What's so hard about evolution?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It has also never been shown that animals have beneficial mutations to that degree.....

Yes it has. Every life form that exists on land is an example of the process that I just described since all life originated from the ocean. But also keep in mind that MOST mutations aren't beneficial at all, probably like 99% of them (just guessing here so don't take that percentage as gospel). So most of the mutations will die out. Also some mutations just aren't useful for the species that they mutated on (a bird wouldn't need a dorsal fin if it can't swim), but if they don't hinder the animal in any from surviving, this trait my propagate on through generations. For instance, humans don't need wisdom teeth yet we still have them. As a result we mostly only see the successful mutations.

Lol you are trying to say that because things exist evolution must be true. That is not logical. You just recognized how ridiculous it is to believe that mutations are ever beneficial, and even if they are the mutation must be Dominant, and must allow the animal to continue to mate with its species. What about the first animal that mutates to become sterile with the previous transitional form? how does it reproduce and continue to pass its beneficial mutation? To many problems with Macro-evolution.

a reply to: solomons path

"Evolution" mixes two things together, one real, one imaginary. Variation (microevolution) is the real part. The types of bird beaks, the colors of moths, leg sizes, etc. are variation. Each type and length of beak a finch can have is already in the gene pool and adaptive mechanisms of finches. Creationists have always agreed that there is variation within species. What evolutionists do not want you to know is that there are strict limits to variation that are never crossed, something every breeder of animals or plants is aware of. Whenever variation is pushed to extremes by selective breeding (to get the most milk from cows, sugar from beets, bristles on fruit flies, or any other characteristic), the line becomes sterile and dies out. And as one characteristic increases, others diminish. But evolutionists want you to believe that changes continue, merging gradually into new kinds of creatures. This is where the imaginary part of the theory of evolution comes in. It says that new information is added to the gene pool by mutation and natural selection to create frogs from fish, reptiles from frogs, and mammals from reptiles, to name a few.

You continue to post a picture of an Ambulocetus like it is a whale.....

Fossilized bones found in Pakistan are claimed to be those of a ‘walking whale’,1 supposedly an ancestor of today’s whales. The main claim of Thewissen et al. is that this was a walking whale. That is, had hind limbs which functioned as legs on land and paddles/flippers in water. The skeleton is incomplete, with critical parts missing. It is also highly fragmented. To establish hind leg function it is necessary to have the pelvic girdle to demonstrate that the leg bones (femur and small proximal piece of tibia) belong to the rest of the skeleton and to determine muscle attachments. The pelvic girdle is missing! With the forelimbs, the humerus and scapula are missing which are again crucial to interpreting function, as well as establishing connectedness to the skeleton.

Prothero et al.2 suggest five features to unite whales: All incisors parallel with the tooth row—not preserved in Ambulocetus Medial lambdoidal crest semicircular—not preserved in Ambulocetus Nasals retracted—rostrum (snout) not preserved in Ambulocetus Protocones small (features of teeth) Accessory cusps large (features of teeth) Thewissen et al. use their own list of purported whale characters to establish Ambulocetus as a whale, but as Berta3 points out, some of these characters may have a broader distribution than whales. Thewissen et al. use a phylogenetic definition of a whale. That is, they assume common ancestry (evolution) and so justify including the supposed ancestor with the whales, choosing characters which were common as their criteria. In the footnotes, the authors mention one major difference viz. ‘Unlike most other archeocetes, the pterygoid processes are enormous …’, but there are many big differences, including the degree of variation and specialization of vertebrae.

THe Ambulocetus was classified as a whale using a different classification system than what we use for whales.

Indeed the whole story is seriously unravelling as time goes by. The discovery of a jawbone of a fully aquatic whale (a Basilosaurid) was announced in October 2011.1 This was ‘dated’ to 49 million years ago and since Ambulocetus ‘dates’ from 50-48 Ma, this does not leave much time for some stupendous evolutionary changes. The jawbone predates all other supposed whale ancestors except Pakicetus, which is as much a whale as someone’s pet dog. As of the date of writing, the jawbone discovery has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal. Even if it does not pass muster (unlikely considering the international team involved), evolution of whales was ‘dead in the water’ anyway. We just have to consider what changes are necessary to change a land creature into a whale. Dr Richard Sternberg has listed some of them:2 Counter-current heat exchanger for intra-abdominal testes (to keep them cool) Ball vertebra (to enable the tail to move up and down instead of side to side) Tail flukes and musculature Blubber for temperature insulation Ability to drink sea water (reorganization of kidney tissues) Fetus in breech position (for underwater birth) Nurse young underwater (modified mammae) Forelimbs transformed into flippers Reduction of hindlimbs Reduction/loss of pelvis and sacral vertebrae Reorganization of the musculature for the reproductive organs Hydrodynamic properties of the skin Special lung surfactants Novel muscle systems for the blowhole Modification of the teeth Modification of the eye for underwater vision Emergence and expansion of the mandibular fat pad with complex lipid distribution Reorganization of skull bones and musculature Modification of the ear bones Decoupling of esophagus and trachea Synthesis and metabolism of isovaleric acid (toxic to terrestrial mammals) Emergence of blowhole musculature and neurological control This list is not exhaustive—think about behavioural changes, underwater communication system, echo-location, navigation capacities, ability to dive to great depths without the bends, etc. How many mutations would need to occur and permeate (be ‘fixed’ in) the evolving whale population to achieve such changes? How often would multiple mutations have to occur together, in a coordinated way, for any advantageous functionality to be achieved?

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Well . . . since it is still the accepted and taught model, I'm willing to bet that the world of Paleontology and Cetacean evolution disagree with your source.

BTW - would you mind linking to your source? I can't seem to find that info at any link about the evolution of cetaceans.

In their Science article,[6] Thewissen and coworkers state that Ambulocetus was about the size of a male sea lion, weighing about 650 lbs. and had a robust radius and ulna (the two bones in the upper forearm). They report that the structure of the forearm would have allowed powerful elbow extension by triceps, and that, unlike modem cetaceans, elbow, wrist, and digital joints were flexible and synovial (lubricated). The hand was long and broad, with five digits. The femur was short and stout, and the feet were enormous. The toes were terminated by a short phalanx carrying a convex hoof. They suggest that unlike modern cetaceans, Ambulocetus had a long tail, and that it probably did not possess flukes.

a reply to: solomons path

www.icr.org...

Speaking of whales, Colbert said, "These mammals must have had an ancient origin, for no intermediate forms are apparent in the fossil record between the whales and the ancestral Cretaceous placentals. Like the bats, the whales (using the term in a general and inclusive sense) appear suddenly in early Tertiary times, fully adapted by profound modifications of the basic mammalian structure for a highly specialized mode of life. Indeed, the whales are even more isolated with relation to other mammals than the bats; they stand quite alone." [3]

originally posted by: MarsIsRed
Two parents conceive a child. The child is different. It's not a perfect copy of either/or both parents. This sums up evolution.

What part of this is difficult to understand?





This is a real question.

My question is how did you come to that theory? It's incorrect.

a reply to: solomons path

Is the lung fish a living example of an intermediate form?

Dipterus valenciennesi

Infraphylum Gnathostomata, Superclass Osteichthyes, Class Sarcopterygii, Subclass Dipnoi, Family Dipteridae

Geological Time: Middle Devonian (385 Million Years Old) Size: 125 mm Fossil Site: Achanarras Slate Quarry, Caithness, Scotland

www.fossilmuseum.net...

Lungfish were here 385 million years ago. Guess what. They are still lung fish why haven't they budged in the evolutionary process?

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: solomons path

Is the lung fish a living example of an intermediate form?

Dipterus valenciennesi

Infraphylum Gnathostomata, Superclass Osteichthyes, Class Sarcopterygii, Subclass Dipnoi, Family Dipteridae

Geological Time: Middle Devonian (385 Million Years Old) Size: 125 mm Fossil Site: Achanarras Slate Quarry, Caithness, Scotland

www.fossilmuseum.net...

Lungfish were here 385 million years ago. Guess what. They are still lung fish

why haven't they budged in the evolutionary process?

Did they need to?

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

The Institute of Creation Research??

Haha thanks for the laugh, I needed that!

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

This is what happens when you get your information from The Institute of Creation Research. You STILL don't understand evolution. Unless there's environmental pressures to adapt, a species won't continue evolving.

It's not a difficult concept to grasp.

Kinda ironic that "Thewissen" guy, which translates into "the science" in German... : )

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Jennyfrenzy
a reply to: MarsIsRed

What you are referring to is small-scale evolution, large-scale evolution is much more complex and that's what some
people "don't get."

The definition:

Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.

The Explanation:

Biological evolution is not simply a matter of change over time. Lots of things change over time: trees lose their leaves, mountain ranges rise and erode, but they aren't examples of biological evolution because they don't involve descent through genetic inheritance.

The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother.

Through the process of descent with modification, the common ancestor of life on Earth gave rise to the fantastic diversity that we see documented in the fossil record and around us today. Evolution means that we're all distant cousins: humans and oak trees, hummingbirds and whales.

Small Scale Evolution:

Large Scale Evolution:

UC Berkeley An Introduction to Evolution

While I TOTALLY disagree with you, I do appreciate the effort and time you placed in to your post.
I think your efforts deserve a star at least

So can somebody star this evolutionist, I just cant do it myself (Just Joking)

There's no disagreeing with it. What the member presented was not nonsense, but fact.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

Two animals don't one day have a child that is a completely different species then the parents. That is stupid and is poor reasoning against Evolution.

Yes I agree it's a gross oversimplification.

But why can you make such gross oversimplifications with impunity, in defense of evolutionary theory, and I not?

Specifically let's look at the many "tiny" evolutionary steps between fish and land verebrate. All of those 'tiny' sub-steps are, most likely, adapted neither to water or to land. They are simply invable in either environment and selection pressures will end them.

If only ONE of the 'tiny' modifications is inviable then that ends the mutation's heretability and absolutely ends that whole evolutionary path. The path doesn't skip the dud and continue, it's ended.

Yes this is true, but keep in mind that while one mutation may die out, another animal of the same species that had the same mutations up until that point may mutate a more successful one. Again, we only see the successful mutations, the unsuccessful ones die out so it makes it look like Evolution is more successful than it really is.

The mathematical probability that evolutionary theory represents the agency of biological diversity is exceptionally, preposterously small because the likeihood that a random variation will be successful is statistically impossible.

Don't make up statistics on the spot. Post actual figures and calculations that PROVE the statistical impossibility. Though, unless you can show the probability to be 0, then you are lying. Even something that has a 1:1e10000000000 chance of coming true will happen eventually.

There must be other forces, as yet untheorised, that give rise to the diversity we see.

As a possibility, I theorise that there may be some mechanism where gene splicing from one host species to another may occur. This would confer complete, adapted and viable attributes to the species accepting the transfer. How this would happen, its mechanism, I have no idea.

Maybe, but until that is shown to be the case then evolution is the best answer for how life develops. Every time new evidence is discovered, it further validates the theory of evolution. We invented a whole new field of science called genetics and then when we were finally able to start seriously studying DNA, even genetics is validating evolution.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It has also never been shown that animals have beneficial mutations to that degree.....

Yes it has. Every life form that exists on land is an example of the process that I just described since all life originated from the ocean. But also keep in mind that MOST mutations aren't beneficial at all, probably like 99% of them (just guessing here so don't take that percentage as gospel). So most of the mutations will die out. Also some mutations just aren't useful for the species that they mutated on (a bird wouldn't need a dorsal fin if it can't swim), but if they don't hinder the animal in any from surviving, this trait my propagate on through generations. For instance, humans don't need wisdom teeth yet we still have them. As a result we mostly only see the successful mutations.

Lol you are trying to say that because things exist evolution must be true. That is not logical. You just recognized how ridiculous it is to believe that mutations are ever beneficial, and even if they are the mutation must be Dominant, and must allow the animal to continue to mate with its species. What about the first animal that mutates to become sterile with the previous transitional form? how does it reproduce and continue to pass its beneficial mutation? To many problems with Macro-evolution.

DNA has shown that all life on the planet shares similar DNA thereby confirming evolution. I recognized how unlikely beneficial mutations are, not how ridiculous they are. Unlikely doesn't mean impossible.

You are trying to argue statistical probability here. Even if the chances are ridiculously low but not 0, it will STILL happen eventually. THAT is how evolution works. Yes the odds of success are extremely low, that is why it takes millions of years for it to flesh out. You apparently can't conceptualize the amount of generations that are born and die within 1 million years, let alone millions of them. That is quite a bit of rolling the dice.

The way probability works is that if there is a chance that something will happen, no matter how small, it will eventually happen. To argue otherwise is to deny math and that is just ludicrous since math defines the universe.

The funny thing about theists that reject evolution, is that they always pretend it's because of bad science and not because of their holy book/scripture based myths or that they hate the thought of themselves being Apes/primates...

Everybody's s*** stinks, we're all just animals that have learnt to walk upright (which is a really weird way of getting around).

We're not beings of light or souls from a heavenly realm, and the day that we drop such narcissistic indulgences will be a massive step in our development.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: solomons path

Is the lung fish a living example of an intermediate form?

Dipterus valenciennesi

Infraphylum Gnathostomata, Superclass Osteichthyes, Class Sarcopterygii, Subclass Dipnoi, Family Dipteridae

Geological Time: Middle Devonian (385 Million Years Old) Size: 125 mm Fossil Site: Achanarras Slate Quarry, Caithness, Scotland

www.fossilmuseum.net...

Lungfish were here 385 million years ago. Guess what. They are still lung fish

why haven't they budged in the evolutionary process?

Poor reasoning. Evolution doesn't argue that because something can evolve, that it will. It just says that life evolves to fill a niche in the environment. If the adaptations that the lung fish has evolved are fine for its environment, then new mutations (even beneficial ones) will die out because they are unnecessary. If a group of lung fish move to a new locale and their adaptations aren't as beneficial for this new area, then evolution could account for this, but of course that group could just die out as well.

originally posted by: MarsIsRed
Two parents conceive a child. The child is different. It's not a perfect copy of either/or both parents. This sums up evolution.

What part of this is difficult to understand?



This is a real question.

Do you really think humans reproducing is evolution? That's pretty funny. But in reality everything in existence is declining. Getting worse. Breaking down. Second law of thermodynamics. Except of course for evolution right? I guess if you choose to believe that, it is your choice.

originally posted by: jjkenobi
Do you really think humans reproducing is evolution? That's pretty funny. But in reality everything in existence is declining. Getting worse. Breaking down. Second law of thermodynamics. Except of course for evolution right? I guess if you choose to believe that, it is your choice.

Another creationist error, using terms they've only heard from other creationists in the belief that it supports their claims.

The second law of thermodynamics does not refute evolution. Order can be produced by expending energy. Plants use energy from the sun to create sugar molecules and animals use energy stored in sugar molecules from food (plants etc).

The earth is not a closed system.....

originally posted by: jjkenobi

originally posted by: MarsIsRed
Two parents conceive a child. The child is different. It's not a perfect copy of either/or both parents. This sums up evolution.

What part of this is difficult to understand?



This is a real question.

Do you really think humans reproducing is evolution? That's pretty funny. But in reality everything in existence is declining. Getting worse. Breaking down. Second law of thermodynamics. Except of course for evolution right? I guess if you choose to believe that, it is your choice.

Planet Earth isn't a closed system. End of story.

a reply to: chr0naut

A fish with legs formed from the bones and structures that were initially fins is less mobile in water than its progenitors. In a world with significant selection pressures, it would be predated out of existence.

No, it would be something like a mud-skipper, and it would thrive at the interface of land and water for more than 400 million years.

Your inference that I was describing a pre-planned sequence is the product of of your assumtions, not what I was talking about. As an argument, it is spurious and beside the point.

Your description implies a telic sequence whether you realize it or not. In fact, every successful evolutionary change is a successful adaptation in its own right, not a link in a chain from one successful initial adaptation to a much later final one. By viewing it as such, you are implying evolutionary goals and a teleological process, which in turn implies creation.

My favourite anti-evolutionary argument is that the current theory cannot explain the speed and volume of observed genetic change.

That is because, as the poster above you points out, you imagine each adaptation to be as unlikely as the first. You do not take into account selection bias. You and I have had this argument before. You'll be invoking probability theory in a minute — invoking it in ways it does not apply to evolution. Two little words: natural selection.

As I said to the OP, that's the bit that creationists alway have trouble with. If you believe evolution is supposed to be a directed process as opposed to an opportunistic one, you are invoking creation whether you call yourself a creationist or not.

I was suggesting was not creationism, but was in fact that there is some process that very occasionally causes gene splicing from one species to another.

There are indeed many such processes, particularly in the case of bacteria, which not only transfer genes among themselves, but also with their hosts, which whom they are often symbiont — see, for example, mitochondria. Our genomes are also packed with viral relics, many of which may play a role in gene expression and morphogenesis. All this is very well known.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: chr0naut

A fish with legs formed from the bones and structures that were initially fins is less mobile in water than its progenitors. In a world with significant selection pressures, it would be predated out of existence.

No, it would be something like a mud-skipper, and it would thrive at the interface of land and water for more than 400 million years.

Lets see, breathing through skin and mucosa in their mouths and pharynx, adapted gills that are closeable to retain an air bubble, fins with joints and musculature similar to limbs, burrowing behaviours to control temperature and protect against drying and predators, these are a few of the changes that are required TOGETHER that make the mud skipper suited to its intertidal habitat. The loss of any one of these attributes is a major impediment to survivability. They need many genetic changes at the same time to be the successful species that they are.

Your inference that I was describing a pre-planned sequence is the product of of your assumtions, not what I was talking about. As an argument, it is spurious and beside the point.

Your description implies a telic sequence whether you realize it or not. In fact, every successful evolutionary change is a successful adaptation in its own right, not a link in a chain from one successful initial adaptation to a much later final one. By viewing it as such, you are implying evolutionary goals and a teleological process, which in turn implies creation.

Nope.

Evolutionists consistently refer to a sequence of changes leading from one lifeform to another, yet when I refer to their suggestion of a sequence, I am somehow now inferring a direction to the sequence? If the sequence exists at all and I refer to it, it does not imply a direction different from one that is bourne out by observation. If the sequence itself does not exist, then where's the evolution?

Despite the eloquence of your reply, you really need to get a handle on basic logic and drop the strawman.

My favourite anti-evolutionary argument is that the current theory cannot explain the speed and volume of observed genetic change.

That is because, as the poster above you points out, you imagine each adaptation to be as unlikely as the first. You do not take into account selection bias. You and I have had this argument before. You'll be invoking probability theory in a minute — invoking it in ways it does not apply to evolution. Two little words: natural selection.

As I said to the OP, that's the bit that creationists alway have trouble with. If you believe evolution is supposed to be a directed process as opposed to an opportunistic one, you are invoking creation whether you call yourself a creationist or not.

I am not calling myself anything, you are calling me a creationist.

Creationism requires that a creator did it all and looks no further for any natural mechanism. That is NOT what I am saying.

I am saying that evolutionary theory as it currently stands does not explain the observed.

Although you percieve the world to consist of either Creationists or Evolutionists, science is constantly redefining better understanding of nature. It is a fluid, dynamic process and there will always be new and alternate theories.

You 'religious' insistence that evolutionary theory is immutable is anti-scientific.

I was suggesting was not creationism, but was in fact that there is some process that very occasionally causes gene splicing from one species to another.

There are indeed many such processes, particularly in the case of bacteria, which not only transfer genes among themselves, but also with their hosts, which whom they are often symbiont — see, for example, mitochondria. Our genomes are also packed with viral relics, many of which may play a role in gene expression and morphogenesis. All this is very well known.

If these are common, observed, well known and documented processes, but aren't specifically mentioned in evolutionary theory, wouldn't that imply (as I have been saying over and over) that Evolutionary theory as it currently exists, is incomplete?