|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Show one complete lineage in evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RRoman Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4369 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
Your misunderstanding the discussion.
Speciation of horses is not a problem. Its about Major kinds journey into different major kinds Regards Rob
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4369 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4369 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RRoman Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5196 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
SkepticToAll Inactive Member |
quote:Related to this question quote: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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
SkepticToAll Inactive Member |
To summarize so far there are two suggested 'complete' lineages:
1. horse lineage
quote: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: 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..
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Gary Inactive Member |
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
wj Inactive Member |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024