not replied

  
Gary
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 35 (107825)
05-13-2004 2:50 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by almeyda
05-13-2004 1:45 AM


Re: ...
How so? Evolution of horses is strongly backed up by fossil evidence. Look over the websites I posted earlier in Message 21. There is a nearly complete fossil record of horse evolution. There is more to this than simply hypothesizing what horses may have looked like once upon a time. Evolutionary genetics wouldn't work because the fossils are too old to contain DNA. If we had their genetic material, it would be possible to compare them with modern horses, but since it no longer exists, that isn't possible.
If horses did not evolve, why do the fossils gradually gain the features of modern horses, such as large size and single toes, and lose the features of more primitive fossils as we move upward through the strata? What causes this ordering of similar animals?
Evolution does not cancel out God anyway. It has no apparent reason to continue, so it leaves room for a creator to guide evolution to suit his purposes. I don't know whether or not this was the case, but it's a possibility which is untestable by the scientific method. It does not deal with the creation of the world or the first life forms anyway.
You may be interested in this link. It discusses God and Evolution.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html
This message has been edited by Gary, 05-13-2004 01:53 AM
{ AdminSylas: Your closing link strays close to being a violation of forum guidelines. When you present a link, it is intended to support your own discussion; you don't give the link as the argument itself. You could make this link better associated with your own text, by saying something like "The following site considers the notion that God may use evolution, or possibly even guide evolution, along with several other questions related to God and Evolution." We are seeking to avoid a simple battle of the links. The actual positions should be argued here in the forum; with links for reference or greater detail. }
This message has been edited by AdminSylas, 05-13-2004 02:07 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by almeyda, posted 05-13-2004 1:45 AM almeyda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by coffee_addict, posted 05-13-2004 3:07 AM Gary has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 34 of 35 (107826)
05-13-2004 3:07 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Gary
05-13-2004 2:50 AM


Re: ...
Gary writes:
How so?
I think he was using straw man. He quoted a single sentence and claimed that the single sentence is the entire thing about the issue. He left out all the other supporting arguments made by the author. He even misinterpreted that single sentence that he used.
I'd say he committed both the straw man and suppress information fallacies. Also, note that he's not responding. Typical reaction from people like him: Instead of admitting his mistake, he simply left.

The Laminator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Gary, posted 05-13-2004 2:50 AM Gary has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 35 of 35 (107835)
05-13-2004 6:21 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by almeyda
05-13-2004 1:45 AM


Re: ...
Almeyda,
You guys actually believe all that crap?.
Yes, & we do so because of evidence; not in spite of it.
As I pointed out here (& am still awaiting a response), that cladistics & stratigraphy (the fossil record) match so well is extremely strong evidence of evolution. I took the liberty of taking a look at Benton's data concerning the Equinae. Guess what? Over the six cladograms tested the average correlation was 0.89 SCI (Stratigraphic consistency index). For the Equini (Miocene to Pleistocene) the SCI is 0.81. The Hipparionini & Hyracodontidae both score a perfect 1.
If evolution hadn't had occurred the correlation should be minimal. It is high: why?
Mark
This message has been edited by mark24, 05-13-2004 05:26 AM

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by almeyda, posted 05-13-2004 1:45 AM almeyda has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024