If you accept microevolution

[jamesmorlock]

Simply because they are identical.

Consider an analogy:

Imagine that you can travel across the universe by walking. You have an infinite amount of time to do this, but you must make your journey by taking small steps. You have no destination, but you can go anywhere and you must never stop walking.

A thousand years pass. Where are you now? Further.
A million years pass. Where are you now? Even Further.
A billion years pass. Where are you now? Far, far away.

For every iteration of time, you will have traveled further and further. It is inevitable, for every small step takes you further. It is not possible to not travel far.

Microevolution is the small step. Macroevolution is the collective of small steps over a large period of time.

When walking for billions of years, how can you not be far away from your starting point?

[Tcg]

It seems to me we should see alive certain relatives that bear a
"half" or "three quarters" resemblance to them. I see nothing to fit the bill in my view.

Something like this?

I need something like you find in those old encyclopedias. In essence, I want to see a saber-tooth tiger.

But I doubt anyone can present such.

Here's one:




Tcg

[Dimmesdale]

It seems to me we should see alive certain relatives that bear a
"half" or "three quarters" resemblance to them. I see nothing to fit the bill in my view.

Something like this?

More like this:

https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/561401909790379300/

Here's one:




Tcg

Extant?

A better example: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Homo-habilis

[Clownboat]

This is just my overall sense:

When I look at an animal, like an elephant or a lion or a cheetah, I don't see a being in the midst of transitioning. I see a finished product. It doesn't help that I've never seen an animal midway between elephant and some other form either, "closely related to it" - and I mean morphologically. I look at horses, cows, dogs, and dolphins and so on. Such wonderful creatures. But I don't see forms antecedent to them. Perhaps I haven't been exposed to the right contenders. Perhaps evolution has progressed to the point where these other forms died out due to "obsolescence" but... no. I don't buy macroevolution because I don't see why the biggest, most prominent animals we have shouldn't be shown to be members in a series still extant. It seems to me we should see alive certain relatives that bear a
"half" or "three quarters" resemblance to them. I see nothing to fit the bill in my view.

Then again, I dismiss evolution from the outset, so maybe I am biased. Actually, I am.

But if anyone has any good contenders for transitional forms NOW relating to the animals we have NOW, I'd like to see them.

But don't tell me that a tapir is related to a horse or something and that that proves your point. It doesn't. I need something like you find in those old encyclopedias. In essence, I want to see a saber-tooth tiger.

But I doubt anyone can present such.

I'm curious as to what mechanism you would offer that better explains all the animals we see not only now, but also in the fossil record.
I would like to compare one mechanism with the other, but I must understand what you are suggesting.

Eohippus, (genus Hyracotherium), also called dawn horse, extinct group of mammals that were the first known horses. They flourished in North America and Europe during the early part of the Eocene Epoch (56 million to 33.9 million years ago). Even though these animals are more commonly known as Eohippus, a name given by the American paleontologist Othniel Charles Marsh, they are properly placed in the genus Hyracotherium, the name given earlier by British paleontologist Richard Owen.
https://www.britannica.com/animal/dawn-horse

It was not until paleontologists had unearthed fossils of later extinct horses that the link to Eohippus became clear.
https://www.britannica.com/animal/horse ... #ref239134

[benchwarmer]

This is just my overall sense:

When I look at an animal, like an elephant or a lion or a cheetah, I don't see a being in the midst of transitioning. I see a finished product.

I hope so, the animal in front of you is at the end of it's evolutionary line until it decides to reproduce. The animal is not going to morph in front of you and if it does, that's not evolution in action, but something else.

It doesn't help that I've never seen an animal midway between elephant and some other form either, "closely related to it" - and I mean morphologically. I look at horses, cows, dogs, and dolphins and so on. Such wonderful creatures. But I don't see forms antecedent to them. Perhaps I haven't been exposed to the right contenders. Perhaps evolution has progressed to the point where these other forms died out due to "obsolescence" but... no. I don't buy macroevolution because I don't see why the biggest, most prominent animals we have shouldn't be shown to be members in a series still extant. It seems to me we should see alive certain relatives that bear a
"half" or "three quarters" resemblance to them. I see nothing to fit the bill in my view.

What about these? Yes, they are dogs, but clearly they are from different evolutionary lines. I'm not sure exactly what you are expecting to see. What is alive today is what can currently survive.

Then again, I dismiss evolution from the outset, so maybe I am biased. Actually, I am.

Well, at least you are honest. I'm not sure WHY you are dismissing it. Would it destroy your faith if you accepted it? I'm not sure why. Evolution has nothing to do with how the first life form came to be. It only describes what happens to life forms as they reproduce in populations and how they can change due to various pressures.

But if anyone has any good contenders for transitional forms NOW relating to the animals we have NOW, I'd like to see them.

But don't tell me that a tapir is related to a horse or something and that that proves your point. It doesn't. I need something like you find in those old encyclopedias. In essence, I want to see a saber-tooth tiger.

But I doubt anyone can present such.

You want to see an animal that is not suited to survive in todays environment or has died out due to past events? You will never find that, you will only see what we have today. If you are willing to open your mind and learn more about what's in front of us, you may come to understand what the ToE is actually about and likewise what it's not about.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #279]

Science doesn't tell you that fish "transitioned to life outside of water". Science didn't tell you that, your religion (evolution) told you that...and you are trying to harmonize your religion (evolution) with science (testable, observable data)...and it aint happening.

Amphibians are evidence that fish transitioned to life outside of water, while still living near water and often in it as well. Reptiles are evidence that amphibians transitioned to a life completely outside of water. It doesn't take faith to observe that amphibians and reptiles exist now, and science (evolution) tells us how they got here via testable, observable (eg. fossils) data. It is so very simple, and no faith (belief without evidence) is needed.

And besides that, it is beneficial for rabbits and their continued existence to evolve wings to fly away from predators. Have you seen any feathered rabbits yet? No. But hey, who knows what will happen in a hundred million years.

Why would it be beneficial for rabbits to grow wings to escape predators? Why can't they hide, blend into the background, hop and zig-zag as they do now and continue to thrive and produce more rabbits (as rabbits are famous for)? What environmental change or other forcing function would drive them to grow wings? This would require all kinds of body changes like lighter bones, extension of the front limb bones to support wings, the muscle structure to operate the wings, and all the things that other flying animals like birds and flying insects have had to undergo to be able to fly. The "cost" for all that change is evidently not worth it from an evolutionary perspective compared to the methods rabbits use now to keep their populations alive and well, or else it likely would have happened (or the rabbit population would have died out for not being able to evolve wings fast enough if that was their only method of surviving).

The prototypes suddenly "appeared", not gradually..which actually fits the Genesis account which states that the animals suddenly "appeared" under the direction/command of God.

But they didn't. Fossils are rare in the first place ... especially very old ones ... and require some kind of hard structural elements in the body, an encasement in something that can leave an imprint, etc. Soft-bodied animals are less likely to leave fossil evidence), and before the Cambrian there were far fewer "fossilizable" animals than later on. The first multicellular animals were not bony fishes but simple sponges (Demosponges) around 630-640 million years ago. That was about 80-90 million years before the Cambrian Explosion. How many years did it take for the Genesis account to play out? Wasn't that just a matter of days (like 6), if the story is taken literally? If you believe that, then of course all the animals would have had to have been simply poofed into existence by a god. But there is far too much evidence available to confirm that it didn't happen that way.

[brunumb]

What environmental change or other forcing function would drive them to grow wings?

This highlights another misconception among those denying evolution. There is no specific direction in evolution, with no end goal and populations are not personally involved in directing what changes will occur. Rabbits don't simply choose to grow wings in order to escape predators. The notion is preposterous, but creationists seem to have no hesitation in making such statements when trying to ridicule evolution.

[We_Are_VENOM]

(To the bold) Once again, this is a mechanism of religions that cause humans to stop learning. Imagine being so close minded on a subject, not just evolution, that you wouldn't even consider explanations that don't stem from your preferred god concept.

Umm, sorry, but that isn't what is going on here. I am not being "closed minded" on the subject because of my preferred god concept.

I refuse to accept evolution because of, in my opinion, the plethora of evidence AGAINST the theory...along with the weak evidence FOR the theory.

And since I can safely negate the concept of naturalistic evolution, Creationism is the only game left in town at that point...and I just simply go where the evidence takes me.

Knowledge combats faith, which is why religions are waning in modern countries and growing in 3rd world countries.
Many religious people know this, thus why they attempt level the playing field by making empty 'faith' claims, or calling evolution a religion.

Well, I can't speak for other religions, but I disagree with the notion that Christianity makes empty faith claims....and yes, evolution is a religion. You people place your faith in the theory, you defend it vigorously, and some of you may be even willing to die for it.

Yup, sounds religious to me.

Imagine all the violence and hatred caused by religions vanishing from our planet!

How about all of the violence and hatred vanishing from our planet, PERIOD....instead of singling out religion?

Or imagine people being able to learn without being handicapped by being forced to insert god concept for which there is no evidence for nor are they falsifiable concepts to begin with.

I am not aware of anyone being "forced" to insert god concepts...but I am aware of children being fed the ToE in school, at tax payers expense...a theory of which there is no evidence whatsoever.

The worst part is, these types of religious people need to do no more than convince themselves that others are being led astray by a devil or demons. Fully justified in their heads once that is claimed.

Sure, local grocery stores are all out of Frosted Flakes; blame religion.

[benchwarmer]

I refuse to accept evolution because of, in my opinion, the plethora of evidence AGAINST the theory...along with the weak evidence FOR the theory.

If there is such a "plethora", the please write a paper, have it peer reviewed, and likely claim your Nobel prize in biology. Should be easy-peazy for you.

And since I can safely negate the concept of naturalistic evolution, Creationism is the only game left in town at that point...and I just simply go where the evidence takes me.

And clearly show you don't understand evolution.

Creation may indeed be true. GASP, did an atheist just say that?!!

The point is, the ORIGIN of life is still an open question. Some of us are unafraid to say "we don't know" until we observe evidence one way or the other.

However, evolution is observable in the lab. Just because straw man versions of the theory are not observable does not negate the actual theory.

If I jump up and down and scream that Jesus was a coal miner and thus completely disproving Christianity does that make me right? Or does it make me someone who hasn't bothered to read the Bible and at least understand the story?

[Dimmesdale]

I am not aware of anyone being "forced" to insert god concepts...but I am aware of children being fed the ToE in school, at tax payers expense...a theory of which there is no evidence whatsoever.

There is apparent evidence for evolution. Just as there is apparent evidence for the earth being flat, going by our sense of sight alone.

Most certainly evolution should not be taught as fact in public schools. As theory, OK, but not as fact. Anymore than any other far-ranging worldview ought to be taught as fact, whether that is Christianity or Mormonism, or whatever. You can say that evolution is a workable model based off of what our senses have extrapolated. No more. To go beyond that is to enter into the metaphysical, and hence, religious.

Neither creationism nor Darwinism should be enshrined as fact in public education. That is going too far and borders on indoctrination. Stick to biology. In other words, the pragmatic. What works practically. Once again, let people come to their own conclusions, not be force-fed so-called "proofs" (and at an early age!).

[We_Are_VENOM]

There is apparent evidence for evolution. Just as there is apparent evidence for the earth being flat, going by our sense of sight alone.

Most certainly evolution should not be taught as fact in public schools. As theory, OK, but not as fact. Anymore than any other far-ranging worldview ought to be taught as fact, whether that is Christianity or Mormonism, or whatever. You can say that evolution is a workable model based off of what our senses have extrapolated. No more. To go beyond that is to enter into the metaphysical, and hence, religious.

Neither creationism nor Darwinism should be enshrined as fact in public education. That is going too far and borders on indoctrination. Stick to biology. In other words, the pragmatic. What works practically. Once again, let people come to their own conclusions, not be force-fed so-called "proofs" (and at an early age!).

Bravo to you, good sir. While we will have to agree/disagree as to whether or not there is "apparent" evidence for evolution, I must applaud you for the admission that, "Most certainly evolution should not be taught as fact in public schools. As theory, OK, but not as fact."

Because the problem is, evolution IS being taught as an absolute brute fact...and I am glad that you recognize that it should not be this way...and you are the first person on here that I'm aware of who is willing to admit this.

You get mad respect from me, for that alone.