Thought about creation

[Prunepicker]

There's plenty of evidence for evolution now. There's evidence for it in
genetic sequences, related morphology between similar species, and more
fossil evidence in favor of evolution. Since you quoted the journal Science as
your source for scientific literature, a quick search on PubMed Home in that
journal for evolution will reveal many papers that supports evolution.

As for the fossil evidence in favor of evolution there is nothing that provides
a concrete link. There's this species and that species but, and this is my
argument with the theory, there is nothing in between. It reminds me of
Nebraska man.

Yes, there are 1,000's of links supporting evolution.

[feconi]

Funny, I had the same thoughts about you.

Ah, how cute! The obligatory "no, you're stupid" response. I'm disappointed that you're putting up such a meager fight--instead of countering my points, you're emphatically reinforcing them. How convenient!

Now, get off of your high horse and show us where a species has evolved into another species.

Now, now, little Prunepicker...don't turn this around on me. I've asked you to show me something first, remember? I'm not going to restate it, so re-read post #222 (carefully, now!) and respond to my statement. Can you do that for me? C'mon, Prune, it's your chance to show OKCTalk that indeed, you are capable of basic reading comprehension skills! (As if it were any question, there's absolutely no chance you'll redeem yourself as a scientist on this forum, but this would be a small step in the right direction.)

Also, even though I'm playing in the muck with you now, I'm afraid relative to you, I'll always be on a high horse. Sorry, Prune.

[Prunepicker]

Ah, how cute!

I read you post very carefully the first time. It's very clear that you don't
have anything. I understand. Nobody else does either. Everything you said
was the classic cop out.

I guess we'll just have to accept the fact that all you can do is demean and
belittle. You seem to be incapable of anything else.

[USG '60]

If you answered this, Prune, I missed it. But somewhere back there somene asked....I don't remember exactly how he worded it, but basically: Where do you believe all these distinct species came from?

Prune, please consider answering this.

[Stan Silliman]

Veracity in that they came to some idea, but not of a species evolving into
another species. They are articles which have huge gaps, especially when
it comes to changing into a different species. Extrapolation must be used
to come to a conclusion. While this is a method of science, while awaiting
further evidence to fill the gaps, it only guesses what happened.

When I see evidence of a species evolving into another species THEN and
only then will I accept evolution.

Evolution is not adapting. Evolution is evolving into something completely
different, i.e. lizards becoming birds, etc...

You've set a standard that may not be observable, asking for proof one distinct specie evolve into another, i.e. lizards into birds.

By that I take it you accept that one form of mammal can evolve into a similar but distinct other form of mammal. In other words wolves into dogs or apes into neanderthals, neanderthals into early humans, etc.

As far as a rodent forming into a bird, somewhere along the way bats sprung up. Was this by adaptation or was it sex between rats and birds?

[HSC-Sooner]

[/B]

You've set a standard that may not be observable, asking for proof one distinct specie evolve into another, i.e. lizards into birds.

By that I take it you accept that one form of mammal can evolve into a similar but distinct other form of mammal. In other words wolves into dogs or apes into neanderthals, neanderthals into early humans, etc.

As far as a rodent forming into a bird, somewhere along the way bats sprung up. Was this by adaptation or was it sex between rats and birds?

No, no, no. Bats don't form from sex between rats and birds...either that or I missed the sarcasm.

Lizards won't turn into birds magically. The human system of classifying a group of animals as birds and another groups of animals as reptiles is all arbitrary if you think about it. ALL living things on this earth are related to each other somehow as we ALL share common ancestors.

Others share a more recent ancestor thus they share a lot of similar traits. So humans, since we like an ordered classification system, will group those similar trait organisms and call them the reptiles. Another group of animals with shared similar traits will be grouped in another system, birds. But no matter how you look at it, the definition of species is hard to classify scientifically.

Just like how planets are hard to classify (Pluto?). We can define the species limit as organisms that can't breed with each other but what about horses and donkeys? Or a female St. Bernard and a male chihuahua? So far, genetics have been the most solid system for classification of species. But there's still room for debate on what percentage similarity is needed to classify what's a species and what's not. A 1-5% difference seems to be general idea now.

What generates these genetic differences? Mutations and alleles (varying copies of the same gene). Did you know the average human contains 50-100 mutations? Most of these mutations are benign and are not visible (though some may manifest themselves as cancerous lesions). Your child will inherit you and your partner's mutations and have different ones themselves. Your child will also inherit you and your partner's alleles --> brown eyes? auburn hair? dark skin? etc.

These mutations and alleles can be sequenced with today's genetic laboratories. You can track alleles and mutations passed down from generation to generation. You can probably see physical characteristics of yourself in your parents and less so in your grandparents...and you lose similarity as you trace back your ancestors. You can trace the genetic characteristics as you go through your ancestral genetic sequences.

It's feasible to think that if you trace back thousands and thousands of ancestors, you'll find that you will resemble them less and less. It's all 'gradual' and you may find ancestors you may not even call human as you trace through millions of generation. The genetic sequences will also show these differences. The problem with this scenario is that we don't have everyone's genetic profile nor do we have all of our ancestors' genetic profiles. Plus this timescale will be on the order of thousands if not millions of years. Humans take many years to reach reproductive age to have offspring.

However, we can see this process dramatically increased in organisms that may only take 20 MINUTES to double. And we can sequence them too! Bacteria provide a prime model to show evolution on a scale that humans can observe. We see the rise of antibiotic resistant strains and the rise of bacteria that eat plastic and nylon (both are modern inventions).

'Species' arise all the time. If there is a niche or food source in the environment that has not been colonized, something will probably evolve to take advantage of it. They gain a food source and they reduce their competition, thus that population will be in an advantageous position. As long as this population stays isolated, enough genetic mutations and alleles will be concentrated and we will see genetic differences between this population and the parental population. Humans then come in, note the genetic differences, arbitrarily apply the different species label, and we call it a good day.

[Prunepicker]

[/b]
You've set a standard that may not be observable, asking for proof one
distinct specie evolve into another, i.e. lizards into birds.

By that I take it you accept that one form of mammal can evolve into a
similar but distinct other form of mammal. In other words wolves into dogs
or apes into neanderthals, neanderthals into early humans, etc.

As far as a rodent forming into a bird, somewhere along the way bats
sprung up. Was this by adaptation or was it sex between rats and birds?

It should be clearly observable. Transitional forms should be as common as
separate and distinct forms if they truly evolved. There are zoologists
trying to conclude that lizards evolved into birds because they have some
similar attributes.

Dogs and wolves can reproduce. Chimps and humans can't. Rat's and birds
can't reproduce.

[Heyuri]

It should be clearly observable. Transitional forms should be as common as
separate and distinct forms if they truly evolved. There are zoologists
trying to conclude that lizards evolved into birds because they have some
similar attributes.

Dogs and wolves can reproduce. Chimps and humans can't. Rat's and birds
can't reproduce.

Lions and Tigers can reproduce, Chihuahua's and Great Dane's cannot.
Donkeys and Horses can reproduce, House cats and Bengal Cats can reproduce...

You claim there are no transitional forms, but that is just your opinion. If we were to find a fossil of a Chihuahua and a wolf, they would be called different species. But because we can see them alive and run DNA tests on them, we call them the same species.

Just because you don't want them to be fossils of transitional species, doesn't mean they aren't.

[Lord Helmet]

If you answered this, Prune, I missed it. But somewhere back there somene asked....I don't remember exactly how he worded it, but basically: Where do you believe all these distinct species came from?

Prune, please consider answering this.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess the response is the ultimate cop-out of "God"

[USG '60]

I imagine that's the case, my good Lord.

[Caboose]

It should be clearly observable. Transitional forms should be as common as
separate and distinct forms if they truly evolved. There are zoologists
trying to conclude that lizards evolved into birds because they have some
similar attributes.

Dogs and wolves can reproduce. Chimps and humans can't. Rat's and birds
can't reproduce.

Prune, you have a pretty poor understanding of how evolution works.

You still haven't answered my question. You don't "believe in" evolution because you don't have proof of it. So what is is the theory of life origin that you do believe in, presumably because you have proof of it?

[HSC-Sooner]

There are a lot of misunderstandings when it comes to how natural selection works and how it fits in evolution. I found a great illustration that details the correct and incorrect way of viewing natural selection. You don't have to read the chunk of text that accompanies the picture but the diagram is easy enough to understand:

A highly simplified depiction of natural selection (Correct) and a generalized illustration of various common misconceptions about the mechanism (Incorrect). Properly understood, natural selection occurs as follows: (A) A population of organisms exhibits variation in a particular trait that is relevant to survival in a given environment. In this diagram, darker coloration happens to be beneficial, but in another environment, the opposite could be true. As a result of their traits, not all individuals in Generation 1 survive equally well, meaning that only a non-random subsample ultimately will succeed in reproducing and passing on their traits (B). Note that no individual organisms in Generation 1 change, rather the proportion of individuals with different traits changes in the population. The individuals who survive from Generation 1 reproduce to produce Generation 2. (C) Because the trait in question is heritable, this second generation will (mostly) resemble the parent generation. However, mutations have also occurred, which are undirected (i.e., they occur at random in terms of the consequences of changing traits), leading to both lighter and darker offspring in Generation 2 as compared to their parents in Generation 1. In this environment, lighter mutants are less successful and darker mutants are more successful than the parental average. Once again, there is non-random survival among individuals in the population, with darker traits becoming disproportionately common due to the death of lighter individuals (D). This subset of Generation 2 proceeds to reproduce. Again, the traits of the survivors are passed on, but there is also undirected mutation leading to both deleterious and beneficial differences among the offspring (E). (F) This process of undirected mutation and natural selection (non-random differences in survival and reproductive success) occurs over many generations, each time leading to a concentration of the most beneficial traits in the next generation. By Generation N, the population is composed almost entirely of very dark individuals. The population can now be said to have become adapted to the environment in which darker traits are the most successful. This contrasts with the intuitive notion of adaptation held by most students and non-biologists. In the most common version, populations are seen as uniform, with variation being at most an anomalous deviation from the norm (X). It is assumed that all members within a single generation change in response to pressures imposed by the environment (Y). When these individuals reproduce, they are thought to pass on their acquired traits. Moreover, any changes that do occur due to mutation are imagined to be exclusively in the direction of improvement (Z). Studies have revealed that it can be very difficult for non-experts to abandon this intuitive interpretation in favor of a scientifically valid understanding of the mechanism. Diagrams based in part on Bishop and Anderson.

Springer Link Scientific e-Journal: 10.1007/s12052-009-0128-1

I'm only here to correct misunderstandings. I'm not here to take away your faith, that's the other misconception that I would like people to understand. Biologists are there to understand nature through a scientific process...biologists are not pushing evolution through to dethrone God and faith. BAD misunderstanding! There may be some scientists who fight back against religion but that's due to the encroachment of creationism/intelligent design/young earth geology in schools where those 'theories' should not even have a place!

[feconi]

I read you post very carefully the first time.

Then why, after two subsequent posts, didn't you actually address my questions?

It's very clear that you don't have anything.

I'm not the one who purports to "have anything." You are the one who needs to back up what you said earlier, since you claim evolution can never be proven. Yeah, I'm still waiting on you to show that you actually "have something" there.

I understand.

No, you clearly don't.

Nobody else does either.

HSC Sooner has been more than generous in sharing his knowledge on the matter. I'd say he "has something," and frankly, it's been entertaining to read your generic and predictable responses to his posts.

Everything I said was the classic cop out.

Seems a much more accurate statement, no? (What on earth am I "copping out" of, anyway?)

I guess we'll just have to accept the fact that all you can do is demean and belittle. You seem to be incapable of anything else.

Where you're concerned, absolutely. What, you think you deserve a fair and truly scientific debate on the matter? When you literally brag about how you're a "scientist" and a "physicist," yet make irrational arguments against evolution and demonstrate complete misunderstanding of the scientific method, you deserve scolding, not discussion. This is only augmented by the fact you're arguing from a religious standpoint--yet won't acknowledge it--along with your displays of unprecedented bitterness in the political forum.

All that considered, I realize you are far too effective at making yourself look stupid for me to be of much use in this thread. I'll be glad to bow out now, since I'm sure you'll continue your parade of idiocy regardless of how many people call you out; indeed, you are the trademark lunatic.

[Prunepicker]

Prune, you have a pretty poor understanding of how evolution works.

You still haven't answered my question. You don't "believe in" evolution
because you don't have proof of it. So what is is the theory of life origin
that you do believe in, presumably because you have proof of it?

No, I have a very clear and educated understanding of how evolution
works. However, I refuse, because of the lack of evidence, to sit in the
box, like so many do, and not think outside of it.

The origin is beside the point.

If I say Xortrox from planet Woton then you'll start another argument
about origins and avoid facing the the fact that the evidence of evolution
is vague and requires "artists" to fill in the blanks, i.e. here's a species and
there's a species and nothing to connect them. Let's make up the rest.

If I say God then you'll start another argument about origins and avoid
facing the fact that the evidence of evolution is vague and requires
"artists" to fill in the blanks, i.e. here's a species and there's a species and
nothing to connect them. Let's make up the rest.

[Shake2005]

No links? Here's one:

Ancestor of T rex found in China | Evolution Diary


Ancestor of T rex found in China
April 25th, 2009 · No Comments
Fossils found in China may give clues to the evolution of Tyrannosaurus rex.

Uncovered near the city of Jiayuguan, the fossil finds come from a novel tyrannosaur dubbed Xiongguanlong baimoensis.

The fossils date from the middle of the Cretaceous period, and may be a “missing link”, tying the familiar big T rex to its much smaller ancestors.

The fossils show early signs of the features that became pronounced with later tyrannosaurs.

Paleontological knowledge about the family of dinosaurs known as tyrannosaurs is based around two distinct groups of fossils from different parts of the Cretaceous period, which ran from approximately 145 to 65 million years ago.

One group dates from an early part of the period, the Barremian, and the other is from tens of millions of years later.

Physical form

Before now it has been hard for palaeontologists to trace the lineage from one group to the other.

“We’ve got a 40-50 million year gap in which we have very little fossil record,” said Peter Makovicky, associate curator at the Field Museum in Chicago, who helped to lead the US/Chinese team that uncovered the fossil.

But, he said, X baimoensis was a “nice link” between those two groups.

“We’re filling in that part of the fossil record,” he said.

Writing in the Royal Society’s journal Proceedings B, Dr Makovicky and colleagues suggest that X baimoensis is a “phylogenetic, morphological, and temporal link” between the two distinct groups of tyrannosaurs.

The fossil has some hallmarks of large tyrannosaurs such as a boxy skull, reinforced temple bones to support large jaw muscles, modified front nipping teeth and a stronger spine to support a large head.

But it also shows features absent from older tyrannosaurs, such as a long thin snout.

An adult would have stood about 1.5m tall at the hip and weighed about 270kg. By contrast, an adult T rex was about 4m tall at the hip and weighed more than 5 tonnes.

Wider net

The same edition of Proceedings B features papers about two other sets of dinosaur fossils.

One discovery was made in China by many of the palaeontologists who found the tyrannosaur. The samples found in the Yujingzi Basin came from a dinosaur that resembled the modern ostrich.

While many of these ornithomimosaurs have been found before, analysis of the bones of the new species, dubbed Beishanlong grandis, suggest it was one of the biggest.

The specimen found by the palaeontologists was thought to be 6m tall and weigh about 626kg.

Alongside in Proceedings B was work on the remains of a duck-billed dinosaur found in Uzbekistan called Levnesovia transoxiana.

Analysis of the fossils, by Hans-Dieter Sues of the Smithsonian in Washington and Alexander Averianov of the Russian Academy of Sciences, may shed light on the waves of expansion hadrosaurs undertook during the late Cretaceous.

[Shake2005]

How about the evolution of horses?



Horse Evolution

.

2My Old & New World Equus
\ | /
\ | /
4My Hippidion Equus Stylohipparion
| | Neohipparion Hipparion Cormohipparion
| | Astrohippus | | |
| | Pliohippus ---------------------------
12My Dinohippus Calippus \ | /
| | Pseudhipparion \ | /
| | | |
------------------------------------------- Sinohippus
15My \ | / |
\ | / Megahippus |
17My Merychippus | |
| Anchitherium Hypohippus
| | |
23My Parahippus Anchitherium Archeohippus
| | |
(Kalobatippus?)-----------------------------------------
25My \ | /
\ | /
|
35My |
Miohippus Mesohippus
| |
40My Mesohippus
|
|
|
45My Paleotherium |
| Epihippus
| |
Propalaeotherium | Haplohippus
| | |
50My Pachynolophus | Orohippus
| | |
| | |
------------------------------
\ | /
\ | /
55My Hyracotherium

[Prunepicker]

The fossils date from the middle of the Cretaceous period, and
may
be a “missing link”, tying the familiar big T rex to its much smaller ancestors.

We'll just have to wait and see.

[Prunepicker]

How about the evolution of horse?

Horse Evolution

Did you read this or is it just a google search that looked good?

This is something like we read in high school science class in the 60's and
later in Zoology. There are a lot of admitted gaps, as in all examples of
evolution. There are a few hopeful transitional forms but nothing conclusive.

[HSC-Sooner]

A genetic study on tameness and how it may lead to the rise of new species through domestication: Genetic Region For Tame Animals Discovered: Horse Whisperers, Lion Tamers Not Needed

These scientists have been breeding a wild species of rat and breeding the nice ones with each other and the angry ones with each other. After so many decades, they observe these DNA markers (called microsatellites) for any genetic trend for differences between domesticated vs. non-domesticated.

Link to the paper itself: Genetics -- Sign In Page

For my rant, scientists can prove transitional forms for a lot of species through genetics and fossils. You see this with corn arising from wild teosinte (old kernel and husks in archaeological digs), dogs from wolves (genetic sequencing and dog/wolf bones from archaeological sites), bacterial and viral evolution (genetic sequencing), and so on.

You may ask for dinosaur fossil transitional forms. Scientists can provide modern transitional forms as we don't have time machines or paleontological tools to DIG up all the fossils in the ground. We can show transitional forms in some species but not all.

You can ask for transitional forms for EVERYTHING but that's an unreasonable request. It's almost like asking a physicist that he must prove that all objects must have mass and are subjected to gravitational forces before we are to accept the theory of gravity or asking an astronomer to prove that all galaxies must have black holes before we believe her theory that galaxies revolve around black holes.

[Shake2005]

Actually the scientist quoted didn't say "may", that was the writer of the article.

The scientist stated this was a “nice link”

And what about all the transitional types of horse ancestors.

And these were simply the first two animals I searched. There are lots of transitional fossil records, you just want to ignore them.

The thing about calling them transitional fossils is that once a fossil type is found and is identified as a a transitional type between two known fossil records, it becomes a known fossil. At that point we start to look for a transitional fossil between it and it's closest neighbors. Gaps between fossil records are filled all the time, we just start looking in ever smaller gaps for "transitional" fossils.

Your close mindedness and lack of basic understanding of the scientific method is shocking for someone that claims to be a "scientist". I highly doubt you ever were a science teacher, and even if you were, emphasis on the were, I assume you were fired for incompetence. If you actually have a science degree, where is it from? ORU?

[Caboose]

No, I have a very clear and educated understanding of how evolution
works. However, I refuse, because of the lack of evidence, to sit in the
box, like so many do, and not think outside of it.

The origin is beside the point.

If I say Xortrox from planet Woton then you'll start another argument
about origins and avoid facing the the fact that the evidence of evolution
is vague and requires "artists" to fill in the blanks, i.e. here's a species and
there's a species and nothing to connect them. Let's make up the rest.

If I say God then you'll start another argument about origins and avoid
facing the fact that the evidence of evolution is vague and requires
"artists" to fill in the blanks, i.e. here's a species and there's a species and
nothing to connect them. Let's make up the rest.

So is there another theory you believe in or not?

[Caboose]

Did you read this or is it just a google search that looked good?

This is something like we read in high school science class in the 60's and
later in Zoology. There are a lot of admitted gaps, as in all examples of
evolution. There are a few hopeful transitional forms but nothing conclusive.

If you understood the fossil record you wouldn't expect to find what you are looking for. Most species that existed left without a trace.

[Prunepicker]

Actually the scientist quoted didn't say "may", that was the writer of the
article...

Being nasty, belittling and bumptious doesn't work on me and it's a waste of
time. If you insist on this childish blather, as others on this thread have
because they can't debate, then I'll gladly put you on ignore, too.

Disagreeing does not equate to being closed minded or incompetent. You
have the same evidence as I. You're convinced, I'm not. If you can't deal
with it then move on.

[Prunepicker]

If you understood the fossil record you wouldn't expect to find what you are
looking for. Most species that existed left without a trace.

Those that left with out a trace. That's good. If they didn't leave a
trace how do you know they were there to begin with?

Here's something just as funny. All of a sudden, about 500 million years ago
there was a sudden and incredible appearance of life forms. This wasn't a
slow arrival, but of a sudden launch of new and separate life forms. Did this
just POOF into existence? After all it's called the Cambrian Explosion. This
raises a lot of questions for me in respect to evolution.

[HSC-Sooner]

Here's something just as funny. All of a sudden, about 500 million years ago
there was a sudden and incredible appearance of life forms. This wasn't a
slow arrival, but of a sudden launch of new and separate life forms. Did this
just POOF into existence? After all it's called the Cambrian Explosion. This
raises a lot of questions for me in respect to evolution.

The 'suddenness' of the Cambrian Explosion is attributed to rapid evolution of new complex organisms. Most of the new multicellular organisms that have fossilized remains do not exist today. They have died out or were out-competed by other more successful organisms.

There are very alien looking species like this Pikaia:


Or Anomalocaris:


Or Hallucigenia:


Now, scientists only have limited fossils and chemical data from the Cambrian. One of the factors believed to have influenced the rapid evolution was the oxygen threshold. There are lots of reasons to believe that earth's early atmosphere contained very little oxygen. Most of the gases came from volcanic eruptions. Algae and other photosynthetic organisms can survive in this atmosphere..and over a long period of time, as photosynthesis breaks down H2O into usable hydrogen and O2..an eventual threshold was reached.

This threshold allowed these organisms to have no limits in terms of rapid evolution.

Those that left with out a trace. That's good. If they didn't leave a
trace how do you know they were there to begin with?

I believe Caboose is referring to fossils where we find maybe one or two fossils of a specimen but it's incomplete. Or maybe even fragments of a fossil.