Evolution Of One Species To Another

[nailit]

On R&S threads, Theland often states that while evolution most definitely occurs *within* a species, (eg. Darwins finches) there is no evidence that one species has ever evolved into another. Im no scientist, (much less an evolutionary biologist) but I can see what he's saying.
Ive recently been viewing some You Tube vids from evolutionists debunking creationism....and for balance, creationists debunking evolution.... but nowhere can I find anything to suggest that there is any fossil record of one species turning into another.
Can anyone help me out here?
Thanks.

[Spungle]

Apologies, I just read my own answer and hope I don't come across as disrespectful of anyone's knowledge or learning. I am in the same boat as Nailit and am simply interested to see why the theory of common evolution from a single cell or similar is so popular?

As for Homos Erectus, surely this creature may/may not just be a mutation within a species, or a separate species altogether? It's not half-monkey/half human in any case!

[jim360]

Thanks for the response, Spungle, although as a matter of fact, since you are misinterpreting the word "theory", it might be better if you didn't tell me what is scientific and what isn't. In point of fact, a "theory" is a scientific explanation that (a) explains the evidence, (b) makes predictions, and (c) passes further experimental tests. In that sense, a "theory" is about as close to factual as it is possible to get. Other theories include the theory of gravity, theory of relativity, Big Bang Theory, Particle theory of matter, etc etc... all of which are, within well-established limits, factual. (See also the concept of "theorem" in maths -- that is, a statement that has been proven to be true). The word you are looking for, if you want to dismiss something as not actually known, would be something like "hypothesis" or "conjecture", neither of which apply to evolution.

As to the rest, you'll appreciate, I hope, that AB is a site for discussion of science in a reader-friendly manner, rather than a place to actually perform and actively research science.

[jim360]

In terms of the content of your answer, I think the mistake you are still making is to think of a species as a discrete thing. It is not; therefore, trying to find evolution across species is rather difficult, because you're trying to associate a phenomenon that's really occurring from one generation to the next, to an effect that is separated by hundreds, or even thousands, of those generations.

[Spungle]

Thanks Jim, fair play- I had hoped you might have been able to provide some answers. This is Answerbank, and maybe there is someone on here with the scientific skills to answer the questions.

[Theland]

In other words, no evidence!

[jim360]

I'm not quite sure where that one came from, Theland...

[woofgang]

A good book which explains some of the stuff about evolution in a simple, yet accurate, and entertaining manner.
Amazon.co.uk User Recommendation

[Spungle]

"In terms of the content of your answer, I think the mistake you are still making is to think of a species as a discrete thing." That is exactly what I AM saying, yes.

"It is not;" Interesting theory! :)

"therefore, trying to find evolution across species is rather difficult." So there is absolutely no evidence? How surprising! Surely there should be millions and billions of "halfway house" "interspecies" wandering/swimming/flying around? If not, why not?

[jim360]

Also, spungle, I think the point I'm trying to make is that you can't find the answer you are seeking if the question you're asking isn't the right one. Again, the point is that evolution from one species to another is, really, evolution within the same species -- if you take two measurements far enough apart, then you may decide that a new species has emerged, but that's virtually impossible to achieve by comparing a parent to a child.

[Theland]

Nailit - Go on YouTube and look at the videos that provide evidence for the ridiculous theory of evolution. There are are many.
Then do the same for creation. And the origin of information.
Weigh them up and decide for yourself.

[Spungle]

Hahaha, nice one Woofgang LMAO!! A work of fiction and fantasy by none other than Terry Pratchett :)) Well, I guess that's all the evidence we need then.

[jim360]

Spungle: if a process is virtually continuous, then it's very difficult to find a specific "halfway species", as you are asking for. On the other hand, that also means that every single generation is, effectively, a "halfway species" between two points far enough apart.

There is plenty of evidence: you are only finding none, in the end, because you aren't looking for the right thing.

[nailit]

I still have a problem with a fish taking a breath of air?
It doesn't happen now...and indeed can't happen...so how or why did it happen in some distant past...whether it be hundreds or millions of years in the past? Never will a fish take a breath of air...and live.

[Theland]

Oh that's alright then.
Am sure Nailit is overwhelmingly convinced.

[nailit]

//Nailit - Go on YouTube and look at the videos that provide evidence for the ridiculous theory of evolution. There are are many.
Then do the same for creation. And the origin of information.
Weigh them up and decide for yourself//

Theland, I look up all possibilities, as already stated, I reject christaianity on other grounds but the evolution thing, I have always had problems with.

[jim360]

Heard of lungfish, nailit? There's an example of a fish that developed, and still holds, the ability to breathe air, although its ancestors never found the need to move beyond that skill to something greater.

I should mention that the other reason it's difficult to see evolution in action, quite apart from the long time scale, is that species also will tend to evolve only as a reaction to change in the environment. This too is rather slow, because usually environments don't change all that quickly either -- or, at least, a great deal of the mechanisms that drive environmental change operate on long time scales. The shifting of continents is one fairly obvious example.

In any case, the main point is that if you try to define a species as a rigid unit then you have the wrong starting point for trying to understand and explain how evolution works. In one generation, humans will be the same as they are now. In one hundred generations, basically likewise. In ten thousand generations, who can say? Somewhere along the way, we'll have changed somewhat.

[jim360]

As a final point (for the evening, at least), "Go on YouTube" as a suggestion has no place in a scientific debate. There are some amazing videos there, but all they can ever be is a starting point for further research, and never the end of a journey. If, then, YouTube videos are the extent of anyone's research, they haven't understood what research truly means.

[nailit]

Thanks Jim
Lung fish was mentioned earlier on (PP)
But I still cant wrap my head around the fact that a fish would not sniff air (they don't now, so why would they millions of years ago?)

[Theland]

Jim - Thanks. I guess us lesser mortals will never get to understand what really clever people do. Fair enough.
Nailit - it is not a case of asking you to believe in God, simply a case of asking you to consider the possibility that behind the origin of information, is a mind.

[nailit]

Theland, my knowledge of science is zero. My knowledge of religious history (and biblical history) is perhaps above normal...