If we developed by a series of genetic malformations, this would obviously take rather a long time.
Why is this a problem? The evidence shows that the earth is old, over 4.5 billion years old, and that life has existed for most of that time, for over 3.5 billion years. The evidence also shows a progression of life forms, from simple cells to the multicellular life we see around us today.
In one sense all mutations are "malformations" because they are different from the previous version/s. The definition of something as a "malformation" is just a subjective interpretation, likely based on a biased or uninformed view. Every person (including you) carries hundreds of such "malformed" DNA sections, and usually there is no effect. This is because most mutations are neutral in our current environment.
Some "malformations" change the DNA so much that the organism cannot develop properly and it dies. We call this death natural, and it is part of the natural selection of organism to fit their environment that is an ongoing process every minute of every day.
Organisms that survive and breed we call "fit" and consider this fitness a natural product of their genetic inheritance and the mutations they were born with. This too is part of natural selection - those that are more naturally "fit" for the environment they currently inhabit, are better able to survive and breed, and thus they pass on more genes to the next generation.
But how come some developments, for example fins to legs, the circulatory system, internal organs, wings, surely the development of these would have to be instanaeous and perfect to give them any advantage at all, or to even work?
When we look at the fossil record we do not see any sudden formation/s of bits and parts, rather a gradual adaptation of existing features into new uses.
For instance the transition from fin to leg, with organisms that "walk" on fins (as do some modern fish) to organisms like Tiktaalik roseae, that have all the basic structure of a fin, but organized to adapt it for lifting the torso and walking, and later fossils that develop this ability further and further.
For instance we now know that feathers existed long before the first flying dinosaur, and that the wing of a bird has developed further since that time, including the gradual change from symmetrical feathers to modern asymmetric feathers and ones with special functions compared to other flight feathers.
Nor do any such developments need to be "perfect" (another entirely subjective opinion), as all they need to do is offer the organism an opportunity to survive and breed, and if they happen to survive and breed better than other organisms, then their genes will be passed to the next generation in greater proportion. Any development only need to be "good enough" to survive and breed in their current environment.
I have considered the theory evolution, and to me it just does not seem plausible, even practical.
Unfortunately for you, nature is completely unimpressed by your opinion, nor is it restricted in any way by what you think.
Perhaps you have not really considered the question completely.
... as you are new here, some posting tips:
type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy
or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote:quotes are easy
also check out (help) links on any formating questions when in the reply window.
I really need to stress that you need to throw away the concept "fully developed". Why? Because it applies to every step of the way. Every tiny step in evolution IS fully developed.
The concept of "fully developed" also seems to imply that what you see today is the final goal, rather than just what happens to be living today and which will be replaced by different life forms in the future.
I've used this example before, and I'll use it again: If I breed Cocker Spaniels and get a Cocker Spaniel that is 6 inches taller. Does that mean Cocker Spaniels could be bred for milllions of years and we could get a 60 foot taller one eventually? 99.9% of scientists would say no. Because there are limits.
Of course there are limits - physical limits to how big a body can become and still survive. Limits that have nothing to do with biology or evolution. The mass goes up as the cube of the linear dimension: do you think a 6ft cocker would look like a standard cocker? It wouldn't have the strength to support itself, it's dietary needs would be entirely different.
This kind of limit has nothing to do with biology or evolution in terms of what changes to features could occur, and is rather a logical fallacy of equivocation on what kind of change we are talking about.
To be specific we know that we can get the range of variation in features seen in dogs from a single form seen in wolves and still remain a single species.
Now the question is, what difference is greater than the variation seen here to go from say a fox to a cat?
Or is the difference between fox and cat just "microevolution"?
Biologically, it cannot be demonstrated. Citing examples of "microevolution" does not help. Integral's question still stands.
What mechanism other than microevolution is needed?
"Ring species" or not, it is still just microevolution. You start with a salamander and you end with a salamander.
Curiously descendants of a population will always be descendants of a population, no matter how many generations are involved, and if you think evolution says otherwise, you are wrong. Descent with modification from common ancestors - Darwin's original formulation - means that descendants of salamanders will always, must by definition always, be descendants of salamanders.
Once populations are no linked by breeding they are free to diverge through microevolution into different forms. We see the effect of reproductive isolation in dog breeds with only a few generations. We can repeat these kinds of changes in other species by the same methods: isolate populations and select for characteristics that make the offspring different.
What mechanism other than reproductive isolation combined with microevoltion is needed to explain the total diversity of life as we know it - from the world today, from history, from prehistory, from the fossil record and from genetics?
Can you tell me the differences between these skeletons?
Hey wardog25, still having that small denial thing going eh?
So that's all I want to know. What is this "host" of evidence.
The diversity of life as we know it, from the world around us, from history, from prehistory and the archeological record, from the fossil record and from genetics.
The Logical conclusion from those statements is: We are ASSUMING it happens because of other areas of study.
Nope, not really, for the critical point is that there is not one piece of scientific evidence from any field that contradicts it, not one piece of evidence that says that evolution is wrong, that there are no other contenders that explain all the evidence as well, as thoroughly, as completely and as consistently as evolution. That is NOT an assumption.
So far I've only received answers such as bacteria gaining resistance, and ring species. When I ask why we don't see more than that, I get answers like "we don't have enough time" and "we don't have the right conditions". "But we know it happens."
You haven't demonstrated any reason for seeing more. When you have a process that takes a long time, you must admit that it is unreasonable to expect to see the same process occur in a short time. People don't watch mountains grow, heck they rarely sit around and watch grass grow. We don't need to watch grass grow to know that it does eh?
Now you could claim that we just ASSUME that grass grows, we don't know for sure. You can even measure it at different times, but then you are still ASSUMING that it is growing by tiny bits between measurements ....
If you want to say that we can observe smaller changes and then assume that macroevolution happens ...
It's not an assumption. Every way you slice the evidence, whether it is from life as we know it today, from history, from prehistory and archeology, from the fossil record and from the genetic record, you see a consistent, objective, palpable pattern of change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation. You can take a hundred year period, or a thousand year period, and if you look at the same time frame for any of the evidence we have you will see the same pattern of change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation.
For example: the statement "we know macroevolution happens because of what we see in geology" is all well and good, but it's not evidence from BIOLOGY.
But paleontology is the record of past life - how is the study of plant and animal fossils and their habitats and predator prey relationships, behavior in parent child relationships, relationships by common ancestry, etc, etc, etc, NOT biology?
If you want to say that we can observe smaller changes ...
People keep asking you to define small change, and so far you have dodged, ducked, and avoided this rather simple request - simple if someone REALLY wants to know the truth, one to be avoided at all costs if one wants to be in denial of the truth.
Let me help you out: I'll provide three definitions.
Small change is the amount of change you see in any species. It is the gradual change you see in the varieties of various ring species, but in time rather than in space. It is the amount of change necessary to create the diversity we see in dogs:
Small change is the largest known amount of change you see in DNA from parent to offspring that still remains viable as a living organism, as known today. This includes duplication of chromosomes as well as insertions and deletions of DNA of lengthy sections from entirely different sources (whether duplicates or other sections of the DNA). This includes polyploidy for instance.
Polyploidy is the process of genome doubling that gives rise to organisms with multiple sets of chromosomes. The term ploidy (see glossary for this and other related terms) refers to the number of complete genomes contained in a single cell. In general, polyploid organisms contain a multiple or combination of the chromosome sets found in the same or a closely related diploid species. Polyploidy can arise from spontaneous somatic chromosome duplication, or as a result of non-disjunction of the homologous chromosomes during meiosis resulting in diploid gametes (for review see Ramsey and Schemske, 2002).
Small change is the amount of change needed to turn two subpopulations into reproductively isolated populations that no longer interbreed when the opportunity arises. This can be represented by the difference between overlapping but not interbreeding varieties of the various ring species.
quote:Greenish warblers (Phylloscopus trochiloides) inhabit forests across much of northern and central Asia. In central Siberia, two distinct forms of greenish warbler coexist without interbreeding, ... ... There is a clear gradient in song characteristics around the ring, with the northern forms viridanus and plumbeitarsus differing dramatically in their songs. By measuring song spectrograms from various populations and doing a statistical analysis to illustrate the variation, we produced the following figure.
This covers the different ways of looking at evolution, from visible traits, used by field naturalists and paleontologists, to genetic traits, used by geneticists and molecular biologists, and it demonstrates an easy metric that can be used on any set of evidence, from the world we know around us, from history, from prehistory and archeology, from the fossil record, and from the genetic record.
Is what i'm asking for clear yet? I want BIOLOGICAL evidence.
You will note that each of these definitions is BIOLOGICAL. Your task is to show that there is any evidence of change that exceeds these small change definitions at any time in any record from generation to generation.
If you cannot do that, then you will need to concede that change by these definitions is sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, not just in BIOLOGY, but in its TOTALITY, from the world we know around us, from history, from prehistory and archeology, from the fossil record, and from the genetic record.
If you cannot do this, then you ought to, in honesty, concede that the diversity of life as we know it, from the world we know around us, from history, from prehistory and archeology, from the fossil record, and from the genetic record, IS the "host" of evidence you have asked for.
I see you still have not defined what you are looking for, and thus you are still waffling about the evidence.
Ever since people read the book of Genesis, Christians have been saying that variations in kinds came from one common ancestor that was on the ark. (i.e. all dogs came from one pair of dogs that was on the ark) Then in the last century or 2, evolutionists point out those same changes and say it is evidence for evolution. It may be a different way of looking at it. But it isn't evidence against creation, and so really doesn't have much place in a creation vs. evolution debate since it confirms both sides.
Correct, and the fact that the mechanisms of evolution explain the divergence from a common ancestor into dogs or primates is why evolution - the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation - is not contradictory to creation. Anyone who tells you so does not understand evolution.
Where the difference lies, is that Darwin (and Wallace and a few others) realized that this was ALSO sufficient to explain the divergence of primates and dogs from a common ancestor, that all the diversity of life could be explained by this one simple mechanism.
In other words, rather than be satisfied with a simple explanation for varieties of dogs, and varieties of primates, the question is asked - why stop there? What is the evidence that dogs and primates do not share a common ancestor?
What you call "evolutionary natural history", I call the Theory of Evolution. Yes, the official definition of the word "evolution" is different, but I generally try to go by what is meant by the word "evolution" 95% of the time I hear it.
Unfortunately for you, this still means you are confusing the terms and failing to speak clearly. A theory explains evidence, it isn't made up of evidence. The evidence exists independent of the theory.
There are three things called "evolution" relating to biological science (and many others not related): there is the science of evolution, there is the process of evolution, and there is the theory of evolution.
As noted above, the process of evolution is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation. And as noted by you above, most creationists don't (can't) argue with this as an ongoing process, observed, documented, factual: the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation does in fact occur.
The science of evolution studies, examines and tests various concepts for exactly how those hereditary traits change, under what conditions they change, and how much change occurs in each population, whether it is a constant trend or a cycic one, etc etc etc.
The theory of evolution is that the diversity of life as we know it, from history, from prehistory, from the geological\paleontological record, and from genetics, can be explained by this very same process.
The science of evolution also studies, examines and tests this theory against all the known evidence from history, from prehistory, from the archeological record, from the geological record, from the fossil record and from the genetic record.
So far ALL the evidence shows that evolution - the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation - has been a continuous process throughout the time-span of the evidence.
Most people mean a lot more than "change in gene frequency over time" when they say the word evolution.
Most people are ignorant. The argument from popularity is also a logical fallacy. If people don't know what evolution is, then what value is their opinion on the matter?
People who talk about evolution without knowing\using the definition/s as used in the science ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT EVOLUTION.
The examples given of ring species would not fall outside anyone's definition of "kind". If all dogs are the same kind, certainly a weak bacteria and a hardy bacteria are the same kind. Same thing with a salamanders of varying colors or birds with different mating calls (simplified explanation, I know, but I am in a hurry and have no time to quote the article verabatim)
The question to you is, what prevents all these different organisms from being related via a common ancestor?
Can you point to one difference between these two skeletons that shows they cannot be related?
It never ceases to amaze me that evolutionists do not really fathom the creationist point of view.
I fathom it. It is simplistic and naive, uninformed, and contradicted by the evidence. Like believing that the sun revolves around the earth. All needs to do is ignore evidence to the contrary. Such as the fossil evidence you have refused to consider. Such as that mutations cause changes to hereditary traits that are passed to following generations.
All I have to do is start with the beginning assumption that there is no God and the evolutionist point of view comes into focus fairly easily. I don't agree with it, but I understand where they are coming from.
Curiously I believe in god, a god that created the universe in all it's untold mystery. A god that created the conditions for life to evolve.
Thus, when you say something like this, you are saying a falsehood. Strangely, the only one deluded by your falsehood is you. You do NOT understand the "evolutionist point of view" and the evidence of this is all the posts to you on this thread alone correcting your misconceptions and false understandings.
To understand evolution, all I need do is assume that the evidence speaks the truth, that any concept about the history of life can be false, and then investigate where the evidence leads. All I need is open minded skepticism.
To believe in creationism, I have to do is start with the beginning assumption that the evidence shows a set pattern of life, and that everything that contradicts it must be false. Then just keep ignoring the evidence that contradicts the belief. Blind belief trumps any evidence. All I need is closed minded denial. It is that simple.
Why is it that bi-racial parents can have one light skinned child and one dark skinned? Why is it that two parents with brown hair can have a child with red hair?
What you are seeing is the result of evolution at a family scale: parents with different sets of hereditary traits pass on some to each child, and what the child ends up with is different from the combination in either parent, and some of the traits are combined in different ways.
In addition the offspring will have some DNA sequences that are NOT found in either of the parents, sequences that are new mutations.
Did these children evolve? No, the parents were already carrying the traits.
Correct, individual organisms do not evolve. The DNA they inherit is composed of DNA from each parent and some that are new mutations made from the DNA of each parent.
When Mendel did his experiment, he did not always get precise exact mathematical matches to his theory, as some plants exhibited traits that had not existed before. He did not know about mutations.
The question you are not asking yourself is how the traits of the parents became so diverse in the first place that they represent different races - where did all those different traits come from?
When a child has a new trait that never existed before, then where does that come from?
When an offspring of an organism survives a disease that kills both the parents, grandparents, etc, where does that resistance come from?
So really, it all just depends on what genes the parents were carrying. Since I don't know what the parents looked like, I can't really expound much further.
The question you are not asking is why the parents have such different traits to pass out - why are they not all the same as the original parents? Interestingly, what scientists do, is pursue the question of what the parents looked like. This is what the evidence shows:
Message 115 Per my post just above, since the mechanism of change is not mutation - but trait diversity through "breeding" - the mechanism cannot continue beyond what genes the parents already had. So that would be the line that you are looking for.
The question you are not asking is how the parents have these different traits to pass out - why are they not all the same as the original parents?
Notice that what you have done is deny one piece of evidence that is a dominant factor in evolution in order to maintain your belief.
If I crossbreed several dogs and get a new breed, did I cause a new breed to evolve? No, I just mixed and matched genes that were already there.
Sadly for you this is another falsehood. You have selected traits and changed the distribution of hereditary traits in a population, and over the course of several generations you will be selecting from traits that did not exist in the original population.
If your new breed is based on a unique set of hereditary traits, and you have selected members for reproduction that exhibit those traits while omitting others from the reproduction of following generations, then yes, you have caused a new breed to evolve. Reproductive isolation plus selection that differs from selection in the parent population will produce different results.
If your new breed is not based on a unique set of hereditary traits then you have not developed a new breed.
The question you are not asking is how the organisms have these different traits to pass out - why are they not all the same as the original population?
Aside to RAZD: Thank goodness Google provides “closest match” searches, ...
It's from an old Ferdinand Feghoot story ... a planet with no magnetic field but some bugs that always faced north. The exploration was sabotaged by substituting a non compass mantis for the real one. The stories always end with an outrageous pun. [/ot aside]
Furthermore, mutation isn’t the only kind of novel change that happens in a genome. There are mechanisms whereby chromosomes “intentionally” introduce variation by reshuffling their contents among themselves. Plus, certain types of viruses frequently introduce hordes of their own sequences into their hosts’ genomes. These will all be passed on, and may someday experience enough mutations to accidentally create something functional.
The critical thing here is that at the point of reproduction the offspring DNA includes sequences that are not matches to sequences in either parent, and this results in net differences from parents. Those difference may or may not affect how the organism develops.
Whether offspring dies or flourishes as a result of those differences is the selection part of evolution.
Welcome to the fray, seekingfirstthekingdom, and a happy new year.
Please can one of you point me to the organism that man sprang from all those billions of years ago?
The evidence points to some single-cell organisms somewhat similar to modern cyanobacteria some 3.5 billion years ago as the first known life in the fossil record.
Once you have done that can you please explain to me how many transitional fossils(naming them would be nice)it would take for man to go from a single celled organism to what we are today?
Again, the evidence points to all life, not just man, evolving from those original single cell organisms.
All fossils are transitional, as they are intermediate between those organisms that are their ancestors and those organisms that are their offspring. This is what transitional means in science: if you have a different definition, then you need to define what you are talking about.
The fossils that lead from that first life to man, through descent with modification, and forming the chain of common ancestors that we understand from the fossil record and the genetic record are but a small segment of the diversity of life that exists and has existed on earth. The evidence shows the same basic pattern of diversification of life for all known organisms that we see in our own history.
At any time in the past you could take a "snapshot" of the diversity of life existing and the organisms alive at that time, and you would see life existing and behaving in a manner similar to today: living, reproducing, surviving and perishing according to their abilities and traits.
lots of theories here.Still no evidence.
Denial of evidence does not make it disappear.
... as you are new here, some posting tips:
type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy
or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote:quotes are easy
also check out (help) links on any formating questions when in the reply window.
You're welcome. We try to provide information when people ask. The problem I am seeing is that it doesn't appear that you really want answers, you want to play gotcha games.
I'll pick up here, seeing as you have not progressed beyond repeating your first post other than to brush aside other replies.
You did not reply to my first reply, Message 131. I understand that it is difficult to reply to so many, but you complained about not getting an answer to your question about the first human ancestor. Perhaps you did not understand my reply:
quote:The evidence points to some single-cell organisms somewhat similar to modern cyanobacteria some 3.5 billion years ago as the first known life in the fossil record.
These fossil organisms do have names, they have several names, "cyanobacteria" is one.
You also asked for the transitions from that first organism to man, and this too was answered:
quote:All fossils are transitional, as they are intermediate between those organisms that are their ancestors and those organisms that are their offspring. This is what transitional means in science: if you have a different definition, then you need to define what you are talking about.
As there are several million fossils, naming all of them would be rather tedious, and I suspect that you are not really interested in that information.
If you don't understand what these answers mean, I will be happy to explain them, if you are willing to learn.
I understand that the gist of the replies is that there are many missing links,but because the conclusion has already been reached,they must have existed whether they have been discovered or not.
Curiously, we have no idea whether links exist or not. We can hypothesis, but without actual evidence it is just a guess. It's a guess tempered by a rather extensive knowledge of how life operates and how evolution occurs, but it is a guess. It is also a guess based on the information we do have -- the fossils.
What we have is the natural history of this planet preserved a handful at a time in often incomplete fossils. What science tries to do is understand what happened before our recorded existence.
Whether what we hypothesis is true or not, those fossils are still the evidence of the past life on this planet, they are facts.
Observable evidence is in no way needed for evolution.
Strangely, evolution is based on many observations of evidence all around us. It was this evidence that first led Darwin to his conclusion that life underwent descent with modification.
You dont have to test either.
Interestingly, matching the fossil record to a pattern of common ancestry and descent with modification is only one of many independent tests of the theory of evolution.
For the sake of maybe getting to the truth of the matter im just going to concentrate on huntards list for the meantime.Feel free to help me,next thing im going to ask as in regards to homo habilus.How many fossils of habilus have been found??.
Do you realize that you are not really asking about the theory of evolution, nor about the process of evolution, you are only asking about the fossil record: this is just the evidence of the natural history of life on earth.
A theory explains evidence, but it isn't the evidence itself.
Currently the of descent with modification from common ancestors is the best explanation for the distribution and variety of fossils found.
Habilus were actually chimpanzees and not direct ancestors.
Would you care to present your evidence, the detailed comparison of physical traits for every bone and tooth, lengths, proportions, muscle attachments, and your cladistic analysis complete with out-group.
Baring that, please provide a citation of a paper you have published in a technical journal discussing this analysis, so we can look it up.
One should always go to the original source to discuss a scientific theory, rather than rely on dubious websites by authors of unknown expertise.
Evolution is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation. The process of evolution occurs constantly, all around the world, in all forms of life.
Care to point out anywhere in the natural world where this occurs?
You can compare the hereditary traits in one generation to those in the next and measure the differences. That is evolution occurring "in the natural world" and it is an observed fact.
Darwin's insight was that this simple process was sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from history, prehistory, archeology, geology, paleontology, the fossil record and the genetic (though he didn't know about it) record.
This theory is tested, among other ways, by using the fossil record to see if it matches what the theory predicts. What the fossil record shows is what happened, the theory - if it is correct - explains how it happened.
quote:Unfortunately because single-celled organisms do not fossilize, we won't likely ever know specifically what the single-celled common ancestor of all Earth-bound life was like. It simply couldn't have left sufficient evidence of itself behind. What we can tell is that the genetic structure of all life on Earth is the same (with the possible exception of viruses who use exclusively RNA rather than DNA, but RNA and DNA themselves are very closely related).
Re: and finally for now - why you are restricted from this site
Hello one final time, seekingfirstthekingdom, as I see you have been asked to stop posting on this thread, and any further reply from you will result in suspension/s.
This is just to clear up some of your visible confusion.
Message 184 Without any proof of this single celled ancestor being able to multiply forth into the multitude of animals we see today,im afraid my point still stands.Theres no proof in the natural world today or the fossil record that this most astonishing organism even existed.
What you are replying to is the documentation of your misrepresentation of what rahvin said.
You also display a level of ignorance of science in general - no scientific theories can be proven, not one, no matter which science you pick.
Why am i repeating myself?I fully understand for the theory of evolution to have this type of beginning there must of been this amazing creature.However you cant point to it,and cant seem to replicate in a science lab either.Is there a possibility this wondrous creature never did what you guys are claiming it did?
You are repeating yourself because you have failed to learn that this concept is a false portrayal of evolution.
Message 185 Is there a possibilty similarities in our genetic structure are due to someone or something forming us to all cohabit on the planet?
Not really, not when you look at the genetic evidence that preserves the bits and pieces of shared genetics with other organisms, the markers that trace genetic history. Some of these markers are in neutral segments of DNA and don't have any effect on growth or development of the organisms, so reproducing them is pointless to a designer unless the goal is to deceive (your god = satan\loki\etc explanation).
Remembering ive asked all of you to come up with a ancestral line and only one seems to have managed it.Give me time, ill try to offer scientific reasons why i think it doesnt hold up to scrutiny.
No, you asked for a list of all the transitional fossils, a task that could fill pages in a book as thick as the origin of species, you mistake the fossil record for the theory of evolution, and you've displayed a level of ignorance that is sad to observe, yet you have the arrogance to think that your opinion counts.
Message 186 i can understand the practical implications of what discovering an organism like this holds.Basically you could seed the deserts,multiply endangered animals and solve food shortages.Im more than happy for it to be discovered.
And you fail to realize that this is not what the theory of evolution says.
The reasons you are now restricted from this site are (a) refusal to learn when you are wrong, and (b) failure to support your position regarding the amazing yeast with documentation showing this is found in scientific literature pertaining to evolution.
Neither of these behaviors are tolerated on the science threads.