Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What i can't understand about evolution....
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5520 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 151 of 493 (492680)
01-02-2009 3:17 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by seekingfirstthekingdom
01-02-2009 3:12 AM


Re: evening all.
sure can i went from baby to child to preteen to teen to young adult to adult while remaining human
Those are artificial subdivisions. I want to know the real transitional forms.
So you admit theres no proof in the fossil record to plot mankinds rise from single celled organism?.
The evidence is overwhelming

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by seekingfirstthekingdom, posted 01-02-2009 3:12 AM seekingfirstthekingdom has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by seekingfirstthekingdom, posted 01-02-2009 3:25 AM fallacycop has replied

seekingfirstthekingdom
Member (Idle past 5550 days)
Posts: 51
Joined: 08-15-2008


Message 152 of 493 (492682)
01-02-2009 3:25 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by fallacycop
01-02-2009 3:17 AM


Re: evening all.
ive basically been me fallacycop.Just grown up.Now im confused as to how this supports the gradual change from single celled to humans spanning over billions? of years.Im glad you assert theres overwhelming proof in the fossil record.We werent human all the time tho were we?We were something else and before that we were something else and before that we were something else.So identifying us tracking backwards should be real easy.Or have i got that wrong?
Edited by seekingfirstthekingdom, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by fallacycop, posted 01-02-2009 3:17 AM fallacycop has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by fallacycop, posted 01-02-2009 3:43 AM seekingfirstthekingdom has replied
 Message 167 by Blue Jay, posted 01-02-2009 4:41 PM seekingfirstthekingdom has replied

fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5520 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 153 of 493 (492685)
01-02-2009 3:43 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by seekingfirstthekingdom
01-02-2009 3:25 AM


Re: evening all.
ive basically been me fallacycop.Just grown up.Now im confused as to how this supports the gradual change from single celled to humans spanning over billions? of years.Im glad you assert theres overwhelming proof in the fossil record.We werent human all the time tho were we?We were something else and before that we were something else and before that we were something else.So identifying us tracking backwards should be real easy.Or have i got that wrong?
That question didn't make any sense before. It still makes no sense. You are asking us to count the number of transitionals of a gradual process. It makes no sense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by seekingfirstthekingdom, posted 01-02-2009 3:25 AM seekingfirstthekingdom has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by seekingfirstthekingdom, posted 01-02-2009 3:46 AM fallacycop has replied

seekingfirstthekingdom
Member (Idle past 5550 days)
Posts: 51
Joined: 08-15-2008


Message 154 of 493 (492686)
01-02-2009 3:46 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by fallacycop
01-02-2009 3:43 AM


Re: evening all.
better let someone else try mate.Been nice talking to you i admire people who can speak more than 1 language.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by fallacycop, posted 01-02-2009 3:43 AM fallacycop has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by fallacycop, posted 01-02-2009 3:58 AM seekingfirstthekingdom has not replied
 Message 156 by Huntard, posted 01-02-2009 4:08 AM seekingfirstthekingdom has replied

fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5520 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 155 of 493 (492688)
01-02-2009 3:58 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by seekingfirstthekingdom
01-02-2009 3:46 AM


Re: evening all.
So, do you accept that your question makes no sense?
Edited by fallacycop, : typo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by seekingfirstthekingdom, posted 01-02-2009 3:46 AM seekingfirstthekingdom has not replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2294 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 156 of 493 (492690)
01-02-2009 4:08 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by seekingfirstthekingdom
01-02-2009 3:46 AM


Re: evening all.
better let someone else try mate.Been nice talking to you i admire people who can speak more than 1 language.
I speak 3, now worship me!
Anyway, I can't give you a number, I can give you the right answer though. The number of transitionals that it took to get from the first single celled organism is equal to all the offspring it had, that then had offspring, that then had offspring, and so forth, until we arrive at you and me today.
But why would you want to know the exact number?

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by seekingfirstthekingdom, posted 01-02-2009 3:46 AM seekingfirstthekingdom has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by seekingfirstthekingdom, posted 01-02-2009 4:13 AM Huntard has replied

seekingfirstthekingdom
Member (Idle past 5550 days)
Posts: 51
Joined: 08-15-2008


Message 157 of 493 (492691)
01-02-2009 4:13 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by Huntard
01-02-2009 4:08 AM


Re: evening all.
walk me through mankinds gradual rise.For the purpose of this discussion i will accept that bacteria was the original starting point.I know a previous poster claims this to be true yet i have a real hard time believing that since nothing in the existing natural world or anything in a science lab supports this yet ill concede in order to learn more.Plus it was conceded by a previous poster that it doesnt exist in the fossil record.
Edited by seekingfirstthekingdom, : No reason given.
Edited by seekingfirstthekingdom, : No reason given.
Edited by seekingfirstthekingdom, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Huntard, posted 01-02-2009 4:08 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by Huntard, posted 01-02-2009 4:21 AM seekingfirstthekingdom has replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2294 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 158 of 493 (492692)
01-02-2009 4:21 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by seekingfirstthekingdom
01-02-2009 4:13 AM


Re: evening all.
very well, let me see if I can dig up a list that shows the gradual rise.
It will be incomplete, simply because I don't know everything there is to know about this subject. I will also start at a multicellular organism, I hope other people can fill in the steps between single cell and multi cell.
First, invertebrate to vertebrate:
1) Pikaia
2) Yunannozoon
3) Haikouella
4) Conodonts
5) Placoderms (these had jaws)
Right, in the fish department now:
6) Cheirolepis
7) Osteolepis (early lobe finned fish, and showing an amfidian like skull)
8) Eusthenopteron (Amfibian skull, and bane and muscle attachments of fins similar as those found in early tetrapod limbs)
9) Panderichthys (very tetrapod like. Has flattened body as well as foot like fins)
10) Acanthostega (fin to foot transition almost complete)
Early tetrapod time!:
11) Tiktaalik (Fins posses wrist and finger bones, and has a neck and both lungs and gills)
12) Ichthyostega (Shoulder and pelvis very tetrapod like and has a very similar rib cage to tetrapods)
Early land amphibians:
13) Pteroplax (skull bone patterns similar to Ichthyostega and remnants of gills can be found at the neck)
14) Proterogyrinus (Has amphibian like skull, but limbs and spine have reptilian characteristics)
15) Solenodonsaurus (No more lateral line on the head)
16) Hylonomus &
17) Paleothyris (both small lizard like creatures that still have an amphibian like skull)
Argh! It's the reptilians!:
18) Pelycosaurs (synapsids with differentiated teeth)
19) Therapsids (mamal like reptiles with complex jaws and teeth. Legs vertically attached under their bodies)
20) Proto mamals (whole bunch of 'em, in these we see further development of the skull)
Right, mamal department!:
21) Early placentals (small, rodent like organisms)
22) Phenacolemur Jepseni &
23) Teilhardina Asiatica (Both early primates, whose skulls don't really look like primates, but the teeth are getting there)
24) Amphipitecus &
25) Pondaungia Cotteri (from these fossils we can see the brain size increasing, while the nose was getting shorter)
Ape country!:
26) Propliopithecus Haeckell (teeth became a defining characteristic of apes)
27) Aegyptopithicus Zeuxis (Has larger and "rounder" brain)
28) Proconsul (characteristics of both apes and monkeys, also, sexual dimorphism pops up)
29) Kenyapithecus (descendant from Proconsul, and ancestor to both man and the great apes)
30) Australopithecus Afarensis (ape like, but bipedal)
31) Australopithecus Africanus (larger brain, teeth similar to those found in the "homo" genus)
Which is the next stage (and the final one) Humans!:
32) Homo Habilis (sits on the Australopitecine-Homo boundary. Has larger brain, and used tools)
33) Homo Erectus (Larger brain again, an used fire)
34) Homo Sapiens (Brain between Homo Erectus and Homo Sapiens Sapiens, also much finer teeth then predecessor)
35) Homo Sapiens Sapiens
I hope this helped.

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by seekingfirstthekingdom, posted 01-02-2009 4:13 AM seekingfirstthekingdom has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by seekingfirstthekingdom, posted 01-02-2009 4:40 AM Huntard has replied

seekingfirstthekingdom
Member (Idle past 5550 days)
Posts: 51
Joined: 08-15-2008


Message 159 of 493 (492693)
01-02-2009 4:40 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by Huntard
01-02-2009 4:21 AM


Re: evening all.
thanks for that,now im going to pull it apart. Just briefly, you have listed homo erectus as a direct ancestor when scientists have placed erectus as a contemporary.Habilus were actually chimpanzees and not direct ancestors.For every fossil you present it actually opens up more missing links.Ill get to the apes sometime tommorrow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Huntard, posted 01-02-2009 4:21 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Huntard, posted 01-02-2009 5:07 AM seekingfirstthekingdom has not replied
 Message 161 by bluegenes, posted 01-02-2009 7:38 AM seekingfirstthekingdom has not replied
 Message 164 by fallacycop, posted 01-02-2009 10:49 AM seekingfirstthekingdom has not replied
 Message 166 by Parasomnium, posted 01-02-2009 3:31 PM seekingfirstthekingdom has not replied
 Message 174 by RAZD, posted 01-02-2009 10:31 PM seekingfirstthekingdom has not replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2294 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 160 of 493 (492695)
01-02-2009 5:07 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by seekingfirstthekingdom
01-02-2009 4:40 AM


Re: evening all.
thanks for that,now im going to pull it apart.
I'm sure you'd like to think that.
Just briefly, you have listed homo erectus as a direct ancestor when scientists have placed erectus as a contemporary.
It is both an ancestor and a contemporary.
Habilus were actually chimpanzees and not direct ancestors.
First, it's Habilis. Second, they're far from chimpanzees. Since chimps diverged offf of the human species five to eight million years ago, and Habilis only originated 2.5 million years ago, they can't be the same, now can they? But if this is the way you're going to debate (by saying things that aren't true, without backing them up with evidence), then I'm not going to waste as much time as I did when I made that list.
For every fossil you present it actually opens up more missing links.
So, you are going to debate like that. Ok, you're wrong in everything you believe about this stuff, and there's not a single piece of evidence you can produce that shows you are correct. I'll just tell you you're wrong from now on, since trying to help you apparently leads to you saying "nuh-uh" and ignoring all that's been said, too bad really.
Ill get to the apes sometime tommorrow.
And you'll be just as wrong about them, probably. But try to amaze me, ok? For every claim you make, provide evidence to back it up, else I'm just going to say you're wrong.

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by seekingfirstthekingdom, posted 01-02-2009 4:40 AM seekingfirstthekingdom has not replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 161 of 493 (492705)
01-02-2009 7:38 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by seekingfirstthekingdom
01-02-2009 4:40 AM


On evidence
seekingfirstthekingdom writes:
For every fossil you present it actually opens up more missing links.Ill get to the apes sometime tommorrow.
I think you're having trouble with the word "evidence", seekingfirst. If you were to present me with a series of photographs, perhaps ten or fifteen, and claim that these were photos of yourself from the present back to babyhood, I would probably be able to see the resemblance step by step working backwards from the present, and accept the evidence that the little bald creature with no teeth in the earliest photo was you. However, I could claim that every photo you presented opened up the need for more missing link photos, and continue to say that, as if demanding a non-stop movie of your life as proof that you were once that creature with very little hair and no teeth.
For a better analogy, let's look at how we can find out about past events by looking at the present. Further up the thread, I gave the example of a murder investigation. Once the crime has happened, if there are no witnesses, we have to look at the present in order to investigate. The fingerprints of a known burglar are found in the room, his DNA is on the corpse and the bloody knife lying beside it, and discarded clothes are found in his trash can with the victim's blood on them. A jury would convict him beyond all reasonable doubt. As with your photos, we don't need a complete film of the event.
So, you want to know about the evolutionary history of man. Starting from now and working back, I'll present you with the evidence that we share a pattern of historical damage (called pro-viruses) in our genomes with the other apes that confirms beyond all reasonable doubt that we share common ancestry with them. From that, we already know that macro-evolution happens. In fact, that pattern extends to illustrate common descent amongst all primates, and goes beyond that to our relationship with other mammals.
As you'll get lots of people replying to you, I'll stick to that line for now which, alone, shows that we are related by common ancestry to hundreds of other creatures, including our pretty cousin pictured below my name.
My point about evidence is that we do not need the whole of natural history on film in order to convict evolution as the culprit for the origin of species.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by seekingfirstthekingdom, posted 01-02-2009 4:40 AM seekingfirstthekingdom has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by fallacycop, posted 01-02-2009 9:39 AM bluegenes has replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 162 of 493 (492706)
01-02-2009 7:52 AM


Moderator Request
Without calling out any person or persons in particular, clearly there were many examples in last night's dialog of exactly what we don't want here at EvC Forum, so I'm making these requests:
  • Please contribute to helping move the discussion constructively forward.
  • Please keep your focus on the position and not on the person advocating the position.
I recognize that many will be reading and responding before seeing this message, so if you believe you may have posted a message not consistent with the letter and spirit of these requests then please go back and edit it.
Some may want to peruse the Forum Guidelines. It's just one page, well worth a read.
Thanks for your help improving this thread.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5520 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 163 of 493 (492709)
01-02-2009 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by bluegenes
01-02-2009 7:38 AM


Re: On evidence
However, I could claim that every photo you presented opened up the need for more missing link photos, and continue to say that, as if demanding a non-stop movie of your life as proof that you were once that creature with very little hair and no teeth.
A movie is nothing more then sequence of stills at the rate of 2 or 3 dozen stills per second. that would only open billions of missing links. You would only make things worse that way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by bluegenes, posted 01-02-2009 7:38 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by bluegenes, posted 01-02-2009 2:06 PM fallacycop has not replied

fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5520 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 164 of 493 (492713)
01-02-2009 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by seekingfirstthekingdom
01-02-2009 4:40 AM


Re: evening all.
you have listed homo erectus as a direct ancestor when scientists have placed erectus as a contemporary
I'm sure you wouldn't give serious consideration to the thought that your father could not be your ancestor because he was also your contemporary. Same thing.
Habilus were actually chimpanzees and not direct ancestors.
Just because you said so doesn't make it true.
For every fossil you present it actually opens up more missing links
Sure you must be joking. You cannot possibly expect anybody to mistake such an obviously fallacious argument for serious debate, can you?
Have you ever heard of adding a space after periods to help separate sentences? What about capitalization?
Edited by fallacycop, : typo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by seekingfirstthekingdom, posted 01-02-2009 4:40 AM seekingfirstthekingdom has not replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 165 of 493 (492740)
01-02-2009 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by fallacycop
01-02-2009 9:39 AM


Re: On evidence
fallacycop writes:
A movie is nothing more then sequence of stills at the rate of 2 or 3 dozen stills per second. that would only open billions of missing links. You would only make things worse that way.
Sure, but worse for whom? Creationists love missing links. That's what some try and do, ask for a complete fossil record, as if that's necessary in order to "prove evolution". I was pointing out that 10 or 15 photos would probably be enough to connect an adult to its baby self, so that a film isn't required, let alone photos filling gaps between the stills.
That's what I meant when I said that seeker has problems with the word evidence. The pro-viruses I keep bringing up are actually better evidence for the common ancestry of all primates than the evidence I described to convict a burglar for murder above. I can think of an unlikely but possible and reasonable explanation for the evidence in that murder case (burglar finds body, searches it for money accidentally touching the weapon, then throws away his bloodstained clothes, realising he might become a suspect).
With the proviruses, there's no feasible explanation other than common descent. Interestingly, about 8% of our genome is made of proviruses.
I keep making the claim that I've put in italics in the hope that a creationist will challenge me on it. No takers yet, and I'm not surprised.
Does God create via viral infection, I wonder? Are viruses angels?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by fallacycop, posted 01-02-2009 9:39 AM fallacycop 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