Evolution

OscarB63 said:

...is not hard evidence that a fish (maybe you don't know that a whale is not a fish) ever evolved into a reptile...

Click to expand...

I believe the current thoughts about the chain of evolution is that fish evolved into amphibians and then to reptiles, so it's going to be very difficult to show evidence that "a fish ever evolved into a reptile".

Tucker Case said:

I believe the current thoughts about the chain of evolution is that fish evolved into amphibians and then to reptiles, so it's going to be very difficult to show evidence that "a fish ever evolved into a reptile".

Click to expand...

current thoughts....where's the hard evidence? convince me

so where's the hard evidence that a fish evolved into an amphibian or a reptile evolved into a mammal or a dinosaur evolved into a bird?

and WTF did the marsupials evolve from?

OscarB63 said:

current thoughts....where's the hard evidence?

Click to expand...

The fossils of the following transitional genuses: Tiktaalik, Ventastega, Acanthostega, Ichthyostega, when taken together, provide fairly compelling evidence of evolution from fish to amphibians. Whether you wish to consider this "hard evidence" or not is up to you. In my experience, most people who ask for "hard evidence" are really just looking for excuses to to ignore all of the evidence in order to promote something that has no evidence supporting it.

I should also add that when I say "Fish" and "amphibians" I am being very general about it, as these are general terms describing a great many classes of animals, and some of those classes are now extinct.

convince me

Click to expand...

Why would I want to convince you? you are free to believe whatever you want to believe.

Tucker Case said:

The fossils of the following transitional genuses: Tiktaalik, Ventastega, Acanthostega, Ichthyostega, when taken together, provide fairly compelling evidence of evolution from fish to amphibians. Whether you wish to consider this "hard evidence" or not is up to you. In my experience, most people who ask for "hard evidence" are really just looking for excuses to to ignore all of the evidence in order to promote something that has no evidence supporting it.

I should also add that when I say "Fish" and "amphibians" I am being very general about it, as these are general terms describing a great many classes of animals, and some of those classes are now extinct.



Why would I want to convince you? you are free to believe whatever you want to believe.

Click to expand...

I'm not trying to promote anything....

ksu_aviator said:

No, geographic isolation explains why we have different races, but not why part of the species evolved and part did not. If macro evolution where true, then the entire species would have evolved on similar paths rather than some evolving and some not. Further, if macro evolution where true, new races of humans would be evolving from primates today. They are not.

Click to expand...

how do you know? evolution doesn't happen in a century, or even 2,000 years. that argument doesn't hold water, imo.

lpast said:

I put I dont know...because no one can tell me how the VERY first life organism got here and I havent seen Jesus yet...so I just dont now...and neither do any you

Click to expand...

Volcanic lightning may have sparked life on Earth - environment - 16 October 2008 - New Scientist

How 'bout like this?

They've been able to make amino acids from inorganic materials since the 1950's, and these experiments could very well have simulated actual abiogenesis. The conditions simulated in the experiment were incredibly common on Earth for more than a billion years.

How 'bout like this?

Click to expand...

I find planting much more likely. It was something when we figured we're not the center of the universe. Figuring we are not the source of life might be similar. Sending RNA to prospective planets seems more likely than abiogenisis here, and now. We're not the center of the universe or the source of life; deal with it; let's go looksee.

OscarB63 said:

I'm not trying to promote anything....

Click to expand...

Then what are you doing? Are you simply looking to be convinced by someone else that evolution is real?

Paschendale said:

Volcanic lightning may have sparked life on Earth - environment - 16 October 2008 - New Scientist

How 'bout like this?

They've been able to make amino acids from inorganic materials since the 1950's, and these experiments could very well have simulated actual abiogenesis. The conditions simulated in the experiment were incredibly common on Earth for more than a billion years.

Click to expand...

ecofarm said:

I find planting much more likely. It was something when we figured we're not the center of the universe. Figuring we are not the source of life might be similar. Sending RNA to prospective planets seems more likely than abiogenisis here, and now. We're not the center of the universe or the source of life; deal with it; let's go looksee.

Click to expand...

Why would 'Planting' be "more likely"?

And this oft seen rationale is Useless as an explanation. It just kicks the proverbial can down the road.
Always amazed some people are satisfied with that empty write-off.

Paschendale's post at least sets a reasonable hypothetical sequence.

mbig said:

Why would 'Planting' be "more likely"?

Click to expand...

What's more likely? Something like us shot some RNA at who knows how many possibly inhabitable planets (intentionally or not)... or... life spontaneously appeared here. Further, I propose that Pluto is a life-raft. To far, Venus is consumed by greenhouse gasses and Mars is next up to bat. It doesn't take a genius to think that maybe stuff is moving around and not just suddenly appearing right here or all over the place. Evolution itself sets the example, there are three options: Evolve, Go Extinct or Move. Perhaps those options are not mutually exclusive.

ecofarm said:

What's more likely? Something like us shot some RNA at who knows how many possibly inhabitable planets (intentionally or not)... or... life spontaneously appeared here.

Click to expand...

So where did those people come from? At some point, you have to deal with life appearing somewhere without someone already living doing it. And there is absolutely no mathematical way to calculate the "odds" of which is more likely in a hypothetical situation. All we can do is look at the evidence, and see what seems to have occurred.

Also, nothing suggests that this process only happens on Earth. Again, we have no idea how common Earth-like conditions are. If there are other planets out there like this one, there's nothing to stop this same thing from happening there.

Seriously, your argument seems to suggest that life is both common and rare at the same time.

So where did those people come from?

Click to expand...

I dunno where people came from. I just see what's likely, within our limited perception. It is neither that we (the earth) are the center of the universe, nor the source of life. One can jump through hoops with volcano electricity, or accept the obvious - stuff moves around.

OscarB63 said:

and yet there is no hard evidence that a fish ever evolved into a reptile. :shrug:

Click to expand...

You can find examples of the evidence you are looking for in any museum of natural history. For example, the KU Museum of Natural history is full of examples of transitional fossils, and its just a university museum in Kansas. More importantly though, the evidence is in you and me and in every living thing on the planet. For example, we all share 96% of our dna with our closest living relatives chimpanzees.

Chimps, Humans 96 Percent the Same, Gene Study Finds
Evidence of common descent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



When plants or animals become resistant to pesticides, what do you think is happening? It's evolution. When bacteria becomes resistant to antibiotics, that's evolution. Because bacteria multiply so quickly compared to more complex organisms, we can witness changes in bacteria over the course of years or decades that would take hundreds of thousands of years in more complex organisms.

Of course, someone could claim that stuff doesn't move around... and stuff just spontaneously appears. But I'm not buying that. I think stuff came here from somewhere. You can go with magic as the explanation, but not me. No rabbits from hats in my book.

ecofarm said:

Of course, someone could claim that stuff doesn't move around... and stuff just spontaneously appears. But I'm not buying that. I think stuff came here from somewhere. You can go with magic as the explanation, but not me. No rabbits from hats in my book.

Click to expand...

A chemical reaction that can be duplicated over and over again is the exact opposite of magic.

ecofarm said:

Of course, someone could claim that stuff doesn't move around... and stuff just spontaneously (or magically) appears. But I'm not buying that. I think stuff came here from somewhere. You can go with magic as the explanation, but not me.

Click to expand...

Mho says that stuff magically or spontaneously appears?

Even abiogenisis theories don't state that. They state that certain stuff gets changed into other stuff spontaneously.

Paschendale said:

A chemical reaction that can be duplicated over and over again is the exact opposite of magic.

Click to expand...

Oh please. Demonstrate abiogenesis.

Tucker Case said:

Mho says that stuff magically or spontaneously appears?

Even abiogenisis theories don't state that. They state that certain stuff gets changed into other stuff spontaneously.

Click to expand...

Abiogenesis relies upon the unknown and (currently) unprovable. I believe 'my' theory is more sound and has greater evidence; therefore, it is more likely.

ksu_aviator said:

No, geographic isolation explains why we have different races, but not why part of the species evolved and part did not. If macro evolution where true, then the entire species would have evolved on similar paths rather than some evolving and some not. Further, if macro evolution where true, new races of humans would be evolving from primates today. They are not.

Click to expand...

I think you are under a few misconceptions about evolution, and human evolution in particular. We share a common ancestor with chimpanzees and bonobos, and if you go further back, all the great apes.

A species evolving does not necessarily mean that new species will evolve with greater brain capacity and cognitive ability than the preceding species. Evolution does not mean that species "improve" in the sense that humans seek to improve themselves. It means that members of a species that are better adapted to surviving in a given ecosystem will out compete members of that species that are not as well adapted for that ecosystem. This process continues until speciation occurs and a new species arises that is better adapted for that ecosystem (the old species may still be around as well).

For example, its a common misconception that of all the great apes, we are the pinnacle of evolution. In fact, chimps are more evolved than we are.

Chimps 'more evolved' than humans - life - 16 April 2007 - New Scientist

Thriving in the tropical forest ecosystems of equatorial Africa required different adaptions for chimps than thriving on the African Savannah did for us. We evolved with a higher brain capacity and as endurance athletes. Humans are some of the greatest endurance athletes in the animal kingdom. An ultra runner can run a horse into the ground. High endurance and high intelligence served humans and our ancestors quite well as hunter gatherers on the African Savannah. However, in a rain forest ecosystem, endurance is not nearly as advantageous as strength, particularly upper body strength. So we took different evolutionary paths. However, that does not mean that we are the most evolved.

ecofarm said:

Abiogenesis relies upon the unknown.

Click to expand...

how so?

Tucker Case said:

how so?

Click to expand...

You cannot demonstrate abiogenesis. I can demonstrate that evolution involves moving and that stuff moves around. Your evidence is crap; mine is logical. Try to prove logically that stuff just magically poofed up here.

ecofarm said:

What's more likely? Something like us shot some RNA at who knows how many possibly inhabitable planets (intentionally or not)... or... life spontaneously appeared here. Further, I propose that Pluto is a life-raft. To far, Venus is consumed by greenhouse gasses and Mars is next up to bat. It doesn't take a genius to think that maybe stuff is moving around and not just suddenly appearing right here or all over the place. Evolution itself sets the example, there are three options: Evolve, Go Extinct or Move. Perhaps those options are not mutually exclusive.

Click to expand...

As I said, this is complete Nonsense speak.
It just kicks the can down the road.
How did THEY, The 'Planters', "Someone like us", come to Life?
Where did Their "RNA" come from?

"Pluto is a Life-raft"?

(I am not allowed to adequately characterize your 'reasoning' here.)

I am not allowed to adequately characterize your 'reasoning' here.

Click to expand...

Bring it downstairs, bigboy. You can say wtf you want there. Start a thread in my name or stfu about your "reasoning". I've an MSc in Env. Science and a PhD in Ecology, Mr. Science.

I'm waiting for you. /basement

ecofarm said:

Bring it downstairs, bigboy. You can say wtf you want there. Start a thread in my name or stfu about your "reasoning".

Click to expand...

I am not into "bringing it downstairs".. yet. Very Rarely do.
Let's see you defend your Unbelievably weak BS here, in front of all concerned.

Perhaps now your understand, after 2 of my posts and 1 of Paschendale's, the folly of your Nonsensical put-it-off theory and have No answer.
No "up here" answer that is.

Again:
How did THEY, The 'Planters', "Someone like us", come to Life?
Where did Their "RNA" come from? (That they then "shot it" around the Universe.)
Yours, really just a Funny variant creationist theory.

ecofarm said:

You cannot demonstrate abiogenesis. I can demonstrate that evolution involves moving and that stuff moves around. Your evidence is crap; mine is logical. Try to prove logically that stuff just magically poofed up here.

Click to expand...

The article I linked WAS a demonstration of abiogenesis!

Hoyle was one of the big beasts in science at the time. He coined the term "Big Bang" as a sneering reference, which rebounded on him.

Introduction: More than Panspermia. by Brig Klyce