• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Evolution answers

That's one creationist theory. Adam and Eve were perfect humans and we have degenerated since.

It's called genetic entropy.

There's also a concept calld front-loading, which argues that all the genes ever needed by any organism were present in the first one, and that all of evolution merely consists of removal of those genes.

The only advocate of this nonsense I ever met (who was on this forum) also argued that whales evolved from mososaurs, because they were both large, aquatic, and had fins. Not exactly someone with a firm grasp of biology.
 
No, I just couldn't remember the proper spelling (and IE doesn't yell at me the way Firefox does when I screw it up).

I suspected as much, with the note that you might have made the disclaimer specifically because you were unsure of the spelling, but felt like being a bit more sure, if only to satisfy a little bit of curiousity.

To be clear, the doc processing my reports go through isn't specifically due to my spelling. It's company SOP--ALL documents leaving the company go through it, as part of our quality control process.

Honestly, I'd quite hope and expect that that's fairly standard policy for most major establishments, for multiple reasons, not least being company image.
 
Honestly, I'd quite hope and expect that that's fairly standard policy for most major establishments, for multiple reasons, not least being company image.

Well, it'd help if they stopped changing the freaking protocols and standard formats every six months..... :D
 
Peer review is a flawed process full of bias, inconsistencies, abuse, blindly trusted thus making it an ideal candidate for fraud. We have seen a 10 fold increase in science fraud and every survey/study indicates the trend will continue. Why the best scientific minds created such a flawed mediocre system with all its shortcomings suggests scientists are overrated and science is drowning in mediocrity because it is practiced by mediocre people requiring a mediocre process that allows them to function without undue attention.

Scientists are flawed human beings. Science is a self-correcting process.

You may as well say Christianity is fatally flawed because Jimmy Swaggart.
 
Justintime's fishman and Bananman's crocoduck are both chimeras and both things, as pointed out above, are exactly the kinds of things evolution does not predict. Neither fall within observed nested hierarchies that inform taxonomy. To say such a thing demonstrates deep misunderstandings about evolution.

I never debated modern evolution theory with a creationist who understood what evolution actually says.
 
I want to point out a bias in this discussion, particularly on the part of justintime: this entire discussion has focused on terrestrial vertebrates. Don't get me wrong, it's trivial to point to transitional forms among terrestrial vertebrates, as has been demonstrated; however, the fossil record for terrestrial and vertebrate animals isn't the best we have. Taphonomic biases favor shallow marine benthic detritus feeders, such as brachiopods, trilobites, decaopds, and corals. You'll note that no Creationist says there's no transitional forms in bivalve mollusks. The reason is simple: the fossil record for those is so good that Creationists know they can't win such an argument, and that to try risks too obvious exposure of the fundamental falsehood of their dogma. There's simply too much evidence for evolution in these. Among organisms such as foraminifera and diatoms the record is even more clear (for some groups, anyway; these cover a lot of critters).

As I've said in the past, the fossil record is far more rich and complete than anyone outside of paleontology realizes. I'll add to that, Creationism's intellectual vacuity is manifest in its focus on the showy and popular taxa. Real science is systematic; Creationism is tabloid journalism.
 
Because of the variations within species evolutionists have speculated species changing from one species to another and tried to provide evidence using fossil remains. But the world as it exist and the evidence we see do not support such changes from species to species. Dogs are still dogs and so on and so on. We don't see a half fish half man even though somewhere it is believed by evolutionist a common ancestor existed.

Huh?

But--what---why....

Never mind.

We don't see a common ancestor for birds and man even though that is also a possibility.

No, it's actually a fact.

And we don't see a common ancestor for apes and man even though many fossils of apes have been mistaken for a common ancestor.

The mapping of human and ape genomes pretty much drove a stake through the heart of this myth. It's possible by comparing the two to estimate when the common ancestor lived, using the same process they use on the show "Who Do You Think You Are?" where they find out what percentage of Vanessa Williams' ancestry is from Italy.

They even compared the genomes of head lice and public lice to determine when the two species split, thus nailing down the point where humans lost most of their body hair.

Pretty fascinating stuff, if you're not afraid to learn.
 
aggle-rithm said:
No, it's actually a fact.
The common ancestory looked more like the dog-demons from Ghostbusters than birds or humans. Also, I've been spelling the name wrong--it's Archosaur, not Archaeosaur.
 
aggle-rithm, that's interesting. Can you provide references for these two time frames? (Pan/Homo split and the loss of body hair)

Dinwar, I suspect that a contributing factor is a disdain for anything that doesn't feature in a pet shop or on their dining plate.
 
We don't see a half fish half man

Yes we do. Mermaids are well documented sea creatures that often tricked sailors and led them to wrecking their ships. Not only are their such historic tales passed down through oral history, but some travelling fairs would even exhibit live mermaids in the 17thC or so.
 
Dinwar, I suspect that a contributing factor is a disdain for anything that doesn't feature in a pet shop or on their dining plate.

I asked a professor once what I should specialize in. I was told "Study something you can eat." Spent two years studying decapods, and now I study mammalian herbivores as much as anything else--bison, cows, horses, all those tasty critters! :D

More seriously, I think a lot of it is human-centrism. Creationism isn't about God at all; in fact, it cheapens God. The God of the Creationists is a petulant grade-school bully constantly throwing his weight around and dolling out insane punishments for even the slightest perception of offense. Creationism is all about making the Creationists feel superior. They start with the premise that humans are supreme, and that they are better than everyone else (look at how justintime treats scientists for examples of that). The more like a human something is, the more important and special it is. Obviously clams aren't important; they're nothing like a human! The constant refrain of Creationism is "Me, me, me, me, me!" The constant refrain of science, in contrast, is "Wait, that's odd....how does that happen?"
 
Because of the variations within species evolutionists have speculated species changing from one species to another and tried to provide evidence using fossil remains.

Fossil remains are one tiny part of the evidence which supports evolution.

But the world as it exist and the evidence we see do not support such changes from species to species.

Yes it does, there's no way anyone can cover the huge amount of evidence in a message board post. Talk Origins has a good summary of the evidence.



Dogs are still dogs and so on and so on.

As we would predict based on evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory never predicted that dogs should change into a entirely different species in the time frame of a thousand years. It generally takes 100 000 s to millions of years for full speciation to occur. We do however see rapid change in the genetics and physical traits of dogs over the period of hundreds of years. Multiple that change by thousands and you can see speciation.

We don't see a half fish half man even though somewhere it is believed by evolutionist a common ancestor existed.
This isn't a prediction of evolution. Evolution indeed predicts that humans and fish had a common ancestor, but that ancestor was fish like and evolved through many intermediate stages before we got to human form. We do have fossils of many of these intermediate forms, such as tiktalik.

We don't see a common ancestor for birds and man even though that is also a possibility.
Depends what you mean by common ancestor of birds and man. Finding fossil evidence of direct ancestors just prior to the divergence of the bird line and the mammalian line, especially of something that existed hundreds of millions of years ago is extremely unlikely given the incompleteness of the fossil record. However we do have plenty of fossils from before birds and mammals diverged which were ancestors to both.


And we don't see a common ancestor for apes and man even though many fossils of apes have been mistaken for a common ancestor.
We do have fossilised common ancestors for humans and chimps and other apes.

Claiming the change in species from fish to reptiles to dinosaurs to birds and finally to apes and humans which began some 390 mya. One can even go further back to trace human ancestors to an amoeba. We got to stop this nonsense and start behaving like rational adults.

That's what the evidence supports (well roughly, we didn't directly evolve from birds or amoeba). Rational adults follow the evidence. If you really believe there is no evidence for evolution, start at the top of the page of Talk Origins on evidence for evolution and explain why each of them don't provide support for evolution.
 
Lakia said:
Fossil remains are one tiny part of the evidence which supports evolution.
Hey, now! You folks studying the squishy stuff predict it, we rock-jocks find it. :p :D

[eta: To be clear, evolution would be one of the best-supported theories in science even without the fossil record. I'm merely objecting (good-naturedly, if that's not clear) to the characterization of our evidence as a tiny part of the support for evolution. It's the old joke, every researcher thinks HIS field supports evolution best, because none of us can believe that anyone else has such amazing data.]

Finding fossil evidence of direct ancestors just prior to the divergence of the bird line and the mammalian line, especially of something that existed hundreds of millions of years ago is extremely unlikely given the incompleteness of the fossil record.
The real trick is knowing when you found it. When clades diverge, the first few members are more similar to the members of sister clades than to the later members of the clade itself. The first mammals were more similar to mammal-like reptiles than to modern mammals, for example. Thus, knowing precisely where to draw the apex (peripex?) of the triangle is tricky to impossible, depending on the clade. Knowing that it has one, and having a very robust estimate of which taxa it will lie among, is something we're quite good at. A lot of the controversy about the origins of birds is like this--we know that birds evolved from therapods, and we know a general range of taxa that could have spawned it. We're quibbling over which is the actual first member of the clade, is all.
 
Last edited:
Long long ago former member Dr Adequate wrote and posted this here
Strange News From The Monkey House
This is for every creationist who has ever demanded proof of the theory of
evolution in the form of ‘a monkey turning into a man”; an observation
which would of course destroy the theory of evolution at a single stroke.

The tigers were resting; the penguins were feeding;
the snakes were digesting; the rabbits were breeding;
the keepers caught up on a bit of light reading —
a typical day at the zoo.
You’d never have thought there was trouble a-brewing:
just birds in their birdcages billing and cooing,
and platypods ploddingly, placidly doing
whatever it is that they do.

Giraffes in the distance were peacefully looming;
the sloths took it easy; the flowers were blooming;
the monkeys were eating bananas or grooming;
and that’s when the trouble began:
for the witnesses swear (there’s a dozen at least)
they saw one of the monkeys break off from the feast,
and a puzzled expression came over the beast —
and then it turned into a man.

The press and the media grew very excited;
they quoted the monkey (it said “I’m delighted”,
then sniffed at the mike and attempted to bite it)
but public reaction was mixed.
The scientists cried in despair and frustration
“We’re baffled completely; for your information,
all theory and practice forbids a saltation
without a between and betwixt.”

But all the creationists said “We’ve repented!
We’re fond of the theory that Darwin invented;
we can’t understand how we came to resent it,
and Darwin, we think, is a saint.”
The scientists cried “It’s a shame and a wonder
that Darwin could make such an asinine blunder!
This tears all his theories and theses asunder,
‘cos germ-line mutation, it ain’t!”

But all the creationists gave their opinion:
‘All nature, we’re sure, is completely Darwinian,
and when we said Darwin was Lucifer’s minion
we ought to have showed more respect.”
The scientists cried “What a strange situation:
this uppity monkey defies explanation!
We’d never have dreamed a somatic mutation
could possibly have this effect!”

The fundies replied: “You are owed an apology:
seems the biologists knew their biology.
You do the science; we’ll stick to theology —
say, can we buy you a drink?”
The scientists cried “This is perfectly frightful!
Our theory was neither profound nor insightful.
We used to find monkeys completely delightful —
but not when they stand up and think.”
ENVOI:
The monkey agreed to appear on the news
which was only polite; it could hardly refuse)
and to share with the public its thoughts and its views,
and the gist of its statement was thus:
“I’m as baffled as you, and I just can’t explain
how I came to stand up and develop a brain,
but I promise you never to do it again,
and I’m sorry I caused all the fuss.”
 
Last edited:
No, I just couldn't remember the proper spelling (and IE doesn't yell at me the way Firefox does when I screw it up). It's a foible of mine, one that eight years under the gentle instruction of nuns couldn't cure; I don't know why, but English spelling just doesn't click for me. I think it has played a major role in my life--my spelling and handwriting aren't going to get me good grades, so my content had to be good enough to compensate.

To be clear, the doc processing my reports go through isn't specifically due to my spelling. It's company SOP--ALL documents leaving the company go through it, as part of our quality control process.

Is it possible because of your poor spelling some of your misspelling of cladistic groups could have resulted in the proliferation of non existent groups. But because they were unintentional mistakes, were never retracted. :jaw-dropp
 
justintime said:
Is it possible because of your poor spelling some of your misspelling of cladistic groups could have resulted in the proliferation of non existent groups.
No. As I said, any professional publications go through several reviews before they leave my company, and one of the things they look for is correct spelling. Secondly, on this forum I'm much less formal (and therefore spend much less time ensuring accuracy of irrelevant minutia like spelling) than I am in my professional writing. I'm willing to accept a certain rate of spelling errors on a forum. I strive to avoid it, but it's only worth so much effort. In my professional writing, ensuring quality is a moral obligation, including spelling.

As an aside, I'm not an archosaur researcher. I've studied decapods and mammals. While I've certainly studied archosaurs, I've never written anything on them, and therefore cannot be said to have had any influence on our understanding of that group.

I want to point out to the peanut gallery that this argument is "Dinwar misspells some things on a forum, therefore science is wrong." There are several fallacies involved.
 
Sorry, justintime, but if you are going to comment about science, you really need to learn something about science first! Otherwise you will make statements like the above (and the stated ignorance about observed speciation) which are just dumb.
Recurrent laryngeal nerve

Now scientists want us to believe fish and humans shared a common ancestor. And what was a breathing apparatus in fish (gills) evolved to ears in humans. And there is the aquatic ape in our past as well. No wonder 65% of studied scientific papers are found fraudulent.
 

Back
Top Bottom