Questions for Evolutionists

[Skippy]

I am not talking about hominids at all. Fossils of Homo sapiens or H . neanderthalensis are not necessary at all to establish the facts I am pointing at. I'd rather look at animals and plants that fossilize more readily than human beings: e.g. marine animals that live in environments where frequent slides will cover the bottom-dwelling fauna.

I have noticed a lot of side-stepping of the issue of the ascension of the race known as "homo sapiens" on this and other threads. Someone else has pointed to cichlids in African lakes and rivers to show proof of evolution. Another pointed to virus evolution. That is micro-evolution which is performed in barnyards routinely.

 

What we, on the creation side of the argument are looking for is an honest look by evolutionists at the non-theoretical parts of the data they use a call "fact." Most is assumption and/or extrapolation.

 

The question I had for the Virus guy was - Has anyone ever isolated a sample of influenza and watched it until it became HIV, HBV, HCV or any other different "species" of virus or maybe even a bacterium? Has a female reptile fossil ever been unearthed which had fertilized growing eggs in her which showed mammalian tendencies like hair or mammary glands? Those would be sufficient proof, if not manipulated, for all to see and agree that that type of evolution did occur. Until then, it is conjecture.

[Fishteacher73]

I guess you didn't read my post. Or are forams just not macro enough for you? There is a serial depiction of diversification, speciation, and even genification (sp?) (The development of new genera?).

 

WE do have a number of somewhat transitional species that show shift from reptilian to mamalian type species. Its called a theraspid, essentially a hairy lizard.

[MortenS]

Someone else has pointed to cichlids in African lakes and rivers to show proof of evolution. Another pointed to virus evolution. That is micro-evolution which is performed in barnyards routinely.

 

Wonderful, you have accepted evolution from few species into many different species in cichlids. So you agree that a specieis can turn into two or more species over time and that the species over time will develop isolation mechanisms that keep them apart. This is a good step forward in your evolutionary understanding, Skippy.

 

We can build on this.

[Skippy]

Forams are one of the pieces that is used to point to rth KT boundry indicating the shift from cretaceous to tertiary. There are undisturbed sediments that show a very clear picture of macroevolution (also some good examples of sudden extinction events). Pre KT boundry have at least 5 genera of Forams. Directly after only one exists. The diversity and complexity of forams increases continually in the fossil record followiing. This includes new genera.

An excellent picture of macroevolution.

Macro-evolution would have your forams becoming a sea cucumber or sea slug or some such animal. If I read you right, you are describing micro-evolution, "change within" not "change into."

[Fishteacher73]

Macro-evolution would have your forams becoming a sea cucumber or sea slug or some such animal. If I read you right, you are describing micro-evolution, "change within" not "change into."

I suppose some basic bio lessons would help. You are asking for a beetle to give birth to cow. This simply does not happen. You definition of macro-evolution does not happen. Macro-evolution is the culmitave effect of micro-evolution. These small steps may happen quickly (geologically speaking) to have macro-evolution apearances. Quite simply you are looking for proof of something that does not happen in the maner that you seem to believe it does.

 

I guess you want a complete lineage showing the first prokaryotic cell all the way up to modern man. This is the the fossil record. The over all picture shows this. Yes, there are some pieces missing, but if you are solving a jigsaw puzzle and a few pieces are missing, does that mean you cannot see the picture? My example shows clear speciation and diversification from one genus of foraminfera to many, more complex genera. This is one of the supports of meteor impact at the KT boundry that marks the end of the dinos and the rise of the mamals.

 

You have the fossil record as a whole (although not complete) that shows a very clear trend for evoltion, you have specific examples of specioation and diversification. IMO there really is no more need for evidence to back up the idea of evolution. The only thing that really needs to be examined now is the evolutionary mechanism, which is still in debate.

[goku]

i think adaptation is the better word for evolution. animals do change to better sute their enviroment, but it does not take millions of years. need proof? note the birds and rats in our cities? also note that man forced this adaptation. nature only weeds out the weak.

 

there is an energy that can be measured and recorded, but not ( by man ) started, slowed, stored, reversed, increased, curved or stopped.....time! where did this all powerful force come from?

[goku]

the evolutionary theory: matter, which can not be created nor distroied, gained the power to create it's self before it existed

[MortenS]

Well adaption is evolution, but not all evolution is adaption...

[Buffy]

I suppose some basic bio lessons would help. You are asking for a beetle to give birth to cow. This simply does not happen. You definition of macro-evolution does not happen. Macro-evolution is the culmitave effect of micro-evolution. These small steps may happen quickly (geologically speaking) to have macro-evolution apearances. Quite simply you are looking for proof of something that does not happen in the maner that you seem to believe it does.

Point of clarification for random observers: "Micro-evolution" and "Macro-evolution" are terms advocated by Creation Science/Intelligent Design proponents only, and based on the explanation Fishteacher gives here, really have no meaning at all within Evolution theory. Speciation is based on taxonomic classification of species into groups which have distinguishing features which develop over time through various mechanisms. As such this classification is somewhat subjective and has fostered two approaches (phylogenic and cladistic) to the overall classification of species. The distinction between macro and micro evolution is only useful if you are trying to explain obvious evidence of evolution that appear within short time periods--which *because* the time periods are short, produce minor changes between species--while denying that these small changes can combine to result in large changes over longer time periods. There is no scientific reason to hold such a position, but it is necessary to fit the evidence into religious teachings (most of which have no justifiable basis in the Bible or other religious works, according to many) on the subject.

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[emessay]

What a single word of evolution !!!

1. There is a certain/probablistic time required of 3.8 - 4.5 bya for 'Grand Design' of a life on Earth till we're here to measure it.

2. It's required a certain/probablistic time in scale of million years for 'Grand design' to create what we define as a species of life. Let's say an Amoeba Proteus, how long to create it, and our paradox question say that : "Can we create it initially from nothingness of carbonic molecules til we may quote as a life of Amoeba Proteus ??" At least we need scientific prediction not only speculative single word of evolution-mechanism to end of our un-answered questions.

3. We need other quote not only single word of evolution to explain or perhaps unexplainable till we meet ourselves in a single word of 'The End'.

[Skippy]

Well adaption is evolution, but not all evolution is adaption...

But, does all adaptation lead to genetic change?

[Southtown]

Point of clarification for random observers: "Micro-evolution" and "Macro-evolution" are terms advocated by Creation Science/Intelligent Design proponents only, and based on the explanation Fishteacher gives here, really have no meaning at all within Evolution theory...

So you're saying that respectible scientists aren't meticulous enough to carry the distinction? HAHA

[bumab]

But, does all adaptation lead to genetic change?

 

In terms of evolution, yes. Adaptation is a genetic change that allows the individual to more easily pass on their genetic information. If that info was not also changed, then the adaptation would stop there.

[MortenS]

Oh, evolutionary scientists use microevolution and macroevolution as terms too, but they mean different things than the definitions that creationists seem to use.

 

Microevolution is short term evolutionary change, as observed in historic time (within species, and speciation)

Macroevolution is long term evolutionary change, as observed in the fossil record

 

Creationists seem to think that microevolution and macroevolution are two different things, but evolutionary scientists hold that macroevolution is just microevolution over a long time.

 

Cumulative small changes over, long time intervals can lead to large differences between the starting point and the endpoint.

 

When looking at the big picture, we can identify events and processes that influence macroevolutionary patterns (plate tectonics, volcanoes, meteorites etc).

[Fishteacher73]

But, does all adaptation lead to genetic change?

In terms of evolution, yes. Adaptation is a genetic change that allows the individual to more easily pass on their genetic information. If that info was not also changed, then the adaptation would stop there.

 

In evolutionary terms, an individual CANNOT adapt. Only a species can. This means that only genes passed at conception are adaptations. Only mutations that affect the gametes can alter an individuals inhereted genetic make-up and can be passed to offspring (this also assumes that such mutations occur in viable individuals and produce viable offspring).

[Buffy]

Point of clarification for random observers: "Micro-evolution" and "Macro-evolution" are terms advocated by Creation Science/Intelligent Design proponents only, and based on the explanation Fishteacher gives here, really have no meaning at all within Evolution theory...

So you're saying that respectible scientists aren't meticulous enough to carry the distinction? HAHA

There's no need to make a distinction when there isn't one! "small morphological/phenotypic/cladistic" differences versus "large m/p/c" differences is called "speciation" meaning enough difference to be classified in a different branch, over time due to significant enough changes, but using *exactly the same mechanism*, so there's no difference in *process*, and thus no need for a distinct term. Like Fishteacher is saying: its not like a dinosaur "had a cow, man".

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Skippy]

There's no need to make a distinction when there isn't one! "small morphological/phenotypic/cladistic" differences versus "large m/p/c" differences is called "speciation" meaning enough difference to be classified in a different branch, over time due to significant enough changes, but using *exactly the same mechanism*, so there's no difference in *process*, and thus no need for a distinct term. Like Fishteacher is saying: its not like a dinosaur "had a cow, man".

Cheers,

Buffy

It never ceases to amaze me how evolutionists have evolved their religion over the years. I know, as you are unable to scientifically back up your hypothetical points, you have to change your terminology. So now, since abiogenesis cannot be supported, it is no longer considered by evolution's acolytes to be a part of evolution...the definition has "evolved," as it were. Also, since "macro" changes from say reptile to mammal cannot be substantiated, that too has been removed form the lexicon.

 

Here is one of the scientists who have converted after a sincere look at the evindence:

--"David Pilbeam, of the Boston Museum, was a lifetime expert in the field of paleoanthropology (the study of fossil man). In an article written for Human Nature magazine in June 1978, entitled, "Rearranging our Family Tree," he reported that discoveries since 1976 had changed his view of human origins and man's early ancestors. Pilbeam ranked so high in the field, that he was the advisor to the government of Kenya in regard to the establishment of an international institute of the study of human origins. It is Kenya that, for decades, has been the center of hominoid research, because of the efforts of Richard Leakey and his mother, Dr. Mary Leakey. They have tried to dig ancient half-man/half-ape bones out of the ground. The Leakeys have their headquarters in Nairobi.

 

In later articles, such as the one in Annual Reviews of Anthropology, Pilbeam has amplified on his changed position. In the 1970s, while working in Kenya and personally examining the skimpy bone fragments of "ancient man," he was forced to the conclusion there was no real evidence of any kind—anywhere—of man's supposed ape ancestors!"

 

--"For years, Richard Leakey has tried to prove that man's half-ape ancestors were the Australopithecines of East Africa. But of these bones, Pilbeam said, "There is no way of knowing whether they are the ancestors to anything or not."

Shortly afterward, Richard Leakey himself summed up the problem on a Walter Cronkite Universe program, when he said that if he were to draw a family tree for man, he would just draw a large question mark. And he added that, not only was the fossil evidence far too scanty for any real certainty about anything related to man's evolutionary origins, but there was little likelihood that we were ever going to know it."