Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Show one complete lineage in evolution
RRoman
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 246 (127469)
07-25-2004 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by SkepticToAll
07-25-2004 3:15 AM


In reality the austropoliphiticus IS an ape.
Yes, Australopithecus is an ape, as are humans, since both belong to the primate order.
Homo Erectus could very well be a modern human
No they couldn't be, anymore than a Mesohippus could very well be a modern horse! While Homo erectus is quite similar to modern humans, there are a multitude of differences, including a smaller brain size.
Furthermore, if all fossils can be so easily classified into "Ape" and "Human" kind, why are there such huge disgreements between creationists as to what fossils belong where? Comparison of all skulls
Where are the transitionals between Erectus and the ape[Australopithecus]?
In museums and universities. Go and look for the displays marked "Homo ergaster", "Homo rudolfensis" and "Homo habilis"
Now i know you will argue that austropoliphiticus could walk and was a more 'advanced' ape while erectus was a more primitive man.
Well, I know of no modern men that have a brain size 74% of normal people and a massive brow ridge!
Nice story but not too convincing for those who believed that God created Man in his own image
Yes, those sorts of people aren't easily convinced by origin stories that don't involve magic and people being made from dirt.
Actually , not too convincing for anyone who does not 'believe' in evolution either
It's also not too convincing for people who are unaware of the fossils on display in museums around the world.
similarly, people who believe in a flat earth wouldn't be too convinced by accounts of Magellan's voyages.
One thing i noticed about whales their tails resemble the tails of large sharks - no? I could be wrong - how could that have evolved?
It's already been shown that you're wrong, but convergent evolution is quite an interesting topic. Essentially, two unrelated organism evolve similar structures in response to similar environmental conditions, such as body shapes for dolphins and ichthyosaurs. Batesian mimicry is also quite interesting.
On analogy to evolution is the evolution of cars: we had old cars, then newer ones modelled after older cars until we get the newest car which is more 'advanced'.
Not really, that is more an analogy to a misconception about evolution, the great chain of being, which sees evolution as a ladder with more advanced organisms and less advanced organisms.
A better analogy would be: you have some cars. They become isolated: One group lives in a country that is flat with long, straight roads. The other group lives in rough, rocky and muddy terrain without roads. Let's imagine for a moment that there are predators that kill cars and thus prevent them from reproducing. In the flat country, cars that are fast and aerodynamic will be able to escape this predator and reproduce. Thus, after several generations these cars will tend to resemble sports cars and formlula 1 racers. On rough terrain, however, such cars would only get stuck and killed. Thus, cars that were very rugged and able to traverse the terrain would be more likely to escape predation and survive to eventually breed and produce offspring. After a few generations, they would eventually look like jeeps and hummvees.
YOu have to admit God could have created lifeforms just as we invented newer cars.
Why?
I think I understand evolutionary theory
I don't
Who knows maybe there is another species that might evolve to be far more intellegent than us
On earth? Unlikely.
Great science fiction but fossil evidence is another story!
No one ever claimed to have fossil evidence of a species more intelligent than humans.
This message has been edited by RRoman, 07-25-2004 09:21 AM

"Knowledge is Power" - Francis Bacon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by SkepticToAll, posted 07-25-2004 3:15 AM SkepticToAll has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 62 of 246 (127478)
07-25-2004 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by SkepticToAll
07-25-2004 3:15 AM


Re: Still problems with evolution.
quote:
One thing i noticed about whales their tails resemble the tails of large sharks - no? I could be wrong - how could that have evolved?
Whale's and shark's tails are not similar at all.
Here is a whale's tail. Notice how it is oriented. Whales propel themselves by moving their tails up and down. Notice also that it is symetrical from side to side.
Here is a shark's tail. Notice how it is oriented. Sharks propel themselves by moving their tails side to side. Notice how it is not symmetrical from top to bottom.
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 07-25-2004 09:26 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by SkepticToAll, posted 07-25-2004 3:15 AM SkepticToAll has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 63 of 246 (127506)
07-25-2004 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by SkepticToAll
07-25-2004 3:15 AM


Transitionals
Where are the transitionals between Erectus and the ape?
Please go to this thread:
Message 1
and define "transitional". Thank you.
Without your understanding of what one would be we can't show you what you need to see. If you can't describe what you are looking for do not ask the question again until you have done some thinking about it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by SkepticToAll, posted 07-25-2004 3:15 AM SkepticToAll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by SkepticToAll, posted 07-27-2004 12:50 AM NosyNed has replied

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4369 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 64 of 246 (127852)
07-26-2004 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by nator
07-24-2004 5:49 PM


Your misunderstanding the discussion.
Speciation of horses is not a problem.
Its about Major kinds journey into different major kinds
Regards Rob

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by nator, posted 07-24-2004 5:49 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by RRoman, posted 07-26-2004 4:12 PM Robert Byers has not replied
 Message 82 by nator, posted 07-27-2004 10:08 AM Robert Byers has not replied

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4369 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 65 of 246 (127861)
07-26-2004 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Lithodid-Man
07-24-2004 7:36 PM


Re: Missing transitionals?
Your right more then you know my first responce to your example of a transition was pathetic.
These examples of transitions reveal the lack of examples.
This is what we mean to say.
These examples also are just interpretations of fossils found here and there. HOWEVER it would be difficult for you to demonstrate they are legitamate lineages even when they WERE.
Transitions to a creationist is the subject of what is not there not a close analysis of a few bug types in a cave.
I've read all I need to know as a layman about PE.
Simply there are long periods of no change in something and then it is changed and long periods come again.
Rather simply they are forced to accept the fossils of a kind are all the same when the time involved should be against that. (First error. The fossils represent a instant event and not long time)
and then they have a different kind without a progression that should of been there. (second error. It was just a different kind in a different area at the same event)
They find no change over long periods of time as they see it. Then change suddenly is there.
They were forced to throw out the old ideas though held long time.
The old ideas could easily be thrown out because they had no science behind them. Its all speculation or history. Not science.
PE is a good example however that they recognized all along something wasn't adding up..
Rob

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Lithodid-Man, posted 07-24-2004 7:36 PM Lithodid-Man has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by nator, posted 07-27-2004 10:11 AM Robert Byers has not replied

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4369 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 66 of 246 (127869)
07-26-2004 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by crashfrog
07-25-2004 2:58 AM


OK good points. This comes up all the time.
The hypothsesis didn't come first and then the sequences found to confirm it.
The (percieved)sequences were observed and then came a hypothesis.
The fossils are not as they would be in a evolutionary theory which is why PE came along to overthrow a 150 year old error (as they see it).
All there is data in the field and then human interpretation. The claim that someone on a island thought up a hypothesis and then itthe data fit would not be bourne out by history.
Darwin travelled the world looking at data and then came up with a idea. Not the other way around.
Regards

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by crashfrog, posted 07-25-2004 2:58 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by mark24, posted 07-26-2004 5:09 PM Robert Byers has replied
 Message 69 by crashfrog, posted 07-26-2004 11:56 PM Robert Byers has not replied

  
RRoman
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 246 (127870)
07-26-2004 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Robert Byers
07-26-2004 3:22 PM


Your[sic] misunderstanding the discussion
Slight Nitpick:
You're = You are
Your = possessive form of "you" e.g. your boots, your feet
Its about Major kinds journey into different major kinds
Then please give us some examples of "major kinds." Or even just define "kinds." Or tell us what mechanism prevents the splitting of groups above the level of the family.

"Knowledge is Power" - Francis Bacon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Robert Byers, posted 07-26-2004 3:22 PM Robert Byers has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5196 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 68 of 246 (127881)
07-26-2004 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Robert Byers
07-26-2004 4:11 PM


Robert,
OK good points. This comes up all the time.
The hypothsesis didn't come first and then the sequences found to confirm it.
The (percieved)sequences were observed and then came a hypothesis.
This is false, when evolution was first hypothesised there wasn't a single example of a transitional, they are all predictions borne out.
The fossils are not as they would be in a evolutionary theory which is why PE came along to overthrow a 150 year old error (as they see it).
PE was invoked to explain stasis, & the only "error" it scuppered was a 100% gradualism-all-the-time view of change.
The fossils most definately are where evolutionary expectations say they should be, see post 4 & post 14 for details of the congruence of cladistics & stratigraphy.
All there is data in the field and then human interpretation. The claim that someone on a island thought up a hypothesis and then itthe data fit would not be bourne out by history.
Yes it was. Natural selection is FACT. Darwin didn't have a single transitional to support him at the time, they all came later. He lacked detailed knowledge of population genetics, developmental biology, molecular biology, etc, all of which spectacularly bear out Darwins theory. Ergo, the hypothesis getting data to fit it IS borne out by history. It is difficult for you to be more wrong, this is kids stuff, Robert.
Mark
This message has been edited by mark24, 07-26-2004 04:14 PM

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Robert Byers, posted 07-26-2004 4:11 PM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Robert Byers, posted 07-27-2004 3:40 PM mark24 has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 69 of 246 (127953)
07-26-2004 11:56 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Robert Byers
07-26-2004 4:11 PM


The fossils are not as they would be in a evolutionary theory which is why PE came along to overthrow a 150 year old error (as they see it).
That would be a false statement which I had already refuted in my post. It's against the forum guidelines for you to repeat it here. Please go back and address my post if you wish to continue making this claim.
Darwin travelled the world looking at data and then came up with a idea.
Right, which is how we know that there's no "interpretation" of the data involved - the data clearly led Darwin to the conclusion of evolution, not the other way around.
But, Darwin didn't have all the data. The new data we've found since Darwin's time confirms predictions made by his theory.
You might contrast Darwin's method with what creationists do - Darwin examined the data and dervied a testable conclusion. Creationists start with an untestable conclusion and cherry-pick the data to fit.
Oh, and you still didn't answer my question - if evolution were true, how would the fossil record be different from what we have; a record of the remains of species organized by time?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Robert Byers, posted 07-26-2004 4:11 PM Robert Byers has not replied

  
SkepticToAll
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 246 (127958)
07-27-2004 12:50 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by NosyNed
07-25-2004 3:14 PM


Re: Transitionals
quote:
and define "transitional". Thank you.
Related to this question
quote:
Where are the transitionals between Erectus and the ape?
It should be obvious to you .. why would my definition be different.
Anyway let me explain: Is there another species that has approximately midway between the cranial capacity of the lowest erectus fossil and Australopithecus fossil..
Actually let me put it this way ..
someone mentioned:
Homo ergaster", "Homo rudolfensis" and "Homo habilis"
What are the cranial capacities of these specimen (if they are known)..
You must at least admit there have been a few scientists who have suggested the possibility that Homo erectus is a modern human closely related to the Australian Aborgines.
And finally, do we really have enough fossil evidence to even come up with some of the conclusions in the evolution sites - I say this because there is a book called 'Bones of Contention' that shows the amount of fossil evidence for human evolution to be pitifully low (and it does not support creationsism)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by NosyNed, posted 07-25-2004 3:14 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Gary, posted 07-27-2004 1:33 AM SkepticToAll has not replied
 Message 74 by NosyNed, posted 07-27-2004 1:35 AM SkepticToAll has replied
 Message 75 by wj, posted 07-27-2004 1:38 AM SkepticToAll has not replied
 Message 81 by RRoman, posted 07-27-2004 7:33 AM SkepticToAll has not replied

  
SkepticToAll
Inactive Member


Message 71 of 246 (127964)
07-27-2004 1:16 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by coffee_addict
07-25-2004 4:08 AM


Weak case so far...
To summarize so far there are two suggested 'complete' lineages:
1. horse lineage
quote:
First of all, I must admit that I have no intention of going to that link of yours.
Why? Its a direct link about the problems with horse lineage. Can you not rebut his criticism?
Ok - try to rebut this then copied directly from Creation Explanation 3b
quote:
Perhaps the best known demonstration of an evolutionary scenario is that of the horse series displayed in school and college textbooks and in museums. These charts and displays make the theory of horse evolution very neat, seemingly historical, all cut-and-dried. Actually there are important problems with the theory and some serious disagreement, even among evolutionary scientists.29
a. A complete series of horse fossils is not found in any one place in the world arranged in the rock strata in proper evolutionary order from bottom to top. The fossils are found in widely separated places on the earth.
b. The currently accepted sequence of fossils starts in North America, then jumps to Europe and back to America again. But there are still differing opinions on whether one of the jumps was from America to Europe or vice versa. Many different evolutionary histories for horses have been proposed.
c. Hyrocotherium (eohippus), supposedly the earliest, founding member of the horse evolution series, is not connected by intermediate fossils to the condylarths from which it supposedly evolved.30
d. The first three supposed horse genera, found in rocks classified as Eocene, are named Hyracotherium, Orohippus, and Epihippus, and they are said to have evolved in that order. However, the average size of these creatures, sometimes called "old horses," decreases along the series, which is contradictory to the normal evolutionary rule, and they were all not larger than a fox.31 In view of their similarity, these genera could be considered to be members of an originally created biblical "kind."
e. Between Epihippus and Mesohippus, the next genus in the horse series, there is a considerable gap.32 The size increases about 50 percent and the number of toes on the front feet decreases from four to three. The series of genera, Mesohippus, Miohippus, and Parahippus, sometimes called the (small) "new horses," were three-toed animals much more similar in appearance to modern horses than the previous group discussed. These, perhaps, were members of another created kind.
f. Merychippus, the next genus in the supposed horse evolution series, and the first of the (large) "new horses," was about 50 percent larger than the group of genera just discussed. It was three-toed, but the two side toes on each foot were quite small and unimportant, and the animals looked very horselike. Pliohippus, the next genus in the series was a one-toed horse. These animals had some characteristics of skeleton and teeth which differed from modern horses, but they may, perhaps, be classified with them as members of the same original created kind.
g. According to the theory, in Europe and North America three-toed horses evolved into single-toed horses. It is interesting that fossil horse-like ungulates of South America would seem to tell the opposite story. If one kind of ungulate evolved into another in South America, it would appear from the location of the fossils in the rock strata that the following succession of evolutionary stages occurred: first, the one-toed Thoatherium gave rise to Diadiaphorus having two small extra toes, which then evolved into the three-toed Macrauchenia.33 But perhaps all of these animals were created, rather than evolved.
h. In northeastern Oregon the three-toed Neohipparion is found in the same rock formation with the one-toed horse, Pliohippus.34
i. There is a mystery about the theory of horse evolution. It arises from the fact that the brain of little Hyracotherium was simple and smooth, as indicated by the smooth inner surface of the fossil skulls. The brain of true horse, Equus, has on its outer surface a complex pattern of folds and fissures.35 Cattle brains are quite similar and equally complex and have an almost identical pattern of fissures. Cattle and Hyracotherium supposedly evolved from a common ancestor which had a simpler pattern of fissures. Therefore, it must be assumed that parallel evolution by chance processes produced the same complex brain pattern possessed by both modern cattle and horses. Such a tale is difficult to swallow. Intelligent, purposeful creation provides a more believable explanation.
j. Dr. Niles Eldridge of the American Museum of Natural History admitted in an interview that the Museum houses a display of alleged horse evolution which is misleading and should be replaced. It has been the model for many similar displays across the country for much of this century.36
To summarize, the alleged horse evolution series actually appears to be three groups of genera. The first in the series has no connection by fossil intermediates to the supposed ancestors. The three groups may well have no connection one with the other, and the overall fossil horse data can be fitted into the framework of the biblical creation model. The three groups of genera may represent three created kinds which should be fitted into the classification system as three separate "families" of ungulates. There is no need to assume that horses were evolved rather than created. The faith of atheistic materialism leads one to evolved horses. The faith of biblical theism leads to created horses.
2. invertebrates with calcareous structures (mollusks, corals, echindoderms, bryozoa, brachiozoa, etc)
This is an alleged lineage that I am totally unfamiliar with ..I will take a closer look at it....
So far just two lineages (TWO!!!)- it is one thing for scientists to say that the evidence 'strongly suggests' common descent but to say evolution is a fact like gravity! We observe gravity all the time - not so with evolution....
yet these oversimplistic text books geared for school children are filled with images showing complete lineages for primates, and various other animals. Even if evolution IS a fact - it should not be taught in high school in the current form. It is truly taught as religously antichristian doctrine..
But then this is another topic..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by coffee_addict, posted 07-25-2004 4:08 AM coffee_addict has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by crashfrog, posted 07-27-2004 1:24 AM SkepticToAll has not replied
 Message 76 by coffee_addict, posted 07-27-2004 1:51 AM SkepticToAll has replied
 Message 79 by mark24, posted 07-27-2004 5:49 AM SkepticToAll has not replied
 Message 80 by RRoman, posted 07-27-2004 6:29 AM SkepticToAll has not replied
 Message 84 by nator, posted 07-27-2004 10:40 AM SkepticToAll has not replied
 Message 85 by Dr Jack, posted 07-27-2004 11:11 AM SkepticToAll has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 72 of 246 (127967)
07-27-2004 1:24 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by SkepticToAll
07-27-2004 1:16 AM


We observe gravity all the time - not so with evolution....
I observe evolution about as often as I observe gravity, so you're pretty wrong about this.
Unless you're choosing not to see all the evolutiong going on..
It is truly taught as religously antichristian doctrine..
Could you go to pubmed.org, search for any scientific paper on evolution, and point out the anti-christian content please?
Moreover how can it be "anti-christian" when evolution is affirmed by so many of the major Christian denominations? Do you really think the Catholics are all secret atheists or something?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by SkepticToAll, posted 07-27-2004 1:16 AM SkepticToAll has not replied

  
Gary
Inactive Member


Message 73 of 246 (127969)
07-27-2004 1:33 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by SkepticToAll
07-27-2004 12:50 AM


Re: Transitionals
quote:
And finally, do we really have enough fossil evidence to even come up with some of the conclusions in the evolution sites - I say this because there is a book called 'Bones of Contention' that shows the amount of fossil evidence for human evolution to be pitifully low (and it does not support creationsism)
Although hominid fossils are rare, that doesn't mean that humans did not evolve. A fairly large number of fossils have been found, and hominids have only been around for a short amount of time in the grand scheme of things. There are many species alive today which descend from creatures that left poor fossil records, but we don't assume that they have appeared by some method other than evolution.
Bats, for example, have fragile bones and live in places where their corpses are likely to rot quickly or be eaten by scavengers, rather than getting covered up by debris which allows them to be fossilized. Therefore, they do not leave a strong fossil record. We know they evolved though, because they bear similarities to other animals.
This website shows the bone structures of a human arm and a pterodactyl, bird, and bat wing. The similarities are great enough to be considered evidence for a common ancestor. Barring molecular evidence, they all have a humerus, radius, and ulna, as well as at least a couple finger bones, though each example has been adapted in a different manner. The bird, bat, and human all have shoulder blades and they all appear to have clavicles.
It is important to look not only at fossils that appear to follow a line, like horse fossils, but at many different organisms, and try to find similarities between them. This knowledge can enable us to better understand the evolutionary pathways that life forms followed to reach their current status, even if the fossil record is sparse.
This message has been edited by Gary, 07-27-2004 12:47 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by SkepticToAll, posted 07-27-2004 12:50 AM SkepticToAll has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 74 of 246 (127970)
07-27-2004 1:35 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by SkepticToAll
07-27-2004 12:50 AM


Re: Transitionals
It should be obvious to you .. why would my definition be different.
So you agree, completely, with the definition we have developed in the thread? If so, we can continue; if not please give your own wording of an unambiguous definition in that thread.
You must at least admit there have been a few scientists who have suggested the possibility that Homo erectus is a modern human closely related to the Australian Aborgines.
Please supply references to these suggestions. Some full context quotes would save time if you have them too. Since H erectus' had a number of features not found on modern humans I would be interested in the reasons that these scientists would give for their conclusions. What I suspect is this is BS but I'll wait and see what you produce before I call it. Ok?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by SkepticToAll, posted 07-27-2004 12:50 AM SkepticToAll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by SkepticToAll, posted 07-27-2004 5:23 PM NosyNed has replied

  
wj
Inactive Member


Message 75 of 246 (127971)
07-27-2004 1:38 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by SkepticToAll
07-27-2004 12:50 AM


Re: Transitionals
sta writes:
...I say this because there is a book called 'Bones of Contention' that shows the amount of fossil evidence for human evolution to be pitifully low (and it does not support creationsism)
Bones of Contention by Marvin Lubenow? The same Lubenow who wrote an article Paleoanthropology in Review in CEN Technical Journal (a creationist rag)?
I think you should be more skeptical about the stuff you read.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by SkepticToAll, posted 07-27-2004 12:50 AM SkepticToAll has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by derwood, posted 09-21-2004 12:16 PM wj 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