evolution, where is the evidence???!!! I see none

Originally posted by warthog911
lol people REad the lacerta files and then you would realise that evolution is impossible for humans as it took 148 million yrs for animals to evolve into mammles and only 2 million ys to involve into intelligent beings?
[edit on 25-5-2005 by warthog911]

Well, the other 148 mil years ws the hard part. We could have been able to do it on our own. With great effort and ingenuity.

Originally posted by MauiStacey
Hi Saints!

Hi Stacey! Wish I had some Maui weather here (cold-ish rain today). Good to see ya around.

Originally posted by warthog911
lol people REad the lacerta files and then you would realise that evolution is impossible for humans as it took 148 million yrs for animals to evolve into mammles and only 2 million ys to involve into intelligent beings?

What's "intelligent being"? Maybe the termites consider themselves to be inteligent too. And maybe your descendants(monsters with big head and telepathic abilities) will ask the same question in 2 million years.

[edit on 25-5-2005 by longbow]

Originally posted by longbow
Maybe the termites consider themselves to be inteligent too.

I'll agree with that! Take a petri-dish, a circular piece of filter-paper, and an ink pen. Draw on the paper a wavey line, put it in the dish and release a few. Watch them follow the line! It's cool. I loved experiments with termintes.

Looks like this:



[edit on 25-5-2005 by saint4God]

Ok, I'm not really sure what those posts were getting at, but I will give it a try.

"Macroevolution" is just as much a fact as "microevolution".

I will try to prove it in two ways. My first link includes evidence derived from microevolution, and my second link looks at the macro side without reffering to microevolution or abiogenesis.


First let me define what I mean by the two terms.


www.talkorigins.org...

In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch") or the change of a species over time into another (anagenesis, not nowadays generally used). Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, is also therefore macroevolution, but the term is not restricted to the origin of those higher taxa.

Microevolution refers to any evolutionary change below the level of species, and refers to changes in the frequency within a population or a species of its alleles (alternative genes) and their effects on the form, or phenotype, of organisms that make up that population or species.

Apparently the main difference between the two is that genes between species diverge and that genes within species combine.

The idea that the origin of higher taxa, such as genera (canines versus felines, for example), requires something special is based on the misunderstanding of the way in which new phyla (lineages) arise. The two species that are the origin of canines and felines probably differed very little from their common ancestral species and each other. But once they were reproductively isolated from each other, they evolved more and more differences that they shared but the other lineages didn't. This is true of all lineages back to the first eukaryotic (nuclear) cell. Even the changes in the Cambrian explosion are of this kind, although some (eg, Gould 1989) think that the genomes (gene structures) of these early animals were not as tightly regulated as modern animals, and therefore had more freedom to change.

Therefore my first proof is that macro and micro are the same.

I hear a lot of talk about no proof of lateral evolutionary lines. This is not how evolution works.

All of todays species are higher up, so to speak, on the evolutionary scale.

We are not descended from chimpanzees, but instead we share a common anscestor with chimpanzees. In fact we share something like 99% of the same DNA. How else can this be explained?

Keep in mind, we do not have the entire fossil record. the conditions necesary for fossilization are rare, and we are lucky we have so much information.

Link to proof number two. This one gets very technical.

www.talkorigins.org...

Thus, macroevolutionary history and processes necessarily entail the transformation of one species into another and, consequently, the origin of higher taxa. Because it is so well supported scientifically, common descent is often called the "fact of evolution" by biologists. For these reasons, proponents of special creation are especially hostile to the macroevolutionary foundation of the biological sciences.

Common descent is called "the fact of evolution" by biologists. There is an enormous body of evidence to support this. It is not an unsupported hypothesis.

For instance, if we don't share a common ancestor, why is all life made of the same thing?

The structures that all known organisms use to perform these four basic processes are all quite similar, in spite of the odds. All known living things use polymers to perform these four basic functions. Organic chemists have synthesized hundreds of different polymers, yet the only ones used by life, irrespective of species, are polynucleotides, polypeptides, and polysaccharides. Regardless of the species, the DNA, RNA and proteins used in known living systems all have the same chirality, even though there are at least two chemically equivalent choices of chirality for each of these molecules. For example, RNA has four chiral centers in its ribose ring, which means that it has 16 possible stereoisomers—but only one of these stereoisomers is found in the RNA of known living organisms.

As stated above, out of 16 possible combinations of RNA, all living organisms have the same one. If there wasn't common ancestry shouldn't we expect to find life made out of all the possible combinations?

One of the main aspects of a scientific theory is falsification. If species were not able to be classified in the way we class them, then all our "life trees" would be worthless. This is not the case.

If it were impossible, or very problematic, to place species in an objective nested classification scheme (as it is for the car, chair, book, atomic element, and elementary particle examples mentioned above), macroevolution would be effectively disproven. More precisely, if the phylogenetic tree of all life gave statistically significant low values of phylogenetic signal (hierarchical structure), common descent would be resolutely falsified.

Accuracy in evolution.

Many people think that evolution is no better than a guess, well if that is true, then all of the constants in physics are guesses, as phylogenetic trees are known to 38 decimals, while the universal gravitational constant is known to only three.

In their quest for scientific perfection, some biologists are rightly rankled at the obvious discrepancies between some phylogenetic trees (Gura 2000; Patterson et al. 1993; Maley and Marshall 1998). However, as illustrated in Figure 1, the standard phylogenetic tree is known to 38 decimal places, which is a much greater precision than that of even the most well-determined physical constants. For comparison, the charge of the electron is known to only seven decimal places, the Planck constant is known to only eight decimal places, the mass of the neutron, proton, and electron are all known to only nine decimal places, and the universal gravitational constant has been determined to only three decimal places.

I hope I have answered your questions.

Please read the links as the second one is very long and contains more information than I could put in one post.

More objections to my proof are gladly accepted.

[edit on 25-5-2005 by LeftBehind]

What the guy is saying is that: While evolution isn't the absolute, THE theory of humanity that CANNOT be disproven, it's more sturdy than other arguements, such as say, creationism. While we can come up with pages and pages, as well as books and books, about evolution, creationism can come up with a book of creationism that is over 2 milenia old and pages and pages of rants completely unrooted in science. (though not all are like this, some at least attempt to adress the issue seriously.)


[edit on 5/25/2005 by Lifeadventurer]

LeftBehind

I'll do my best

LB
Keep in mind, we do not have the entire fossil record. the conditions necesary for fossilization are rare, and we are lucky we have so much information.

An 'incomplete' fossil record is often used by m-evolution proponents. But they always seem to leave out the evidence that we do have, and what that evidence shows.(IMO when looked at impartially).

Their conclusions were that the fossil record is surprisingly complete, with about 10% of all species that have ever lived being represented. There are some biases and stratigraphic incompleteness in the fossil record, but these problems can be estimated mathematically from the available data. There are many examples of stratigraphic gaps in the fossil record, with these gaps being the rule rather than the exception.

The punctuated fossil record applies not only to individual species, but to entire periods of time, where entire communities of species remain unchanged for millions of years. These periods of "coordinated stasis" can be followed by periods when "upwards of 60% of species seem to be replaced over a period of a few hundred thousand years"

The idea that the lack of transitional forms is due to gaps in the fossil record is not reasonable given the tremendous number of fossils that have been discovered in recent studies. Therefore, the old "evolution of the gaps" theory is not supported by the extensive fossil record that now exists. Gradualism, although it seems a more logical mode of evolution, is not supported by the fossil record.

www.geocities.com...

IMO lack of evidence if the fossil record is not the problem of m-evolution, it's what the evidence we do have, tells us. It certainly does not seem to be the slow mechanism of natural selection.

Here's an evolutionists comment on the "Cambrian explosion"
"Even if evidence for an earlier origin is discovered, it remains a challenge to explain why so many animals should have increased in size and acquired shells within so short a time at the base of the Cambrian. At the moment, there are almost as many explanations as there are animals caught in this belated "explosion."Dr. Stephen Jay Gould

LBCommon descent is called "the fact of evolution" by biologists. There is an enormous body of evidence to support this. It is not an unsupported hypothesis.

"the fact of evolution", lol, interesting evidence but i'm not buyin':

An analysis of the tree of life at its most basic level (kingdoms) indicates that organisms do not share common descent. A few dozen microbial genomes have been fully sequenced and the results indicate that there is no clear pattern of descent. Certain species of Archea ("ancient bacteria that are best known for living in extreme environments) are more closely related to species of eubacteria ("common" bacteria) than they are to members of their own kingdom. In fact, many microbial species share genes found in eukaryotes (non-microbial organisms characterized by the presence of a nucleus in the cell). Many evolutionists are now suggesting that gene transfers were so common in the past (a convenient non-provable hypothesis) that a tree of life for microbial species can never be discerned from existing species. Such proposals remove evolutionary theory from being tested, and remove it from scientific criticism.

Human Descent

Modern molecular biology tells us that modern humans arose less than 100,000 years ago (confirmed by three independent techniques), and most likely, less than 50,000 years ago. This data ties in quite well with the fossil record. Sophisticated works of art first appear in the fossil record about 40,000-50,000 years ago and evidence of religious expression appears only 25,000-50,000 years ago. Such a recent origin date for modern humans precludes any possibility of any previous hominids being our ancestors, since Homo erectus died out 300,000 years ago, and Homo neandertalensis has been proven to be too genetically different from us to have been our ancestor Where does this leave the evolutionists and their descent of man theory? Well, they can always fall back on their favorite line ÷ "the fossil record is just incomplete." For more information read the paper, "Descent of Man Theory: Disproved by Molecular Biology."

LBFor instance, if we don't share a common ancestor, why is all life made of the same thing?

you also stated

we share a common anscestor with chimpanzees. In fact we share something like 99% of the same DNA. How else can this be explained?

“We share half our genes with the banana.” One can only guess (with a fertile imagination) what the common ancestor between people and bananas looked like! In addition, there are fish that have 40% the same DNA as people, but hopefully no evolutionist would claim that the fish are 40% human – or people are half bananas.

“Professor Roy Britten, of the California Institute of Technology, US, said that most studies did not take into account large sections of DNA which are not found on the genome of both man and chimp.” and “Contrary to what you might think, large differences in DNA, not small ones, separate apes and monkeys from both humans and each other” – New Scientist, March 15, 2003 p. 26. There are other critics of the Wayne State Medical School findings, such as anthropologist Richard J. Sherwood at the University of Wisconsin.

lengthy explaination here:www.icr.org...

As to your second link, "29 Evidences for Macroevolution" here's the rebuttal:

In “29 Evidences for Macroevolution,” Dr. Theobald sets forth the evidence that he believes proves scientifically that all organisms share the same biological ancestor. In this critique, I argue that his evidence is insufficient to establish that proposition.www.trueorigin.org...

LB
Please read the links as the second one is very long and contains more information than I could put in one post.

I had read it previously, beware my rebuttal link is longer :-]


(edit) as to this comment LA

While we can come up with pages and pages, as well as books and books, about evolution, creationism can come up with a book of creationism that is over 2 milenia old and pages and pages of rants completely unrooted in science.

Please believe me this is not some dogma for me. I got no probs with evolution as a Christian. I'm trying to learn and form a better understanding of the debate. I do believe in GOD as our creator. I dont believe in young earth creationism, but respect those who do. I'm as of yet not convinced in macroevolution(at least with natural selection as its mechanism) or naturallistic origins. I believe design can be deteced, even if the designer cannot.




[edit on 25-5-2005 by Rren]

[edit on 25-5-2005 by Rren]

[edit on 25-5-2005 by Rren]

Thank you Rren for your response.

I am unclear as to what you are trying to say in your post.

What position are you taking? Are you advocating intelligent design?

You state that we have a huge amount of the fossil record, yet at the same time say we only have 10% of all species preserved as fossils.

Maybe it's just me but that seems like a pretty small amount.

I don't understand how the lack of microbial life-trees invalidate evolution.

We have signifigant evidence for the life-trees of most life on the planet.
Why would more active gene transfers in early microbial life be inconsistent with evolution?

I'm not saying we have found the common ancestor to us all, but that the vast majority of evidence points to such an ancestor.


Okay, so we share 40% of our genes with banana trees. Seems like that would be evidence for a common ancestor, since we are so different from banana trees, why would we share any genetic material with them if the genetic material did not start at the same source?

From Rebuttal of 29 Evidences for Macroevolution.
Consider how evolutionists would react if there were in fact multiple codes in nature. What if plants, animals, and bacteria all had different codes? Such a finding would not falsify evolution; rather, it would be incorporated into the theory.

True, thus is the nature of scientific fact, however it is not in multiple codes, once again to me it is evidence for common ancestry.

From Rebuttal of 29 Evidences for Macroevolution.
The point is that the hierarchical nature of life can be accommodated by creation theory as readily as by evolution. Accordingly, “it is not evidence for or against either theory.”

Creation theory can back up anything, so all things being equal this backs up evolution, which has lots of evidence, more so than creation, which is unprovable.

From R29EM:
Any set of objects, whether or not they originated in an evolutionary process, can be classified hierarchically. Chairs, for instance, are independently created; they are not generated by an evolutionary process: but any given list of chairs could be classified hierarchically, perhaps by dividing them first according to whether or not they were made of wood, then according to their colour, by date of manufacture, and so on. The fact that life can be classified hierarchically is not, in itself, an argument for evolution. (Ridley 1985, 8.)

This is true, however as stated in the 29 points, the difference is objective and subjective.

You could make any thing have a hierarchical classification. Life-trees are objective as anyone looking at the evidence would see the same thing. Classifying cars this way would only work on subjective differences as you would be able to class them any way you want and not reach agreement with others.

This is in fact proof. One of the features of a scientific theory is falsification, meaning if the evidence can be stacked anyway you want it is not objective, and thus not scientific. The fact that life-tree classifications cannot be rearanged willy-nilly and still work is proof. You can't do that with chairs.



There are still questions to be answered in evolution theory, but it is supported by the evidence. What would you advance as being the more sound theory?

Evolution is a fact, and until there is hard evidence to the contrary it will remain so.

Such is the nature of science.

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Evolution is a fact, and until there is hard evidence to the contrary it will remain so.

True until proven false? I've not known science to be this way. In fact, I've always seen science as the result of proofs, not lack of it. I keep reading 'works' that include the words "seemed like", "it appears", and "one can conclude". Well, it seems like there's some severely lacking data so it appears this is not a working model, therefore one can conclude this is a highy speculative scientific process.


[edit on 26-5-2005 by saint4God]

Saint, I'm sorry if this sounds condescending, but what you just said shows a profound misunderstanding of scientific fact and scientific theory.

Scientific fact remains fact as long as the data fits.

If for some reason gravity changed to half strength tommorow, the theory of gravity would need some serious reworking.

Contrary to what creationists would have you believe science thrives off of disproving things. There is no agenda to keep evolution, it just happens to fit the data better than anything else.

If the evidence was there, someone would make their name by proving evolution wrong.

If someone could come up with proof that the earth was only 6000 years old, he would rank up there with Einstein and Hawking.


This is how science works. It takes a tentative, not dogmatic view of the world.

all my life in school, in science class. "we came from apes" "The big bang" but yet, after all this drilling in of knowledge, I find a very much amount of evidence and facts, and find evolution lacking scientific facts, as well as common sense, and is 99.9% fairy tale and .1% facts. I couldprobably find more evidence for why Santa Claus has a secret laboratory in the north pole and thats where all the presents comes from on Christmas than of Evolution.

You must not have looked very hard. You want evidence? You need go no further than your own body. How? Read on…

Look at your fingers. Now look at the nails on your fingers. What possible purpose do they serve? Are they simply decoration by a bored omniscient creator, or evolutionary leftovers from when they used to be claws in another form? Which honestly makes more sense to you?

Did you know many humans are born with vestigial tails? They are simply snipped at birth by the docs. An omniscient creator having a bit of a lark? Or again, an evolutionary marker. Have you ever seen the vestigial leg bones in whales for example? Or the fossil record of most species, clearly showing the steps of the evolution process.

I should also point out that NOBODY claims we “came from apes”. We simply share a common ancestor. Apes went one way off the family tree, we went another. We are not descended from any existing ape…we independently evolved.

I said it once I will say it again, the lung fish is the best example that you can see TODAY. It is growing leg, it has growen the lungs, couple of thousand years a might be an ape of sometype, or a rat or a cat who knows we will just have to wait and see.

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Saint, I'm sorry if this sounds condescending, but what you just said shows a profound misunderstanding of scientific fact and scientific theory.

I'm not ruling that possibility out. Perhaps when scientists thought everything was made up of 4 elements, there was room for speculation when someone had a "cold" because it was not a fever. Maybe I want to be in the stage of civilization that says, "Yes, let's consider the possibilities" but "no, let's not settle for these possibilities to be the absolute truth". Am I asking for too much here?

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Scientific fact remains fact as long as the data fits.

In regards to evolution, what data? Mattison has a lot of things still needing addressing. Again, we just have a bunch of ideas as to how things could possibly change.

Originally posted by LeftBehind
If for some reason gravity changed to half strength tommorow, the theory of gravity would need some serious reworking.

Ya. But at least to this day we have a lot of numbers and consistency to back it up. Do I accept gravity? Yep. Do I accept the new information when presented? With numbers and consistency, yep.

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Contrary to what creationists would have you believe science thrives off of disproving things. There is no agenda to keep evolution, it just happens to fit the data better than anything else.

I don't care about what creationists believe nor accuse anyone of an agenda, but in science there does seem to be a blind acceptance which can make us lazy in doing the real work necessary to prove a process. Hm, this interesting word you use called "data", where may I find it in evolution?

Originally posted by LeftBehind
If the evidence was there, someone would make their name by proving evolution wrong.

If someone could come up with proof that the earth was only 6000 years old, he would rank up there with Einstein and Hawking.

I'm sure. Personally I don't care about 'making a name for myself' and think this kind of thinking is where science went wrong.

Originally posted by LeftBehind
This is how science works. It takes a tentative, not dogmatic view of the world.

Dogma? Who's discussing dogma? Are you going to get religious on me too? I thought we were discuss the evidence of evolution.


[edit on 26-5-2005 by saint4God]

Saint, please forgive me if you took offense at my post. I was just trying to explain what I meant and other than the first paragraph was nothing personal.


As to the data, please read my previous post of the evidence. It can answer some of your questions, and mattisons points, although I'm still not sure what points mattison was making. Perhaps you could explain in your own words what mattison was getting at.

By saying tentative not dogmatic, I wasn't getting religious. I was explaining that evolution is not dogma, a charge that has been leveled against it previously.

As to more proof, since apparently the posts above yours weren't good enough, here's a picture of a seacow with four legs.

Or at least a fossil of one found in Jamaica.

www.geotimes.org...

Check out the EBE/Alien sections it may/may not expand your horizons on this important matter.

Apes - shoot we may have evolved from rocks, but more likely planted by other worlds authority?

Dallas

'It only took 2 million years to become intelegent but 140mil to become mammals. Well every so often evolution has a flourish where one or many species evolve quickly. We've in a way overcome biological evolution.
We are actually improving how we live more and more microcircitry becomes twice as advanced.

Ok quick question this really confuses me....

To ppl who dont believe in evolution.....How exactly did we get here?

as the planets been here millions of years....what are you saying we were just plonked on here one sunday afternoon and everyone forgot about it and got on with making huts, tools and language.

Is it not obvious that things evolve......ONe species of Ape would of adapted and evolved to fit in with there suroundings, diet and to cope with there daily threats. All these factors will eventually make one species different from another as one Ape may eat meat because there is alot of it another may eat fruit as it every where each needs different tools to cope with its change thus there body must change to hold a weapon run faster shorten our arms so we can move quicker and turn faster......

I'd agree with one of the first posts on viruses its a prime example of evolution works flu virus mutates some die others grow more stronger thus they invade the body and multiply which are then released into the air and they mutate to the next strain.

Virus that jump between species mutate to be able to attack and live within there new host all of example of evolution evolving to adapt to its new surrounding in the fight of the fittest.....and lets face it we aint the fittest since the viruses evolve faster than we can.

.
And God created the lancet fluke [parasite] that gets into an ant's brain and causes it to climb to the top of a blade of grass [which it normally doesn't] so it can be eaten by a rabbit to pass the parasite to the rabbit?
Suicide!
The Ant is compelled to do what the parasite directs it to do.

And God created the spiny headed worm that gets into a shrimp and causes it to swim in the middle of pond instead of the bottom where it is normal? It also has a bright orange spot and swims in a circle when a predator fish shows up, instead of diving for cover as it normally would. Sort of like saying 'eat me' 'eat me'. The parasite affects the shrimps behavior so it can be passed up the food chain as part of its life cycle.

And supposedly God created the bacteria parasite that is passed through inside the reproductive egg cell of wasps has even turned the entire species of wasps into females that reproduce with parthenogenesis, because the parasite is only passed to the female offspring? When the wasps are given antibiotics it starts producing both males as well as female offspring.

God must some kind of sicko to create designs like these

I can here it now, "No this is the part of design done by Satan."

"God only creates the good creatures."

This is so ridiculous. Get real people.

BBC 'Material World' has some interesting programs. program from 26 May 2005.
.

Slank nice post lol

Why cant in your instance have both God and Satan as same person after all there enough split personality disorders on this world had to have been modelled off of some one lol

Originally posted by SpittinCobra
I said it once I will say it again, the lung fish is the best example that you can see TODAY. It is growing leg, it has growen the lungs, couple of thousand years a might be an ape of sometype, or a rat or a cat who knows we will just have to wait and see.

I think that might depend largly on wether or not its enviroment still exist then. At the current rate of human enviromental damage/change, the speciesmay become extinct in tens of years, let alone survive thousands.
I beleive enviromental factors play a huge part in determining evolutionary changes.