ChatterBank2 mins ago
Evolution Of One Species To Another
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.
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.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by nailit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
// Evolution is a constant thing. Some people seem to be assuming we’ve reached our zenith. //
Gould and Niles ( yeah the soup nazi that one) developed the theory of punctuated evolution - there were periods when evolution seemed to stop and then accelerate. I rather obviously think in relation to change of conditions but others dont
They were so pleased with this that they peddled it as their own theory rather than a variation of evolution
https:/
// Some people seem to be assuming we’ve reached our zenith//
this began with Darwins idea of the tree of Life with man at the top and monkeys nearly at the top
https:/
This corresponded with the imperial idea - europeans on top and eer the others lower. And the god given mission to civilise
( what do you think of European Civilisation ? It would be a good idea if they were - Gandhi) ( What do you think of the French Revolution - it is too early to tell. Zhou En Lai)
and also the whig view of history
History is on the up and up and always gets better - you know like Trump is much better than what came before, and Zim is much better than S Rhodesia was.
and there is evidence that Darwin realised later on that it did NOT flow from his theories....
https:/
These ideas can be rated as diff to v diff
and if you really want to torture yourself then
evo-devo is the subject for you !
taught at uni and the set book is:
https:/
by one S J Gould.
it IS a long read (1500 p)
Gould and Niles ( yeah the soup nazi that one) developed the theory of punctuated evolution - there were periods when evolution seemed to stop and then accelerate. I rather obviously think in relation to change of conditions but others dont
They were so pleased with this that they peddled it as their own theory rather than a variation of evolution
https:/
// Some people seem to be assuming we’ve reached our zenith//
this began with Darwins idea of the tree of Life with man at the top and monkeys nearly at the top
https:/
This corresponded with the imperial idea - europeans on top and eer the others lower. And the god given mission to civilise
( what do you think of European Civilisation ? It would be a good idea if they were - Gandhi) ( What do you think of the French Revolution - it is too early to tell. Zhou En Lai)
and also the whig view of history
History is on the up and up and always gets better - you know like Trump is much better than what came before, and Zim is much better than S Rhodesia was.
and there is evidence that Darwin realised later on that it did NOT flow from his theories....
https:/
These ideas can be rated as diff to v diff
and if you really want to torture yourself then
evo-devo is the subject for you !
taught at uni and the set book is:
https:/
by one S J Gould.
it IS a long read (1500 p)
Hello, Theland.
Let me try an analogy based on a biblical story (like Answers in Genesis?): how did the many different modern European human languages come about? Each has its own grammar and dictionary. But despite some very obvious similarities a Spaniard cannot converse naturally with a Portuguese, nor a Dutchman with a German.
Latin produced at least five discrete "Romance" languages in fewer than fifteen hundred years. It may have been God who frustrated overweening human pride by "confusing" the languages of the Bob the builders working on the tower of Babel. But God didn't turn up one day and say to a later Visigothic Bob, "hey, you're Portuguese" and to another "From now on you're Spanish", followed by provision of a Spanish grammar and a "Teach Yourself" book, a Portuguese similar and (wait for it) a Spanish-Portuguese dictionary.
That example of linguistic "speciation" is observable, happened very quickly and occurred by natural means. Neither, please note, has it produced an infinite number of linguistic "missing links".
A very young VE was well sipped off when reading the introduction to the "Origin..." that his clever linguistic metaphor was as old as Darwin himself.
Let me try an analogy based on a biblical story (like Answers in Genesis?): how did the many different modern European human languages come about? Each has its own grammar and dictionary. But despite some very obvious similarities a Spaniard cannot converse naturally with a Portuguese, nor a Dutchman with a German.
Latin produced at least five discrete "Romance" languages in fewer than fifteen hundred years. It may have been God who frustrated overweening human pride by "confusing" the languages of the Bob the builders working on the tower of Babel. But God didn't turn up one day and say to a later Visigothic Bob, "hey, you're Portuguese" and to another "From now on you're Spanish", followed by provision of a Spanish grammar and a "Teach Yourself" book, a Portuguese similar and (wait for it) a Spanish-Portuguese dictionary.
That example of linguistic "speciation" is observable, happened very quickly and occurred by natural means. Neither, please note, has it produced an infinite number of linguistic "missing links".
A very young VE was well sipped off when reading the introduction to the "Origin..." that his clever linguistic metaphor was as old as Darwin himself.
Evolution is occurring in robins, slowly but differences are starting to show. Variations in song types are more successful in attracting mates, the louder and more varied the song the more successful the male.To produce this song range and volume the physical strength and lung capacity has to change, those with the physical type best suited breed more, the type becomes fixed in the genetic line.
Night singing robin's are more often mistaken for nightingales because for some their vocal range now includes warbles and trills. If you listen to early recordings of robins they didn't do it.
The faster the life cycle the faster the change, the more visible divergence or species development can be seen.
Moths are the best commonly cited example with different colour variations occurring within populations in response to environment. If you are the wrong colour for an area you will stand out and be predated, so the gene pool is dominated by the best camouflaged specimens. Eventually the variants lose the ability to interbreeding and can then be described as sub species.
Night singing robin's are more often mistaken for nightingales because for some their vocal range now includes warbles and trills. If you listen to early recordings of robins they didn't do it.
The faster the life cycle the faster the change, the more visible divergence or species development can be seen.
Moths are the best commonly cited example with different colour variations occurring within populations in response to environment. If you are the wrong colour for an area you will stand out and be predated, so the gene pool is dominated by the best camouflaged specimens. Eventually the variants lose the ability to interbreeding and can then be described as sub species.
jourdain2 //Dinosaurs = egg-laying, cold-blooded reptiles
Birds = egg-laying, warm- blooded....not sure if they class as mammals. //
Dinosaurs are reptiles yes, but cold-blooded (poilkilothermic), probably not. Modern reptiles being cold blooded in no way means that all reptiles must have been cold-blooded. Feathers probably evolved as insulation and later became used for flight.
Birds are the avian branch of dinosaurs which in fact never became truly extinct, just modified.
Neither birds nor dinosaurs exhibit the defining characteristics of mammals.
Birds = egg-laying, warm- blooded....not sure if they class as mammals. //
Dinosaurs are reptiles yes, but cold-blooded (poilkilothermic), probably not. Modern reptiles being cold blooded in no way means that all reptiles must have been cold-blooded. Feathers probably evolved as insulation and later became used for flight.
Birds are the avian branch of dinosaurs which in fact never became truly extinct, just modified.
Neither birds nor dinosaurs exhibit the defining characteristics of mammals.
late entry - some good ideas - Darwin did write on language but seems to have realised it mutates according to different rules.
BBC FOUR - Andres Marr on Darwin's Dangerous Idea
I am not sure if Marr wrote this - I dont think he can have as he isnt a scientist - very good historical account.
I hadnt realised Sedgewick had identified Darwin as the man of the future whilst he was travelling on the Beagle ( 1830s).
Tutt's moths ( white to black) change driven by industrialisation
BBC FOUR - Andres Marr on Darwin's Dangerous Idea
I am not sure if Marr wrote this - I dont think he can have as he isnt a scientist - very good historical account.
I hadnt realised Sedgewick had identified Darwin as the man of the future whilst he was travelling on the Beagle ( 1830s).
Tutt's moths ( white to black) change driven by industrialisation
As far as I am aware, all genetic mutations lead to a loss of genetic information, and a subsequent mutation that is not viable.
As always, the defenders of evolution excuse themselves by citing the gaps in the fossil record, and theorising and assumptions become the substitute for facts.
Nailit is justified in being puzzled. I am too.
I am desperate to understand, but do we all need a PhD to grasp the basic concepts?
Creationists are treated as idiots, maybe we are, but partly because like I said earlier, if I was sitting on a jury, and Evolution was in the dock accused of explaining the diversity of life, I would vote, "Not guilty!"
As always, the defenders of evolution excuse themselves by citing the gaps in the fossil record, and theorising and assumptions become the substitute for facts.
Nailit is justified in being puzzled. I am too.
I am desperate to understand, but do we all need a PhD to grasp the basic concepts?
Creationists are treated as idiots, maybe we are, but partly because like I said earlier, if I was sitting on a jury, and Evolution was in the dock accused of explaining the diversity of life, I would vote, "Not guilty!"
// As far as I am aware, all genetic mutations lead to a loss of genetic information, and a subsequent mutation that is not viable. //
nope - antibiotic resistance springs to mind - also Darwins survival of the fittest in that environment
are you saying DNA mutation occurs as a result of God will or do you accept that it is part of the biological reproduction
if the latter then you must accept we have a changing world and wonder what drives it - but that is not in the Bible is it?
IN the prog - white peppered moths tuned black in an industrial environment.
Did god take mercy on them and provide camouflage
or did the black ones persist because the predator didnt see them
The facts are out there - it is your interpretation that matters
and have we had fossils? were they put there by God in the Flood (good biblical ref for that ) or were they ancestors ? form a different time ( deffo NOT in the Bible).
Darwin in Bahia Argentina - used to eat Armadillos for dindins and was struck at how they resembled the fossils he was digging up. He wondered if they were connected ( yes) and how. It was clear they were not created at the same time and one buried and one wasnt.
This was at a time when Cambridge was stuffed full of priests who believed in the creation - coz it is in the Bible see and intelligent design isnt - and from geological formations ( Sedgewick again) it was obvious that they were laid down over very large periods of time ( sedimentary rocks )
by the way have we had: fossils must be created because we dont see them being made before our very eyes ( no evidence see?) so it cant happen
and sedimentary rocks - arent - - - sedimentary. because all the sediments we see are clays shales and mud and not granite. No see - didnt occur -simples
nope - antibiotic resistance springs to mind - also Darwins survival of the fittest in that environment
are you saying DNA mutation occurs as a result of God will or do you accept that it is part of the biological reproduction
if the latter then you must accept we have a changing world and wonder what drives it - but that is not in the Bible is it?
IN the prog - white peppered moths tuned black in an industrial environment.
Did god take mercy on them and provide camouflage
or did the black ones persist because the predator didnt see them
The facts are out there - it is your interpretation that matters
and have we had fossils? were they put there by God in the Flood (good biblical ref for that ) or were they ancestors ? form a different time ( deffo NOT in the Bible).
Darwin in Bahia Argentina - used to eat Armadillos for dindins and was struck at how they resembled the fossils he was digging up. He wondered if they were connected ( yes) and how. It was clear they were not created at the same time and one buried and one wasnt.
This was at a time when Cambridge was stuffed full of priests who believed in the creation - coz it is in the Bible see and intelligent design isnt - and from geological formations ( Sedgewick again) it was obvious that they were laid down over very large periods of time ( sedimentary rocks )
by the way have we had: fossils must be created because we dont see them being made before our very eyes ( no evidence see?) so it cant happen
and sedimentary rocks - arent - - - sedimentary. because all the sediments we see are clays shales and mud and not granite. No see - didnt occur -simples
// like I said earlier, if I were sitting on a jury, and Evolution was in the dock accused of explaining the diversity of life, I would vote, "Not guilty!"//
is this a joke - you know a coy AB joke - of lets play along and say A when i really know ~A is true, because it is funnier if I pretend I dont !
scopes trial
https:/
is Theland hugging himself and thinking "oh I know all that - but I am pretending I dont!" - and the funnest thing is : I have used not guilty whereas Scopes was found Guilty ( of teaching Darwin) !
spot the difference!
and Theland did it all by intelligent design ! ( not by chance !)
is this a joke - you know a coy AB joke - of lets play along and say A when i really know ~A is true, because it is funnier if I pretend I dont !
scopes trial
https:/
is Theland hugging himself and thinking "oh I know all that - but I am pretending I dont!" - and the funnest thing is : I have used not guilty whereas Scopes was found Guilty ( of teaching Darwin) !
spot the difference!
and Theland did it all by intelligent design ! ( not by chance !)
Latest Posts
Body & Soul4 mins ago
Motoring7 mins ago
Crosswords7 mins ago
Film, Media & TV8 mins ago
I Think I've Found P Ps True...
Society & Culture19 mins ago
