evolution vs. creationism: evolution wins

Which new species has formed over the last hundred years?Life changed over millions of years? By that do you mean many species that once lived are now extinct? Or do you mean that one organism, that lived in a marine environment, developed lungs, feet and hair, then moved onto land. Finding that the neighborhood was less desirable than advertised, it then developed flippers and baleen etcetera, in order to move back? [that's how I understand current whale evolution theory]Proof or evidence, I've yet to see either posted here. that doesn't negate my statement that those sites claim to provide proof.

quote:

---

that doesn't negate my statement that those sites claim to provide proof.

---

Can you provide some context for your statement? A link and a relevant quote from one of those sites? One where they make a claim of "proof".Maybe you would like to read this (from one of the sites that you mention:29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Scientific "Proof", scientific evidence, and the scientific methodThis message has been edited by Charles Knight, 01-18-2005 11:49 AM

quote:

---

Which new species has formed over the last hundred years?

---

Observed Instances of SpeciationSome More Observed Speciation Events

quote:

---

Life changed over millions of years? By that do you mean many species that once lived are now extinct?

---

By that I mean that at one time only single celled organisms were on earth. Then multicellular life was around. After that, vertebrates populated the seas. After that, vertebrates were found on land . . . etc. The type of life living on the Earth changed drastically over several million years.

quote:

---

Proof or evidence, I've yet to see either posted here. that doesn't negate my statement that those sites claim to provide proof.

---

Check out my thread "ERV's: Evidence of Common Ancestory". No creationist has tackled this thread. Maybe you can be the first?

I fail to see how you can say that classifying an animal as a tetrapod, then "oops, it doesn't have feet after all, it's really just a fish," qualifies as more evidence. If a creationist were to submit something like that he would receive 10 replies lecturing him about the scientific method and jumping to conclusions.My apologies about the skull stretching remark, I kept switching the two in my mind. However there are many instances of fragmentary [by that I mean a very small portion of the animal as in the partial mandible example]evidence touted as the foundation for an entire genus. Let us not forget Nebraska Man.

From my Webster Encyclopedic Edition. proof, evidence and argument sufficent to induce belief. Is this just a ploy to get me off track, or can we find more minutiae to wrangle over?By the above definition,most of the posters on this site, as well as the previously mentioned sites are offering proof, or if you prefer, evidence and argument sufficent to induce belief.

Well the basic point that you are missing is that if tetrapods evolved from fish we should expect to find fossils of fish that are very like early tetrapods as well as the early tetrapods being like fish. That we might have difficulty telling which side of the line a particular fossil falls follows from the fact that they will be very similar - and the harder it is to tell the better it is as an example of a transitional.Because Pandericthys was very easy to misidentify as an early tetrapod (you have pointed to no error in the analysis that produced that identification) it is in fact a very good example of a transitional fossil.As to Nebraska man let me remind you that the tooth DID belong to a mammal - and it was never scientifically accepted as belonging to a "man" (that was speculation). And even a partial mandible is rather more than a single tooth.

quote:

---

However there are many instances of fragmentary [by that I mean a very small portion of the animal as in the partial mandible example]evidence touted as the foundation for an entire genus. Let us not forget Nebraska Man.

---

It seems that the creationist propoganda machine is in full gear lately. Nebraska man, or rather the tooth, was soundly debunked in the SCIENTIFIC literature. Not one scientific paper ever supported this tooth as evidence of hominids in north america. The only scientist who claimed otherwise was the discoverer of the fossil and a lay newspaper (ie non-peer reviewed, non-scientific newspaper). Why is it that the only misrepresentations of Nebraska man come from the creationist ranks?This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 01-18-2005 12:51 AM

Hi, xevo! How's it going? My daughter, out here in the wilds of Texas, took Honors Biology in high school about four years ago. Campbell's excellent text was used. The teacher "taught" evolution by saying, "These chapters are about evolution. You may read them if you want to, but they won't be on the test."On the subject of tetrapods, read Jennifer Clack's Gaining Ground. It will give you a headache from all the names of obscure bones, but it gives a very nice "warts and all" treatment of what was known about the transition from "fish" to tetrapod in the Devonian. (She and others have found more since, though....)(edited 'cause I'm so spastic)This message has been edited by Coragyps, 01-18-2005 13:03 AM

Actually, I don't care to get into a detailed discussion where biologists don't even agree. How many million Drosop. generations will it take for them to actually mutate into a viable fly of another type? Last time I checked they were still fruit flies. What evidence is there of one bacteria actually mutating into a completely different viable bacteria, with distinctive caracteristics as to the type of nutrient or environment it requires? Why would that [the bacteria example]be evidence of evolution?No, I don't want to be the first in that field.

quote:

---

Last time I checked they were still fruit flies.

---

Last I checked, apes and humans were still mammals. So I guess you don't have a problem with human's sharing a common ancestor with apes?

I merely mentioned it as an example of a very small fragment being misidentified. How is that misrepresentation? I didn't realize it was a sore spot. The coelacanth is a much better example, in that complete fossilized specimens were incorrectly believed to possess features that "oops, weren't there after all!"

You seem to want some sort of single, detailed evidence of evolution, such as a fly mutating into a separate species of fly. The theory of evolution is not built upon such a singular example - so a species of bacteria becoming two doesn't prove evolution. Piles of data from countless examples do, collectively, support the theory of evolution; a notable example is the matching of the DNA-based "tree of life" to that based upon morphological studies.Perhaps you could give us an example of something you might consider to serve as evidence of evolution? Since you seem to discount all evidence presented to you, perhaps your belief is such that no amount or detail of evidence will ever stand against it. You'd prefer a detailed discussion where everyone agrees? How boring...

No, since the banana has similar DNA, I believe we are descended from bananas. They exhibit many characteristics similar to modern man.

quote:

---

What evidence is there of one bacteria actually mutating into a completely different viable bacteria, with distinctive caracteristics as to the type of nutrient or environment it requires? Why would that [the bacteria example]be evidence of evolution?
  —xevolutionist

---

If it's adapting into a different environment, it's evolving.EDIT: ah never mind, understood the question wrong.This message has been edited by Nyogtha, 01-18-2005 13:28 AM

quote:

---

No, since the banana has similar DNA, I believe we are descended from bananas. They exhibit many characteristics similar to modern man.

---

Actually, we share a common ancestor with bananas, namely the basal eukaryotes. This is a common creationist misconception of evolution. We did not evolve from apes, we share a common ancestor with apes. Apes are our cousins, not our grandfathers, just as you share a common ancestor with your cousins, your grandfather. Learning what evolution says does not mean that you accept it. If you claim to be an xevolutionist, you claim so without ever knowing what evolution says.