Given the nature of reproduction and of natural selection isn't evolution inescapable?
How can evolution not happen?
Evolution
Moderator: Moderators
Post #1301
Part reptile, part bird...
Behold, Archaeopteryx lithographica, displayed at the Museum für Naturkunde in Berlin.

Behold, Archaeopteryx lithographica, displayed at the Museum für Naturkunde in Berlin.

Post #1302
Here's two more transitional fossils between reptiles and birds. Despite the feathers, these are considered dinosaurs, not birds.
Aurornis xui from China lived 153 to 165 million years ago.
You can read more about this "transitional" species in the journal Nature here...
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 12168.html

And here's Sciurumimus albersdoerferi. Notice its wonderful bushy feathered tail and sharp teeth.

Aurornis xui from China lived 153 to 165 million years ago.
You can read more about this "transitional" species in the journal Nature here...
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 12168.html

And here's Sciurumimus albersdoerferi. Notice its wonderful bushy feathered tail and sharp teeth.

-
- Scholar
- Posts: 326
- Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2014 8:40 am
- Location: Canada
Re: Evolution
Post #1303Reply to 1. Abiogenesis is the attempt to create life from the elements under conditions which replicate early earth primordial soup oceans. It has never been done, so there is no solid evidence - only speculation - that life arose spontaneously. God is not a permitted factor in Science, so big bang is the best that can be said for life's origins on earth.Jashwell wrote: [Replying to post 1291 by kenblogton]
1. Abiogenesis is the study of how life arose naturally.
Saying "abiogenesis doesn't work" is saying "life arose supernaturally"
Please tell us how you've shown that life can't arise naturally?
Unless you're referring to a specific kind of abiogenesis, e.g. current abiogenesis hypotheses, in which case you still need to show this and if not it's still an argument from ignorance.
2. Evolution does not specifically refer to the clear separation of species - small differences across populations are also evolution.
3. "The so-called transitional species for humans are final, not intermediate species - species in their own right. "
I don't see how you could possibly demonstrate this. You're basically saying "these things couldn't evolve (presumably what is meant by final) therefore things don't evolve".
"Intermediate species are transitional, showing the gradual evolving from one specie to the next. There is no such solid data in the fossil record "
http://www.transitionalfossils.com/
4. "Are you aware of Mitochondrial Eve & Y-Chromosomal Adam, which suggest that all women and all men are descended from one ancestor. "
To avoid misconceptions that might give the impression that this is anything like the garden of eve story
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondr ... onceptions
"Not the only woman" - Studies have shown that the human population never dropped below 10000 or so. She would've been one of 10000.
"Not the most recent ancestor shared by all humans"
"Mitochondrial Eve is the most recent common matrilineal ancestor, not the most recent common ancestor."
Some studies of recent common ancestors suggest a RCA may have lived in even the past 5000 years.
More importantly;
"Not the biblical Eve"
"is not a fixed individual"
"had a mother"
"was not the only woman of her time"
"Y-chromosomal Adam is unlikely to have been her sexual partner, or indeed to have been contemporaneous (lived at the same at the time) to her."
Reply to 2. Within species evolution is not controversial or worthy of debate. The evolution from one specie to another different specie is, and the evidence trail - intermediate species - is absent for every supposed evolutionary step.
Reply to 3. The website you reference indicates only final species, not transitional species. Darwin believed there must be many intermediate species before a new specie would emerge. Johnson, P.E. 1991. Darwin on Trial. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity documents the failure to find intermediate species. "But what if the�links [necessary in the paleontological record for Darwin�s theory of evolution] are missing not only from the world of the present but of the past as well? �What geologists� [have discovered] was species, and groups of species, which appeared suddenly rather than at the end of a chain of evolutionary links. (46) Darwin was emphatic that the number of transitional intermediaries must have been immense (48).� According to Steven Stanley, the Bighorn Basin in Wyoming contains a continuous local record of fossil deposits for about five million years.� Because this record is so complete, palaeontologists assumed that certain populations of the basin could be linked to illustrate continuous evolution. On the contrary��the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to the next.� (51)"
Reply to 4. Read Cann, R.L., M. Stoneking, and A.C. Wilson. 1987. �Mitochondrial DNA and human evolution.� Nature, 31-36 to find out about Mitochondrial Eve, the unique ancestor of all human females and read Dorit, R.L., H. Akashi, and W. Gilbert. 1995. �Absence of polymorphism at the ZFY locus on the human Y chromosome.� Science 268: 1183-1185 to find out about Y-chromosomal Adam, the unique ancestor of all human males.
Obviously when the human species began, there would have been less than 1000 - like 2. You can speculate all you want, but that's not what the data reveals.
kenblogton
-
- Scholar
- Posts: 326
- Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2014 8:40 am
- Location: Canada
Post #1304
[Replying to post 1295 by Star]
Hi Star
Thanks for your reply. Here are my comments:
1. The Homo Erectus fossil is not an intermediate species.
2. The dinosaur/bird transitional species was debunked at a conference 5 years ago. See Kesterton, M. 2009. “Maybe Chicks Dug Wings?� Globe and Mail, April 7, L6, where he notes that even many evolutionary palaeontologists find no evidence supporting the supposed evolution of dinosaurs from birdlike ancestors.
kenblogton
Hi Star
Thanks for your reply. Here are my comments:
1. The Homo Erectus fossil is not an intermediate species.
2. The dinosaur/bird transitional species was debunked at a conference 5 years ago. See Kesterton, M. 2009. “Maybe Chicks Dug Wings?� Globe and Mail, April 7, L6, where he notes that even many evolutionary palaeontologists find no evidence supporting the supposed evolution of dinosaurs from birdlike ancestors.
kenblogton
Re: Evolution
Post #1305abiogenesiskenblogton wrote: Reply to 1. Abiogenesis is the attempt to create life from the elements under conditions which replicate early earth primordial soup oceans. It has never been done, so there is no solid evidence - only speculation - that life arose spontaneously. God is not a permitted factor in Science, so big bang is the best that can be said for life's origins on earth.
noun
the original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances.
I would emphasise that the use of the word evolution is not in the sense of evolutionary biology - it's merely referring to the change from one state to another.
(basically the original emergence of life from inorganic substances.)
Worthy of debate on a religious discussion forum.Reply to 2. Within species evolution is not controversial or worthy of debate. The evolution from one specie to another different specie is, and the evidence trail - intermediate species - is absent for every supposed evolutionary step.
Not considered worthy of debate in any serious biology or general scientific research.
Why do the overwhelming majority of scientists believe in evolution through natural selection, if it is so clearly false or unevidenced? (87% for natural selection specifically, 97% for evolution in this study)
(http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/ ... er-issues/)
Once again, you call them final species.Reply to 3. The website you reference indicates only final species, not transitional species. Darwin believed there must be many intermediate species before a new specie would emerge. Johnson, P.E. 1991. Darwin on Trial. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity documents the failure to find intermediate species. "But what if the�links [necessary in the paleontological record for Darwin�s theory of evolution] are missing not only from the world of the present but of the past as well? �What geologists� [have discovered] was species, and groups of species, which appeared suddenly rather than at the end of a chain of evolutionary links. (46) Darwin was emphatic that the number of transitional intermediaries must have been immense (48).� According to Steven Stanley, the Bighorn Basin in Wyoming contains a continuous local record of fossil deposits for about five million years.� Because this record is so complete, palaeontologists assumed that certain populations of the basin could be linked to illustrate continuous evolution. On the contrary��the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to the next.� (51)"
Calling them final species is already taking evolution as false.
There are no 'final species' in evolution, except the ones that die out without descendants.
It's analogous to looking at a family tree, saying that each family member is was created as a final person, and then saying that reproduction is a myth.
How do you know that they're final species?
Do you accept that they share similarities with other species?
Do you accept that some species appear transitional in both physiology, genetics and timing?
(Birds evolved from dinosaurs... not the other way around. That's probably why there's no evidence of birds to dinosaurs. @ your response to star, relevant to the example)
E.g. that the archeopteryx - which looks kinda like a dinosaur and kinda like a bird - lived in the time after dinosaurs had appeared and before birds had appeared.
No, there were not 2 humans at any time. This is a misunderstanding of evolution. If there were 2 humans, the human race would almost certainly have died out within a very short time. How could this possibly have worked? Would they have been babies without parents, surviving the plains of Africa against lions and other such carnivores?Reply to 4. Read Cann, R.L., M. Stoneking, and A.C. Wilson. 1987. �Mitochondrial DNA and human evolution.� Nature, 31-36 to find out about Mitochondrial Eve, the unique ancestor of all human females and read Dorit, R.L., H. Akashi, and W. Gilbert. 1995. �Absence of polymorphism at the ZFY locus on the human Y chromosome.� Science 268: 1183-1185 to find out about Y-chromosomal Adam, the unique ancestor of all human males.
Obviously when the human species began, there would have been less than 1000 - like 2. You can speculate all you want, but that's not what the data reveals.
kenblogton
When we talk of the recent common ancestor, this means that the other people living in their time either didn't have children, or their children died off, or their children's children, etc. Their descendants, at some point, stopped, while the RCA's descendants are still going.
First, what you appear to be thinking of is a the recent common ancestor.
Mitochondrial Eve and Y Chromosome Adam are the Matrilineal and Patrilineal recent common ancestors (respectively) - not the literal recent common ancestors.
Mitochondrial Eve, as wikipedia puts it "This is the most recent woman from whom all living humans today descend, on their mother’s side, and through the mothers of those mothers, and so on, back until all lines converge on one person. "
(She's called mitochondrial eve because mitochondrial DNA comes from the mother without mix with the father - it's similar for Y Chromosome Adam, as the y chromosome only comes from the father)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... lution.svg
They're believed to have lived anywhere from 100-200 (eve) and 100-600 (adam) thousand years ago.
The most recent common ancestor on the other hand could be as recent as 5 thousand years - because they don't need an unbroken line of mothers or fathers for this title. Not only this, but no kind of Recent Common Ancestor supports your ideas - the reason they're called recent common ancestors is because they had parents who had parents who had parents. If you're thinking of an oldest common ancestor from whom all humans ever descend then you're out of luck, unless you subscribe to evolutionary theory, in which case it wouldn't be a human (see last universal ancestor).
Post #1306
A newspaper editorial from five-years-ago is all you have? I can't even find it. I used to write for newspapers and I can tell you that while they're good sources of news, they're not good sources of peer-reviewed science.kenblogton wrote: [Replying to post 1295 by Star]
Hi Star
Thanks for your reply. Here are my comments:
1. The Homo Erectus fossil is not an intermediate species.
2. The dinosaur/bird transitional species was debunked at a conference 5 years ago. See Kesterton, M. 2009. “Maybe Chicks Dug Wings?� Globe and Mail, April 7, L6, where he notes that even many evolutionary palaeontologists find no evidence supporting the supposed evolution of dinosaurs from birdlike ancestors.
kenblogton
When faced with photos of undeniable fossil evidence, you shrug them off with reasons of incredulity? Correction: Homo erectus actually is an so-called "intermediate" species. It's our ancestor, which was still very much "ape-like", but with human attributes. I find that your argument is severely lacking in logic and knowledge, and your repeated baseless claims are essentially undebatable.
Unless you present evidence, I'm out.
-
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 25089
- Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
- Location: Bible Belt USA
- Has thanked: 40 times
- Been thanked: 73 times
Re: Evolution
Post #1307.
Many religionists who do NOT study such things have claimed KNOWLEDGE (based on reading an ancient text by unknown religion promoters expressing opinions and telling stories about supposed supernatural entities and events).
The only reason this topic comes up in debate outside advanced professional level, that I can see (correct me if I am wrong), is when Theists attempt to claim to know that their favorite god originated life – and follow that with "since you can't show how life began its origin MUST be my favorite god."
Many do much the same regarding origin of the universe – "If you can't prove how the universe formed it must have been that God did it, just as my ancient text says."
Could religion promoters be right? Of course that is possible – and it is also possible that someone who has never played golf could win the Master's.
Sure enough, we don't know how life originated. Some biologists and physicists who actually study such things have offered several hypotheses – none of which have been verified.kenblogton wrote: Reply to 1. Abiogenesis is the attempt to create life from the elements under conditions which replicate early earth primordial soup oceans. It has never been done, so there is no solid evidence - only speculation - that life arose spontaneously.
Many religionists who do NOT study such things have claimed KNOWLEDGE (based on reading an ancient text by unknown religion promoters expressing opinions and telling stories about supposed supernatural entities and events).
The only reason this topic comes up in debate outside advanced professional level, that I can see (correct me if I am wrong), is when Theists attempt to claim to know that their favorite god originated life – and follow that with "since you can't show how life began its origin MUST be my favorite god."
Many do much the same regarding origin of the universe – "If you can't prove how the universe formed it must have been that God did it, just as my ancient text says."
Could religion promoters be right? Of course that is possible – and it is also possible that someone who has never played golf could win the Master's.
Correction: God WOULD be a "permitted factor in science" IF any of the proposed "gods" could be shown to be involved. Speculation, opinion, and unverified ancient stories are not accepted in science or reasoned debate.kenblogton wrote: God is not a permitted factor in Science,
Correction: "Big Bang" is an hypothesis about the origin of the universe – NOT the origin of life on Earth.kenblogton wrote: so big bang is the best that can be said for life's origins on earth.
Correction: EVERY species is an "intermediate species" because life forms change through the process known as evolution (genetic change through generations).kenblogton wrote: Reply to 2. Within species evolution is not controversial or worthy of debate. The evolution from one specie to another different specie is, and the evidence trail - intermediate species - is absent for every supposed evolutionary step.
Many Theists are STILL attempting to debate Darwin – who died 150 years ago. Perhaps they do not realize that during the century and a half a great deal of research has been conducted by thousands of scientists and that many advances in knowledge have developed without most Theists participating or even being aware.kenblogton wrote: Darwin was emphatic that the number of transitional intermediaries must have been immense
HOW, exactly, did the human species begin? Based on what evidence? Are you (generic term) jumping back and forth between Theology and Science looking for any possible support for preconceived notions?kenblogton wrote: Obviously when the human species began,
.
Non-Theist
ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence
Non-Theist
ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence
- Danmark
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 12697
- Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 am
- Location: Seattle
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: Evolution
Post #1308The continued denial of transitional species is absurd. It has been rebutted many times.kenblogton wrote: Reply to 2. Within species evolution is not controversial or worthy of debate. The evolution from one specie to another different specie is, and the evidence trail - intermediate species - is absent for every supposed evolutionary step.
Reply to 3. The website you reference indicates only final species, not transitional species. Darwin believed there must be many intermediate species before a new specie would emerge. Johnson, P.E. 1991. Darwin on Trial.
These claims are simply not supported, tho' they continue to be repeated. To substantiate a claim, it takes more than a reference to an out of date, 23 year old source, that was discredited years ago. Darwin on Trial, is a perfect example of a citation to an improper source that does not substantiate this ridiculous claim. For an excellent critique and explanation for why this book does not substantiate your claim:
'Darwin on Trial became a central text of the intelligent design movement principally fathered by Johnson.[1]
Eugenie Scott wrote that the book "teaches little that is accurate about either the nature of science, or the topic of evolution. It is recommended neither by scientists nor educators."[2] Scott pointed out in a second review that "the criticisms of evolution [Johnson] offers are immediately recognizable as originating with the "scientific" creationists".[3] Evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould's review of the book stated that it contained "no weighing of evidence, no careful reading of literature on all sides, no full citation of sources (the book does not even contain a bibliography) and occasional use of scientific literature only to score rhetorical points". Gould also pointed out that the use of legal criteria, in which a "shadow of a doubt" can suffice to destroy a theory, was inappropriate in science, since "science is not a discipline that claims to establish certainty".[4]'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_on_Trial
Do you have any contemporary sources, peer reviewed, that would be accepted in an academic paper presented at a University?
You have yet to demonstrate any such substantiation for your continued claim; whereas Star and others have amply substantiated the claim there are transitional species documented not only in the fossil record, but living today.
Re: Evolution
Post #1309Thanks Danmark. My favorite examples of living "transitions" are vestigial structures, such as the pelvic bones in baleen whales.


- Wootah
- Savant
- Posts: 9487
- Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:16 am
- Has thanked: 228 times
- Been thanked: 118 times
Re: Evolution
Post #1310[Replying to post 1300 by Zzyzx]
I don't think I ever try to argue that if X is false then Y is true. If an individual is then we should point it out to them, religionist or not. However I think it benefits you to conflate the issue. Whether the person you are talking to is a religionist or not is irrelevant to science. So why make a habit of calling your opponents religionists.
- evolution is irrelevant to scientific conduct
and
- expressing doubts against evolution is not good for your career in science
Since a can of sardines has actually more material conducive to life in a tiny space than ever likely existed when life began, why doesn't life begin again in a can of sardines? (Maybe it is and we never know.)
This is why it is incorrect, and simply false, to claim science and evolution are related. Science requires verifiable repeatability. Evolution is an ancient and unverifiable story that some religionists believe in. It's the 'not god' creation story.
I think your last sentence applies to everyone. Most people are not privileged to the world of science. What I have however discovered, as I have tried to listen to both sides of the religion/evolution debate, is that the evolution story is simply not as rock solid as it has been made to appear and the Christian side of the story is simply not as shaky as people pretend it is.
It's a philosophical debate and not a scientific one.
I don't think any religionist should argue against evolution based upon ancient texts. There are plenty of issues with evolution without needing to resort to ancient texts. Ancient texts, such as the bible, are however used as historical evidence of a different origin story to the story developed by evolutionists and should be tested separately.Many religionists who do NOT study such things have claimed KNOWLEDGE (based on reading an ancient text by unknown religion promoters expressing opinions and telling stories about supposed supernatural entities and events).
I don't think I ever try to argue that if X is false then Y is true. If an individual is then we should point it out to them, religionist or not. However I think it benefits you to conflate the issue. Whether the person you are talking to is a religionist or not is irrelevant to science. So why make a habit of calling your opponents religionists.
If it has not occurred to you yet, then two other reasons might be:The only reason this topic comes up in debate outside advanced professional level, that I can see (correct me if I am wrong), is when Theists attempt to claim to know that their favorite god originated life – and follow that with "since you can't show how life began its origin MUST be my favorite god."
- evolution is irrelevant to scientific conduct
and
- expressing doubts against evolution is not good for your career in science
Since a can of sardines has actually more material conducive to life in a tiny space than ever likely existed when life began, why doesn't life begin again in a can of sardines? (Maybe it is and we never know.)
This is why it is incorrect, and simply false, to claim science and evolution are related. Science requires verifiable repeatability. Evolution is an ancient and unverifiable story that some religionists believe in. It's the 'not god' creation story.
Many evolutionists are not aware of what Darwin argued and are often surprised to hear it.Many Theists are STILL attempting to debate Darwin – who died 150 years ago. Perhaps they do not realize that during the century and a half a great deal of research has been conducted by thousands of scientists and that many advances in knowledge have developed without most Theists participating or even being aware.
I think your last sentence applies to everyone. Most people are not privileged to the world of science. What I have however discovered, as I have tried to listen to both sides of the religion/evolution debate, is that the evolution story is simply not as rock solid as it has been made to appear and the Christian side of the story is simply not as shaky as people pretend it is.
It's a philosophical debate and not a scientific one.
Proverbs 18:17 The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.
Member Notes: viewtopic.php?t=33826
"Why is everyone so quick to reason God might be petty. Now that is creating God in our own image
."
Member Notes: viewtopic.php?t=33826
"Why is everyone so quick to reason God might be petty. Now that is creating God in our own image
