Any religious people watch the Wonders of Life last night?

Do you even understand what evolution is? Evolution is the change of DNA over time. This can be caused by numerous factors including interaction with food sources, access to sunlight and viruses.

I don't know much about it which is why I'm trying to find out more. Cambrian explosion fossils show the SUDDEN appearance of vastly differently animal types.

The time this process supposedly takes isn't compatible with cambrian discoveries.

Your posts show that you don't even understand what evolution means or you don't know that humans are genetically different now than 10,000 years ago. It is ignorance to post in the way you continue to having made no attempt to understand the theory that you are trying to decry.

I haven't claimed to understand it. I'm trying to work out how it is relevant to the main fossil evidence there is.

Everything is in a transitory state. Some things change faster than others and outside events like climate change can act as a catalyst to this process.

Is this confirmed fact? How would you respond to the statement by Stephen Gould that "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils."

This statement suggests that transitional forms are actually very rare in the fossil record. So which way is it?
 
I don't know much about it which is why I'm trying to find out more. Cambrian explosion fossils show the SUDDEN appearance of vastly differently animal types.

The time this process supposedly takes isn't compatible with cambrian discoveries.



I haven't claimed to understand it. I'm trying to work out how it is relevant to the main fossil evidence there is.



Is this confirmed fact? How would you respond to the statement by Stephen Gould that "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils."

This statement suggests that transitional forms are actually very rare in the fossil record. So which way is it?

A transitionary state between what and what exactly?

With regards to human DNA, it is different now than it was 10,000 years ago. We have changed physically as a result of this. Every person, every generation is a mutation, an adaptation in some way because DNA never gets passed on 100% exactly. If DNA did not change, or mutate or adapt then it stands to reason that every person in the world would same the exact same DNA. and would have shared the same DNA for all of time. We know that they do not. This in itself should be a clue to you that mutations, adaptations are happening all around us.

These slow, small changes to the sequence and its progression through the genetic pool is evolution happening.

Ultimately, sustained changes to DNA through hereditary process prove that evolution is happening.
 
150 years evolutionists have had to find these transitional fossils and still not a single one in sight. Considering even Darwin said the number must be "inconceivably great" seems a little strange not a single one has been found. Oh well...
 
150 years evolutionists have had to find these transitional fossils and still not a single one in sight. Considering even Darwin said the number must be "inconceivably great" seems a little strange not a single one has been found. Oh well...

Dude, do you not get it? Transitionary between what? We are in a constant state of change. Every species is.

But it is such a slow process that you might not see it happen in front of your nose.

Our DNA is constantly mutating, changing, we are evoliving as a species, as a race, as people.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090827123210.htm
 
I just can't give the same kind of value you seem too, to ancient writings which in themselves are translations of translations of translations.

That would depend on what you mean by 'value'....I put no more value on the 'meaning' of ancient writings as you do I suspect, probably less as I don't infer things whether positive or negative from them unless supported by evidence.

And I mean this with no disrespect whatsoever, but the point that you think the study is based on translations of translations shows that you know very little about how interpretation of scripture and the evolution and application of Linguistics, Archaeology, History and so on has increasingly made modern interpretations more rather than less accurate. We are always increasing both our understanding and discovering more examples of extant texts and evidence that inform us. There is a reason most Creationists rely on older Bible interpretations such as the KJV and some go so far to write their own such as the New World Translation (which is about as flawed as a translation can get without being totally rewritten)

It's simply a difference of opinion, you seem to spend lot's of time explaining how writings can be interpreted in all sorts of ways, however to an atheist none of the interpretations hold any weight or value at all, other then in a historical sense.

They should hold weight in regards to the proper methodology and inference of such interpretations, whether you agree with the content or whether it means anything to you on a personal level or not is immaterial. If you hold evidence and science in such esteem, why would you ignore science and the evidence infered from the application of its methodology when it applied to Biblical Criticism?

While I will give unqualified opinion on a range of things, I also strive to demonstrate wherever possible why I hold those opinions or why they hold a greater value that those to which I am responding when I can qualify those opinions with demonstable evidence and supporting opinion I do.

I can see your point that some seem to incorrectly use quotes from the bible as evidence in favour of an atheistic point of view, which is just as wrong as using the bible in order give weight to the theistic view.

The Bible is inherent to several forms of Theism and as such is a valid tool to use to demonstrate that theism, the issue is when either uses quotes in isolation or without proper consideration of their intent, context, syntax and overall message inherent in the passage or authorship. This is apparent in both sides of the argument in this thread.

In fairness it's often after Jason2 tries to quote the bible as some kind of evidence. :

This is where I stated that the two are framed differently and therefore are not really going to be constructively useful in such arguments. That the literal interpretation of the Bible in such a context is flawed in the first place (as is the inference that evolution impacts on the existence or non-existence of God) simply means it is all the more daft to use Scripture to explain Science or Science to explain Scripture. I find the idea that the Bible disproves something as patently true as Evolution is as ridiculous as you do, but the difference is that I can (and have done with Kedge) elucidate that using the same frame of reference as the creationist, which is why Jason2 and Kedge largely ignore me.

Either way I personally find your arguments fairly interesting even if I don't always agree with what you have to say, all your points are usually worthy of discussion which most definitely isn't the case for some others in this and other similar threads.

Interesting is all I aim for, it would be very boring if everyone agreed with me, and rather silly as I am just a liable to error as anyone. :)
 
Is this confirmed fact? How would you respond to the statement by Stephen Gould that "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils."

This statement suggests that transitional forms are actually very rare in the fossil record. So which way is it?

I would probably answer that quote from Gould using a quote from Gould;

Stephen J Gould said:
Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know -- as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.
 
150 years evolutionists have had to find these transitional fossils and still not a single one in sight. Considering even Darwin said the number must be "inconceivably great" seems a little strange not a single one has been found. Oh well...

is google against your religion - use it, there are loads of transitional fossils.
 
A transitionary state between what and what exactly?

With regards to human DNA, it is different now than it was 10,000 years ago. We have changed physically as a result of this. Every person, every generation is a mutation, an adaptation in some way because DNA never gets passed on 100% exactly. If DNA did not change, or mutate or adapt then it stands to reason that every person in the world would same the exact same DNA. and would have shared the same DNA for all of time. We know that they do not. This in itself should be a clue to you that mutations, adaptations are happening all around us.

These slow, small changes to the sequence and its progression through the genetic pool is evolution happening.

Ultimately, sustained changes to DNA through hereditary process prove that evolution is happening.

Do we know exactly what human DNA was like 10,000 years ago or is this guess work? Is there evidence that suggests that mutations can increase new information as opposed to just modifying pre-existing information?

Is there any evidence at all of these transitional forms? For example, has there been any evidence of creatures with 1/4 of a wing? The Cambrian explosion fossils suggest FULLY formed creatures.

Have any new body plans developed since the cambrian explosion?
 
Are not all successful species 'transitional' to some degree, if we make the anaology between Evolution of the life cycle of a Human Being, with each stage being compete within itself, such as a Baby, a Child, an Adolescent, an Adult, each is also a transition to another evolution of the individual, can Evolution not simply follow that same premise.
 
Is there any evidence at all of these transitional forms? For example, has there been any evidence of creatures with 1/4 of a wing?

Evolution myths: Half a wing is no use

18:00 16 April 2008 by Michael Le Page
For similar stories, visit the Evolution Topic Guide
Just as objects designed for one purpose can be used for another, so genes, structures and behaviours that evolve for one purpose become adapted to do another

Ever used a newspaper to light fires or mop up spills? Stood on a chair to reach something? Or swatted flies with a rolled-up copy of New Scientist? Just as objects designed for a specific purpose can be co-opted for something quite different, so features that evolved to do one task can be used for another - and often are.

But what use is half a wing? It's a question that those who doubt evolution first asked more than a century ago. When it comes to insects, rowing and skimming could be the answer. Stonefly nymphs have flapping gills for extracting oxygen from water. When standing on the water's surface, early insects could have used these gills for getting oxygen and propulsion rowing simultaneously. Some stoneflies still stand on the surface and "row" across water using their wings.

Over time, flapping could have replaced rowing as the main means of propulsion, allowing insects to skim across the water's surface: low levels of friction on this scale mean proto-wings would not have had to generate much air flow to be useful for skimming.

As these proto-wings became more efficient and specialised, early insects may have taken further steps towards flying. While some skimming insects keep all six legs on the water's surface, faster skimmers keep just four legs or two legs on the water. This surface-skimming hypothesis concerning the evolution of insect flight shows how flapping gills could gradually have turned into wings while remained useful at every stage.

From T-rex to sparrow

What about the wings of birds? In some dinosaurs, the scales covering their bodies evolved into hair-like feathers, most likely to insulate warm-blooded bodies or help keep eggs warm.

Those dinosaurs with feathers on their limbs might then have started to exploit the aerodynamic properties offered by feathers, perhaps gliding between trees or running faster along the ground. Fossils show a gradual transition from downy, hair-like feathers into the rigid flight feathers that form the key part of birds' wings.

Another idea that is gaining favour is that flapping forelimbs helped the ancestors of birds to run up steep slopes or climb trees - a technique many birds still employ today.

Without a time machine it is difficult to prove exactly what early birds or insects used "half a wing" for. But it is now clear that half a wing can have all sorts of uses. Indeed, there are numerous examples of physical structures and behaviours that evolved for one purpose acquiring another one, a process called exaptation.

Reuse recycle

Evo-devo - evolutionary developmental biology - is even starting to identify the precise mutations that underlie such changes. For instance, the forelimbs of the ancestor of bats turned into wings partly thanks to a change in a gene called BMP2 that made its "fingers" far longer than normal.

The webbing between the extra long digits that makes up the bat wing is a reappearance of a long-lost feature: as embryos, all tetrapods initially develop webbed digits, a hangover from our fish ancestors. Normally, this webbing kills itself off at an early stage, but in bats this cell suicide is blocked.

Repurposing a structure does not have to involve the loss of the original structure. Reptilian jaw bones turned into mammalian ear bones, without the loss of the jaw. The neural circuitry that allows us to make fine limb movements may have been adapted to produce speech as well.

In fact, almost every feature of complex organisms can be seen as a variation on a theme. Switching off one gene in fruit flies, for instance, can turn their antennae into legs.

On the shoulders of fish

Sometimes just one aspect of a feature can be co-opted for another use. The first hard mineralised structures to evolve in our ancestors were the teeth of early fishes known as conodonts. Once the ability to form hard hydroxyapatite had evolved, it could be exploited elsewhere in the body and may have been the basis of the bony skeletons of all vertebrates.

As these examples show, there are all kinds of routes by which structures and behaviours that evolved for one purpose can contribute to new structures and abilities. Just because it is not immediately obvious how something as complex as a bacterial flagellum evolved (see The bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex) does not prove it did not evolve.

An even more interesting question than what half a wing is good for is whether some features cannot evolve because half of them really would be useless. Such thought experiments might not prove anything but they can be fun (see Evolution is limitlessly creative).
 
Do we know exactly what human DNA was like 10,000 years ago or is this guess work? Is there evidence that suggests that mutations can increase new information as opposed to just modifying pre-existing information?

Is there any evidence at all of these transitional forms? For example, has there been any evidence of creatures with 1/4 of a wing? The Cambrian explosion fossils suggest FULLY formed creatures.

Have any new body plans developed since the cambrian explosion?

They analyse the mitochondria from fossils they find and map the DNA. so no, it isn't guesswork.

You could have found that for yourself, had you bothered to research the point. Mutations occur, they alter sequences some are not major, some are major.

Think about smoking for a second, this can lead directly to the mutation of cells in the body. It changes the dna within then and then the way they work changes, called cancer in this instance.

Other factors can cause DNA to change and some of the changes can be hereditary, leading to mutations occurring and being passed down from one generation to the next.

Do you understand the scientific experiments of cloning, or of artificial selection. I,e altering DNA in a laboratory to change the genetic make up off a new child, to select say, blond hair or blue eyes? This is artificial adaptation and mutation and in one way could be evolutionary.

I have already indicated other changes such as the lactose tolerance gene. There are numerous others, for instance if you wanted to educate yourself on sickle cell anemia, it would help your understanding

Sickle-cell disease occurs more commonly in people (or their descendants) from parts of tropical and sub-tropical sub-saharan regions where malaria is or was common. In areas where malaria is common, there is a fitness benefit in carrying only a single sickle-cell gene (sickle cell trait). Those with only one of the two alleles of the sickle-cell disease, while not totally resistant, are more tolerant to the infection and thus show less severe symptoms when infected.

Due to the adaptive advantage of the heterozygote, the disease is still prevalent, especially among people with recent ancestry in malaria-stricken areas, such as Africa, the Mediterranean, India and the Middle East.[34] Malaria was historically endemic to southern Europe, but it was declared eradicated in the mid-20th century, with the exception of rare sporadic cases.[35]

If you really want the answers to the questions you ask, why don't you look for them and study them until you can understand them enough to contribute, without rebasing to the same question each time you post?

Due to the adaptive advantage of the heterozygote, the disease is still prevalent, especially among people with recent ancestry in malaria-stricken areas, such as Africa, the Mediterranean, India and the Middle East.[34] Malaria was historically endemic to southern Europe, but it was declared eradicated in the mid-20th century, with the exception of rare sporadic cases.[35]
 
Why is the genetic information between man and apes so great?

Jerry Coyne says in his book:

That oft-quoted 1.5 percent difference between ourselves and chimps, then is really larger than it looks … More than 6 percent of genes found in humans simply aren’t found in any form in chimpanzees. There are over fourteen hundred novel genes expressed in humans but not in chimps. … Despite our general resemblance to our primate cousins, then, evolving a human from an apelike ancestor probably required substantial genetic change.

Evolutionists only claim there is small difference because they need to show we are biologically related. If the genetic difference is small, why are there such major differences between us and apes? How do you explain that?
 
They analyse the mitochondria from fossils they find and map the DNA. so no, it isn't guesswork.

You could have found that for yourself, had you bothered to research the point. Mutations occur, they alter sequences some are not major, some are major.

Think about smoking for a second, this can lead directly to the mutation of cells in the body. It changes the dna within then and then the way they work changes, called cancer in this instance.

Other factors can cause DNA to change and some of the changes can be hereditary, leading to mutations occurring and being passed down from one generation to the next.

Do you understand the scientific experiments of cloning, or of artificial selection. I,e altering DNA in a laboratory to change the genetic make up off a new child, to select say, blond hair or blue eyes? This is artificial adaptation and mutation and in one way could be evolutionary.

I have already indicated other changes such as the lactose tolerance gene. There are numerous others, for instance if you wanted to educate yourself on sickle cell anemia, it would help your understanding

If you really want the answers to the questions you ask, why don't you look for them and study them until you can understand them enough to contribute, without rebasing to the same question each time you post?

It's fine posting all these fluffy scientific explanations as a disguise for ignoring my simple point. The cambrian explosion fossils show that all this development didn't happen over millions of years. Do you not agree that the Darwinian tree has been reversed on its head?
 
What I really think that Ringo believes is that because we don't have any Fish dog half breeds fossils that therefore evolutionary theory is wrong.

It is demonstratable that human DNA has changes, mutated over time. This IS evolution, i.e the change in characteristics across a population over time.


he just wants to see a frankenfish or something incredulous, again showing that he has no clue about the topic or what he is even asking for,
 
That doesn't answer my question. Is there any evidence of these half developed features such as half a wing?

That article is full of examples of animals and insects that fulfil the criteria if your question.

The problem is your misunderstanding of evolution. You are expecting to see something like a lizard with a quarter of a bird wing hanging off the side. It's no different to the croco-duck argument.

Gills are an example of a 'quarter of a wing' for example.
 
It's fine posting all these fluffy scientific explanations as a disguise for ignoring my simple point. The cambrian explosion fossils show that all this development didn't happen over millions of years. Do you not agree that the Darwinian tree has been reversed on its head?

This isn't scientific fluff I was answering your questions directly.

You asked, "Do we know exactly what human DNA was like 10,000 years ago or is this guess work? Is there evidence that suggests that mutations can increase new information as opposed to just modifying pre-existing information?"

I told you.

As I said, you can educate yourself. Cambrian is an interesting event but it neither proves or disproves that mutation is happening around us. Once you accept the premise that DNA is changing andf that humans are different now than they were 200 years ago, or 400 or 10,00 you will only be able to conclude that evolution does happen.

I am not an expert on Cambrian events, how can I answer that when I am merely providing evidence to you from other sources. How about you read what the experts say, and not what I say, as I don't claim to know the entire detail.
 
What I really think that Ringo believes is that because we don't have any Fish dog half breeds fossils that therefore evolutionary theory is wrong.

It is demonstratable that human DNA has changes, mutated over time. This IS evolution, i.e the change in characteristics across a population over time.

he just wants to see a frankenfish or something incredulous, again showing that he has no clue about the topic or what he is even asking for,

If a fish were to become a dog what are the transitional states that go between? At which point does it stop becoming a fish, what point does it become a dog?

I'm just saying that it seems evident from the cambrian explosion that the sudden appearance of fully formed animal types, many of which still exist today, appears totally in contradition to the darwinian tree.
 
Back
Top Bottom