Is there more proof of Jesus than Evolution?

[griffin1977]

ahhh the ole’ ‘no transitional fossils’ chestnut:
http://www.holysmoke.org/tran-icr.htm

  Transition from primitive jawless fish to sharks, skates, and rays:
      o Cladoselachians (e.g., Cladoselache).
      o Hybodonts (e.g. Hybodus)
      o Heterodonts (e.g. Heterodontus)
      o Hexanchids (e.g. Chlamydoselache) 
  Transition from primitive bony fish to holostean fish:
      o Palaeoniscoids (e.g. Cheirolepis); living chondrosteans such as Polypterus and Calamoichthys, and also the living acipenseroid chondrosteans such as sturgeons and paddlefishes.
      o Primitive holosteans such as Semionotus. 
  Transition from holostean fish to advanced teleost fish:
      o Leptolepidomorphs, esp. Leptolepis, an excellent holostean-teleost intermediate
      o Elopomorphs, both fossil and living (tarpons, eels)
      o Clupeomorphs (e.g. Diplomystus)
      o Osteoglossomorphs (e.g. Portheus)
      o Protacanthopterygians 
  Transition from primitive bony fish to amphibians:
      o Paleoniscoids again (e.g. Cheirolepis)
      o Osteolepis -- one of the earliest crossopterygian lobe-finned fishes, still sharing some characters with the lungfish (the other group of lobe-finned fish). Had paired fins with a leg-like arrangement of bones, and had an early-amphibian-like skull and teeth.
      o Eusthenopteron (and other rhipidistian crossopterygian fish) -- intermediate between early crossopterygian fish and the earliest amphibians. Skull very amphibian-like. Strong amphibian-like backbone. Fins very like early amphibian feet.
      o Icthyostegids (such as Icthyostega and Icthyostegopsis) -- Terrestrial amphibians with many of Eusthenopteron's fish features (e.g., the fin rays of the tail were retained). Some debate about whether Icthyostega should be considered a fish or an amphibian; it is an excellent transitional fossil.
      o Labyrinthodonts (e.g., Pholidogaster, Pteroplax) -- still have some icthyostegid features, but have lost many of the fish features (e.g., the fin rays are gone, vertebrae are stronger and interlocking, the nasal passage for air intake is well defined.) 
  Transition from amphibians to reptiles:
      o Seymouriamorph labyrinthodonts (e.g. Seymouria) -- classic labyrinthodont skull and teeth, with reptilian vertebrae, pelvis, humerus, and digits; amphibian ankle.
      o Cotylosaurs (e.g. Hylonomus, Limnoscelis) -- slightly amphibian skull (e.g. with amphibian-type pineal opening), with rest of skeleton classically reptilian.
      o The cotylosaurs gave rise to many reptile groups of tremendous variety. I won't go into the transitions from cotylosaurs to the advanced anapsid reptiles (turtles and possibly mesosaurs), to the euryapsid reptiles (icthyosaurs, plesiosaurs, and others), or to the lepidosaurs (eosuchians, lizards, snakes, and the tuatara), or to most of the dinosaurs, since I don't have infinite time. Instead I'll concentrate on the synapsid reptiles (which gave rise to mammals) and the archosaur reptiles (which gave rise to birds). 
  Transition from reptiles to mammals:
      o Pelycosaur synapsids -- classic reptilian skeleton, intermediate between the cotylosaurs (the earliest reptiles) and the therapsids (see next)
      o Therapsids (e.g. Dimetrodon) -- the numerous therapsid fossils show gradual transitions from reptilian features to mammalian features. For example: the hard palate forms, the teeth differentiate, the occipital condyle on the base of the skull doubles, the ribs become restricted to the chest instead of extending down the whole body, the legs become "pulled in" instead of sprawled out, the ilium (major bone of the hip) expands forward.
      o Cynodont theriodonts (e.g. Cynognathus) -- very mammal-like reptiles. Or is that reptile-like mammals? Highly differentiated teeth (a classic mammalian feature), with accessory cusps on cheek teeth; strongly differentiated vertebral column (with distinct types of vertebrae for the neck, chest, abdomen, pelvis, and tail -- very mammalian), mammalian scapula, mammalian limbs, mammalian digits (e.g. reduction of number of bones in the first digit). But, still has unmistakably reptilian jaw joint.
      o Tritilodont theriodonts (e.g. Tritylodon, Bienotherium) -- skull even more mammalian (e.g. advanced zygomatic arches). Still has reptilian jaw joint.
      o Ictidosaur theriodonts (e.g. Diarthrognathus) -- has all the mammalian features of the tritilodonts, and has a double jaw joint; both the reptilian jaw joint and the mammalian jaw joint were present, side-by-side, in Diarthrognathus's skull. A really stunning transitional fossil.
      o Morganucodonts (e.g. Morganucodon) -- early mammals. Double jaw joint, but now the mammalian joint is dominant (the reptilian joint bones are beginning to move inward; in modern mammals these are the bones of the middle ear).
      o Eupantotheres (e.g. Amphitherium) -- these mammals begin to show the complex molar cusp patterns characteristic of modern marsupials and eutherians (placental mammals). Mammalian jaw joint.
      o Proteutherians (e.g. Zalambdalestes) -- small, early insectivores with molars intermediate between eupantothere molars and modern eutherian molars.
      o Those wondering how egg-laying reptiles could make the transition to placental mammals may wish to study the reproductive biology of the monotremes (egg-laying mammals) and the marsupials. The monotremes in particular could almost be considered "living transitional fossils". [see Peter Lamb's suggested marsupial references at end] 
  Transition from reptiles to birds:
      o Lisboasaurus estesi and other "troodontid dinosaur-birds" -- a bird-like reptile with very bird-like teeth (that is, teeth very like those of early toothed birds [modern birds have no teeth]). May not have been a direct ancestor; may have been a "cousin" of the birds instead.
      o Protoavis -- this is a highly controversial fossil that may or may not be an extremely early bird. Not enough of the fossil was recovered to determine if it is definitely related to the birds, or not. I mention it in case people have heard about it recently.
      o Archeopteryx -- reptilian vertebrae, pelvis, tail, skull, teeth, digits, claws, sternum. Avian furcula (wishbone, for attachment of flight muscles), forelimbs, and lift-producing flight feathers. Archeopteryx could probably fly from tree to tree, but couldn't take off from the ground, since it lacked a keeled breastbone (for attachment of large flight muscles) and had a weak shoulder (relative to modern birds).
      o "Chinese bird" [I don't know what name was given to this fossil] -- A fossil dating from 10-15 million years after Archeopteryx. Bird-like claws on the toes, flight-specialized shoulders, fair-sized sternal keel (modern birds usually have large sternal keel); also has reptilian stomach ribs, reptilian unfused hand bones, & reptilian pelvis. This bird has a fused tail ("pygostyle"), but I don't know how long it was, or if it was all fused or just part of it was fused.
      o "Las Hoyas bird" [I don't know what name was given to this fossil] -- This fossil dates from 20-30 m.y. after Archeopteryx. It still has reptilian pelvis & legs, with bird-like shoulder. Tail is medium-length with a fused tip (Archeopteryx had long, unfused tail; modern birds have short, fused tail). Fossil down feather was found with the Las Hoyas bird.
      o Toothed Cretaceous birds, e.g. Hesperornis and Ichthyornis. Skeleton further modified for flight (fusion of pelvis bones, fusion of hand bones, short & fused tail). Still had true socketed teeth, which are missing in modern birds.
      o [note: a classic study of chicken embryos showed that chicken bills can be induced to develop teeth, indicating that chickens (and perhaps other modern birds) still retain the genes for making teeth.] 

Now, on to some of the classes of mammals.

  Transitional fossils from early eutherian mammals to primates:
      o Early primates -- paromomyids, carpolestids, plesiadapids. Lemur-like clawed primates with generalized nails.
      o Notharctus, an early Eocene lemur
      o Parapithecus, a small Old World monkey (Oligocene)
      o Propliopithecus, a small primate intermediate between Parapithecus and the more recent O.W. monkeys. Has several ape-like characters.
      o Aegyptopithecus, an early ape.
      o Limnopithecus, a later ape showing similarities to the modern gibbons.
      o Dryopithecus, a later ape showing similarities to the non-gibbon apes.
      o Ramapithecus, a dryopithecine-like ape showing similarities to the hominids but now thought to be an orang ancestor.
      o Australopithecus spp., early hominids. Bipedal.
      o Homo habilis.
      o Homo erectus. Numerous fossils across the Old World.
      o Homo sapiens sapiens. This is us. (NB: "Cro-magnon man" belongs here too. Cro-magnons were a specific population of modern humans.)
      o Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (not on the direct line to H. sapiens sapiens, but worth mentioning).
      o [I haven't described these fossils in detail because they're fairly well covered in any intro biology text, or in any of several good general- interest books on human evolution.] 
  Transitional fossils from early eutherian mammals to rodents:
      o Paramyids, e.g. Paramys -- early "primitive" rodent
      o Paleocastor -- transitional from paramyids to beavers
      o [yick. I was going to summarize rodent fossils but Paramys and its friends gave rise to 5 enormous and very diverse groups of rodents, with about ten zillion fossils. Never mind.] 
  Transitional fossils among the cetaceans (whales & dolphins):
      o Pakicetus -- the oldest fossil whale known. Only the skull was found. It is a distinct whale skull, but with nostrils in the position of a land animal (tip of snout). The ears were partially modified for hearing under water. This fossil was found in association with fossils of land mammals, suggesting this early whale maybe could walk on land.
      o Basilosaurus isis -- a recently discovered "legged" whale from the Eocene (after Pakicetus). Had hind feet with 3 toes and a tiny remnant of the 2nd toe (the big toe is totally missing). The legs were small and must have been useless for locomotion, but were specialized for swinging forward into a locked straddle position -- probably an aid to copulation for this long-bodied, serpentine whale.
      o Archaeocetes (e.g. Protocetus, Eocetus) -- have lost hind legs entirely, but retain "primitive whale" skull and teeth, with forward nostrils.
      o Squalodonts (e.g. Prosqualodon) -- whale-like skull with dorsal nostrils (blowhole), still with un-whale-like teeth.
      o Kentriodon, an early toothed whale with whale-like teeth.
      o Mesocetus, an early whalebone whale
      o [note: very rarely a modern whale is found with tiny hind legs, showing that some whales still retain the genes for making hind legs.] 
  Transitional fossils from early eutherian mammals to the carnivores:
      o Miacids (e.g. Viverravus and Miacis) -- small weasel-like animals with very carnivore-like teeth, esp. the carnassial teeth.
      o Arctoids (e.g. Cynodictis, Hesperocyon) -- intermediate between miacids and dogs. Limbs have elongated, carnassials are more specialized, braincase is larger.
      o Cynodesmus, Tomarctus -- transitional fossils between arctoids and the modern dog genus Canis.
      o Hemicyon, Ursavus -- heavy doglike fossils between the arctoids and the bears.
      o Indarctos -- early bear. Carnassial teeth have no shearing action, molars are square, short tail, heavy limbs. Transitional to the modern genus Ursus.
      o Phlaocyon -- a climbing carnivore with non-shearing carnassials, transitional from the arctoids to the procyonids (raccoons et al.) 
  Meanwhile back at the ranch,
      o Plesictis, transitional between miacids (see above) and mustelids (weasels et al.)
      o Stenoplesictis and Palaeoprionodon, early civets related to the miacids (see above)
      o Tunguricits, transitional between early civets and modern civets
      o Ictitherium, transitional between early civets to hyenas
      o Proailurus, transitional from early civets to early cats
      o Dinictis, transitional from early cats to modern "feline" cats
      o Hoplophoneus, transitional from early cats to "saber-tooth" cats 
  Transitional fossils from early eutherians to hoofed animals:
      o Arctocyonid condylarths -- insectivore-like small mammals with classic mammalian teeth and clawed feet.
      o Mesonychid condylarths -- similar to the arctocyonids, but with blunt crushing-type cheek teeth, and flattened nails instead of claws.
      o Late condylarths, e.g. Phenocodus -- a fair-sized animal with hoofs on each toe (all toes were present), a continuous series of crushing-type cheek teeth with herbivore-type cusps, and no collarbone (like modern hoofed animals).
      o Transitional fossils from early hoofed animals to perissodactyls:
      o [Perissodactyls are animals with an odd number of toes; most of the weight is borne by the central 3rd toe. Horses, rhinos, tapirs.]
      o Tetraclaeonodon -- a Paleocene condylarth showing perissodactyl-like teeth
      o Hyracotherium -- the famous "dawn horse", an early perissodactyl, with more elongated digits and interlocking ankle bones, and slightly different tooth cusps, compared to to Tetraclaeonodon. A small, doggish animal with an arched back, short neck, and short snout; had 4 toes in front and 3 behind. Omnivore teeth.
      o [The rest of horse evolution will be covered in an upcoming "horse fossils" post in a few weeks. To whet your appetite:]
      o Orohippus -- small, 4/3 toed, developing browser tooth crests
      o Epihippus -- small, 4/3 toed, good tooth crests, browser
      o Epihippus (Duchesnehippus) -- a subgenus with Mesohippus-like teeth
      o Mesohippus -- 3 toed on all feet, browser, slightly larger
      o Miohippus -- 3 toed browser, slightly larger [gave rise to lots of successful three-toed browsers]
      o Parahippus -- 3 toed browser/grazer, developing "spring foot"
      o 'Parahippus' leonensis -- a Merychippus-like species of Parahippus
      o 'Merychippus' gunteri -- a Parahippus-like species of Merychippus
      o 'Merychippus' primus -- a more typical Merychippus, but still very like Parahippus.
      o Merychippus -- 3 toed grazer, spring-footed, size of small pony (gave rise to tons of successful three-toed grazers)
      o Merychippus (Protohippus) -- a subgenus of Merychippus developing Pliohippus-like teeth.
      o Pliohippus & Dinohippus -- one-toed grazers, spring-footed
      o Equus (Plesippus) -- like modern equines but teeth slightly simpler.
      o Equus (Hippotigris), the modern 1-toed spring-footed grazing zebras.
      o Equus (Equus), the modern 1-toed spring-footed grazing horses & donkeys. [note: very rarely a horse is born with small visible side toes, indicating that some horses retain the genes for side toes.]
      o Hyrachyids -- transitional from perissodactyl-like condylarths to tapirs
      o Heptodonts, e.g. Lophiodont -- a small horse-like tapir, transitional to modern tapirs
      o Protapirus -- a probable descendent of Lophiodont, much like modern tapirs but without the flexible snout.
      o Miotapirus -- an almost-modern tapir with a flexible snout, transitional between Protapirus and the modern Tapirus.
      o Hyracodonts -- early "running rhinoceroses", transitional to modern rhinos
      o Caenopus, a large, hornless, generalized rhino transitional between the hyracodonts and the various later groups of modern & extinct rhinos.
      o Transitional fossils from early hoofed animals to some of the artiodactyls (cloven-hoofed animals):
      o Dichobunoids, e.g. Diacodexis, transitional between condylarths and all the artiodactyls (cloven-hoofed animals). Very condylarth-like but with a notably artiodactyl-like ankle.
      o Propalaeochoerus, an early pig, transitional between Diacodexis and modern pigs.
      o Protylopus, a small, short-necked, four-toed animal, transitional between dichobunoids and early camels. From here the camel lineage goes through Protomeryx, Procamelus, Pleauchenia, Lama (which are still alive; these are the llamas) and finally Camelus, the modern camels.
      o Archeomeryx, a rabbit-sized, four-toed animal, transitional between the dichobunoids and the early deer. From here the deer lineage goes through Eumeryx, Paleomeryx and Blastomeryx, Dicrocerus (with antlers) and then a shmoo of successful groups that survive today as modern deer -- muntjacs, cervines, white-tail relatives, moose, reindeer, etc., etc.
      o Palaeotragus, transitional between early artiodactyls and the okapi & giraffe. Actually the okapi hasn't changed much since Palaeotragus and is essentially a living Miocene giraffe. After Palaeotragus came Giraffa, with elongated legs & neck, and Sivatherium, large ox-like giraffes that almost survived to the present. 

[MEBuckner]

@Voyager

One more thing to ask our friend - did he personally see the Bible being written under inspiration? Did he see the creation? Did he see Adam and Eve?

While no one has seen a dinosaur, we’ve got bones, skin, and eggs. What do you have? Nuttin’.

Yeah, you know what? I don’t even believe in the Bible. I mean, they say what we have is just some “translation”, and the original was in “ancient Hebrew” and “ancient Greek”, but I don’t speak “ancient Hebrew” or “ancient Greek”. There are people in Greece who speak “Greek” and Israelis who speak “Hebrew”, but they aren’t even the same languages as “Biblical Greek” or “Biblical Hebrew” or whatever. I don’t even think “ancient Greek” was real; I think Christians just made it up, like pig Latin or Klingon.

All this talk about books written in dead languages that I don’t even speak is just silly; it requires an absurd leap of faith to believe this “Bible” thing even exists.

Wheee! This is like tennis without a net! Too bad actually discussing real science is so darned hard.

[diggleblop]

@Voyager

Out of curiousity, what is it you think that hasn’t evolved?

Well, I just feel that not all species evolve. I find it hard to believe that if humans started living in trees, over the period of a few hundred thousand years we would eventually sprout wings and fly. I’m not saying “I think humans don’t evolve” because maybe we do/have, that’s just an example.

Evolution to me is just about the same as Creationism, meaning; something from nothing. I guess both require a bit of faith. Then again, I think evolution and creationism can co-exist. Who’s to say God didn’t create everything and then gave it the ability to evolve? Evolution isn’t creation.

[MEBuckner]

@diggleblop

Well, I just feel that not all species evolve.

Every species has evolved to get to where it is now. Sometimes, if the conditions to which a species is adapted don’t change, then natural selection can result in that species remaining pretty much the way it is for a long time–if it ain’t broke, there is no selective pressure to fix it. There is also the issue of whether or not humans are now in a position to influence our own evolution.

I find it hard to believe that if humans started living in trees, over the period of a few hundred thousand years we would eventually sprout wings and fly. I’m not saying “I think humans don’t evolve” because maybe we do/have, that’s just an example.

Lots of things live in trees without “sprouting wings”. In fact, no four-limbed vertebrate has ever “sprouted wings”–birds, bats, and pterosaurs all modified their forelimbs into wings; various gliding vertebrates typically have done something along those lines as well.

Since humans who “lived in trees” would presumably have ladders and swaying rope bridges from tree to tree and hammers to repair their ladders and bridges and treehouses, I don’t think they would evolve wings in place of their arms.

Evolution to me is just about the same as Creationism, meaning; something from nothing.

Evolution doesn’t mean “something from nothing”. To say it does indicates you really don’t have even a basic grasp of the term; even a basic 17-word dictionary definition, not referring explicitly to the biological concept, is “a gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form” (the definition given for the biological term is “Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species”). Even abiogenesis isn’t “something from nothing”, but rather “the supposed development of living organisms from nonliving matter”.

I guess both require a bit of faith.

Biology doesn’t require any “faith”.

Then again, I think evolution and creationism can co-exist. Who’s to say God didn’t create everything and then gave it the ability to evolve? Evolution isn’t creation.

Belief in a creator of the Universe can co-exist with accepting the facts of modern biology, yes.

[Voyager]

@diggleblop

Well, I just feel that not all species evolve. I find it hard to believe that if humans started living in trees, over the period of a few hundred thousand years we would eventually sprout wings and fly. I’m not saying “I think humans don’t evolve” because maybe we do/have, that’s just an example.

Evolution to me is just about the same as Creationism, meaning; something from nothing. I guess both require a bit of faith. Then again, I think evolution and creationism can co-exist. Who’s to say God didn’t create everything and then gave it the ability to evolve? Evolution isn’t creation.

First of all, you’re right about evolution not discussing creation. The notion that God started everything off and maybe invisibly interfered is unfalsifiable. Those who wish to believe this can - this way of looking at things does not predict anything not predicted by traditional evolution, so is indistinguishable.

One definition of evolution is the variation of the distribution of genes over time. Blonde hair evolved in humans, almost certainly. The different average characteristics of the “races” evolved. Skin color evolved. So species evolve while still staying a species. Evolution is not unconstrained. Humans can’t fly by sprouting wings - we’re too heavy, we don’t have the right muscles, etc. Each change has to be advantageous, or it will be removed from the gene pool.

And evolution is certainly not “something from nothing.” There is always the precursor being, whose offspring change. If you compared a mother and child anywhere down the chain of life, you’d be hard pressed to tell the difference. But tiny changes over hundreds of millions of years add up to big ones.

[DrDeth]

@diggleblop

.

Evolution to me is just about the same as Creationism, meaning; something from nothing. I guess both require a bit of faith. Then again, I think evolution and creationism can co-exist. Who’s to say God didn’t create everything and then gave it the ability to evolve? Evolution isn’t creation.

You’re talking about the “abiotic origin of life on Earth” not Evolution. As I said earlier, the “Abiotic origin of life on Earth” is only a hypothesis, with little solid evidence.

[srmclauren]

@Diogenes the Cynic

The intent of the alleged wanted poster or the intent of my question as to its language?

If you’re asking the former, I have no idea. Perhaps it had some satirical intent. Perhaps it was something else. I don’t know and it really doesn’t matter.

If you were asking the latter, my intent was to point out that nothing written in English could have any ancient Roman (or Palestinian) origin.

The poster is a joke. I mean an intentional satire, yes. It doesn’t matter to you because you choose at this point in your life to ignore it. Keep fighting.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@srmclauren

The poster is a joke. I mean an intentional satire, yes. It doesn’t matter to you because you choose at this point in your life to ignore it. Keep fighting.

I wasn’t talking about your poster.

[srmclauren]

@Apos

I think he was more asking the skeptics: most of us all understand evolution to be the scientific definition of biological evolution.

:rolleyes:

The ark story is not only not supported by the evidence, it’s roundly contradicted by it. Dogs branched off from wolves tens of thousands of years before the literalistic genesis story implies the earth even existed, and they didn’t do it coming off an ark after a worldwide calamity.

There’s nothing preposterous about common descent: unless you grossly misunderstand what it is saying.

Well, of course, you can certainly make this claim, but the fact is that all of this is based on evidence of a sort which, as I said, is far far stronger than most of the sorts of evidence we are used to dealing with in everyday life. That’s because the evidence provides ample opportunity for self-checking and coverging in ways most factual claims just are not broad or long lasting enough to provide.

It takes as much faith to believe in common descent as it does to believe common Designer. You can make claims and create “evidence” to support them, but there is not a shred for a true transitional species. I might choose to remain ignorant of some of the “scientific” evidence presented for common descent just as many of you choose to ignore a common Designer. Show me a transitional species and I’ll begin to listen, but please don’t make it any of the same old tired arguments that have been made up by guys who want to make a name for themselves by forcing the data to fit their preconceived notions. (That’s what creationists do.)

[srmclauren]

@griffin1977

ahhh the ole’ ‘no transitional fossils’ chestnut:
http://www.holysmoke.org/tran-icr.htm

Looks like they all look like their ancestors. Like I didn’t see any, in my cursory examination, no pun intended, of what I would call changes from one type of organism to another. These all look like things that a breeder could accomplish in a finite, maybe even small number of generations, but the fish are still fish and the pigs are still pigs.

They are creating what “looks like” evidence for common descent of all species. But it just won’t fly. It’s kind of like snow, covering up the real story in my book. Wanna read it and dispel some darkness? Or the other option is to choose to ignore it and hope it will go away. Not likely. I will though, as soon as my guest subscription expires. I can hear sighs of relief. Unless some kind person out there wants to pay the price for me??? Not likely?

[srmclauren]

@Diogenes the Cynic

I wasn’t talking about your poster.

But it wasn’t my poster. It is a common “funny” in Christian circles to make an obvious error like this in order to teach or suggest something about Jesus. That’s why the later comment that it proved that they spoke English was so funny, to me anyway.

[srmclauren]

@Diogenes the Cynic

I wasn’t talking about your poster.

…talking about?

[tomndebb]

@srmclauren

I can hear sighs of relief.

I doubt it.
Wandering Creationists, like the wandering monsters in a round of D&D, pass through here all the time. The scientific evidence presented is for the benefit of the lurkers at home who might be led to error by the odd assertions made, but there is neither relief nor any other emotion attached to the departure of a WC, as we know that we will see another soon enough. WCs rarely have enough gravitas to be concerned about.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@srmclauren

Looks like they all look like their ancestors. Like I didn’t see any, in my cursory examination, no pun intended, of what I would call changes from one type of organism to another. These all look like things that a breeder could accomplish in a finite, maybe even small number of generations, but the fish are still fish and the pigs are still pigs.

Well, that’s because it doesn’t just go fish, fish, fish, fishpig, pig, pig…and so on. There were species of fish which over time became more and more adapted for land; they might have small legs, for example, or the ability to stay out of the water for longer.

It sounds odd, but it’s really just a matter of thinking it through logically. For example, imagine a forest. In this forest live a species of ground-dwelling mammal, that eats insects. Let’s say that there’s also a species of predators that eat this mammal. Depending on the numbers of the mammal, they may die out, or they might not. So let’s say some of the mammals are a bit better at climbing trees, though some random mutation. Obviously, these mammals are going to survive more than the normal mammals, if the predators can’t also climb. So over a (long) time, there’ll be more climbing-capable mammals than non-climbing mammals.

This is turn would give an advantage to the predators, so if some of them had a random mutation that made them better at climbing, those climbing predators would also survive more than their non-climbing fellows, since they have greater access to food. So again, the particular mammals who the best at climbing out of their compatriots are going to be more likely to survive.

But now there’s other problems; there’s predators in the trees as well; perhaps snakes, often found at suprisingly high altitudes. So mammals with superior agility and speed will be more likely to survive. And, of course, if you’re going to move from tree to tree, that calls for good hand-eye coordination and dextrousness, so mammals exhibiting superior forms of this are less likely to plummet to the ground. And there may not be the same insects in the trees as on the ground, so mammals that can get more nourishment from fruit or tree insects are going to do better.

So what do we have? Well, over however many thousands of years, we’ve gone from a ground-dwelling insect eating mammal, for example perhaps a large shrew-type creature, to a tree-dwelling fruit/insect eater, like a monkey. There’s no point at which you can say “That creature is half-monkey, half shrew - it’s got a monkey’s limbs, but the face of a shrew”, because all these characteristic develop together. And it’s not a case of a shrew spontaneously giving birth to a monkey, either; just a shrew giving birth to a shrew slightly more well adapted. You can’t draw a line at every point and say “this is a shrew, this is a shrunkey, this is a monkey”; parents and offspring, even for many generations, are likely going to look similar and be able to breed. It’s only when we look at the animals seperated by huge distances that we can say “These two creatures are quite obviously seperate species”.

[Revenant_Threshold]

Oh, and just to say…

@srmclauren

They are creating what “looks like” evidence for common descent of all species.

No. They aren’t creating evidence. What they are creating is a theory about what that evidence means. Unless you’re suggesting they’re actually pretending to dig up fossils, whilst actually secretly making them all out of plastic, they are not creating evidence.

[srmclauren]

@MEBuckner

Every species has evolved to get to where it is now. Sometimes, if the conditions to which a species is adapted don’t change, then natural selection can result in that species remaining pretty much the way it is for a long time–if it ain’t broke, there is no selective pressure to fix it. There is also the issue of whether or not humans are now in a position to influence our own evolution.

Lots of things live in trees without “sprouting wings”. In fact, no four-limbed vertebrate has ever “sprouted wings”–birds, bats, and pterosaurs all modified their forelimbs into wings; various gliding vertebrates typically have done something along those lines as well.

Since humans who “lived in trees” would presumably have ladders and swaying rope bridges from tree to tree and hammers to repair their ladders and bridges and treehouses, I don’t think they would evolve wings in place of their arms.

Evolution doesn’t mean “something from nothing”. To say it does indicates you really don’t have even a basic grasp of the term; even a basic 17-word dictionary definition, not referring explicitly to the biological concept, is “a gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form” (the definition given for the biological term is “Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species”). Even abiogenesis isn’t “something from nothing”, but rather “the supposed development of living organisms from nonliving matter”.

Biology doesn’t require any “faith”.

Belief in a creator of the Universe can co-exist with accepting the facts of modern biology, yes.

…and some that still require some qualifying and explanation.

Biology, in the absolutely true sense, just requires faith in absolute truth. If you include evolutionary theory in the category of biology, you have been a victim of a “bait and switch” scam. You can illustrate quite a few changes in observable reality which fit the definition of evolution, but then you get folks who want to take that information and add their own imagination, cover it in the inscrutability of millions of years, then present the results as fact. Watch out for this bait and switch. It happens quite frequently, even in the professional, scientific community.
(And to a certain extent just now in this thread. Did you notice how I started out with my agreement with what was said, which is genuine, and then switched to my qualifying statements? They indicate possible areas of disagreement. For example, I would capitalize Creator and not universe, but I would heartily agree that there is no contradiction between belief in the Creator and the FACTS/Truth.)

[srmclauren]

@Revenant Threshold

Oh, and just to say… No. They aren’t creating evidence. What they are creating is a theory about what that evidence means. Unless you’re suggesting they’re actually pretending to dig up fossils, whilst actually secretly making them all out of plastic, they are not creating evidence.

Not pretending to dig up fossils, just pretending that the ones they dig up prove the hypothesis or theory they are working on. Didn’t somebody make Nebraska man out of a pig’s tooth or something like that? Wasn’t “Lucy” found in pieces and put together using a lot of imagination? Weren’t the drawings showing the development of human embryos losing their “gills” proven to be a hoax even in the 19th century, yet they are still used in “modern” biology textbooks. There is evidence to suggest that some of the “evidence” is plastic. An interesting book is Buried Alive by Jack Cuozzo, a man who went to Paris to study the teeth in some of the skulls of Neanderthal Man and discovered they had been altered to look like the lower jaw stuck forward. I guess the best way to say it would be that they are trying to force the square peg of their imagination into the round hole of the truth.

[srmclauren]

@Revenant Threshold

Well, that’s because it doesn’t just go fish, fish, fish, fishpig, pig, pig…and so on. There were species of fish which over time became more and more adapted for land; they might have small legs, for example, or the ability to stay out of the water for longer.

It sounds odd, but it’s really just a matter of thinking it through logically. For example, imagine a forest. In this forest live a species of ground-dwelling mammal, that eats insects. Let’s say that there’s also a species of predators that eat this mammal. Depending on the numbers of the mammal, they may die out, or they might not. So let’s say some of the mammals are a bit better at climbing trees, though some random mutation. Obviously, these mammals are going to survive more than the normal mammals, if the predators can’t also climb. So over a (long) time, there’ll be more climbing-capable mammals than non-climbing mammals.

This is turn would give an advantage to the predators, so if some of them had a random mutation that made them better at climbing, those climbing predators would also survive more than their non-climbing fellows, since they have greater access to food. So again, the particular mammals who the best at climbing out of their compatriots are going to be more likely to survive.

But now there’s other problems; there’s predators in the trees as well; perhaps snakes, often found at suprisingly high altitudes. So mammals with superior agility and speed will be more likely to survive. And, of course, if you’re going to move from tree to tree, that calls for good hand-eye coordination and dextrousness, so mammals exhibiting superior forms of this are less likely to plummet to the ground. And there may not be the same insects in the trees as on the ground, so mammals that can get more nourishment from fruit or tree insects are going to do better.

So what do we have? Well, over however many thousands of years, we’ve gone from a ground-dwelling insect eating mammal, for example perhaps a large shrew-type creature, to a tree-dwelling fruit/insect eater, like a monkey. There’s no point at which you can say “That creature is half-monkey, half shrew - it’s got a monkey’s limbs, but the face of a shrew”, because all these characteristic develop together. And it’s not a case of a shrew spontaneously giving birth to a monkey, either; just a shrew giving birth to a shrew slightly more well adapted. You can’t draw a line at every point and say “this is a shrew, this is a shrunkey, this is a monkey”; parents and offspring, even for many generations, are likely going to look similar and be able to breed. It’s only when we look at the animals seperated by huge distances that we can say “These two creatures are quite obviously seperate species”.

Your first keyword, used quite successfully in a lot of advertising, getting people to by all kinds of useless and sometimes destructive stuff, is MIGHT. The next one is IMAGINE. And the only thing the hypothetical shrew is more well adapted to is fooling some folks. I’ve been fooled, and I don’t really enjoy it. I could write a book, possibly co-authored by … I won’t mention any names, entitled “Gullibles Travels” which would document the myriad of deceptions I have witnessed and sometimes fallen for.

What you are describing at the end sounds like what happens to create a mule. I’m just about as stubborn, so you’ll have to show me something more than a shrunky to make me believe they “evolved” from something that crawled out of the ocean.

[srmclauren]

@tomndebb

I doubt it.
Wandering Creationists, like the wandering monsters in a round of D&D, pass through here all the time. The scientific evidence presented is for the benefit of the lurkers at home who might be led to error by the odd assertions made, but there is neither relief nor any other emotion attached to the departure of a WC, as we know that we will see another soon enough. WCs rarely have enough gravitas to be concerned about.

I didn’t know what I was before. It’s good to have a label to go by, though the association with D&D and Water Closets is not pleasing. I hope you will find some of the comments rare enough. As for gravitas, you will think gravitas when you meet the Creator. Hope you’re serious about Him. You can dismiss and ignore me easily enough, but eventually you will have to come to grips with the Truth. You will either be broken or crushed. I prefer falling on the Rock and being broken rather than having the Rock fall on me and being crushed. So don’t concern yourself overmuch about me, but please consider seriously the claims of Jesus Christ.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@srmclauren

It takes as much faith to believe in common descent as it does to believe common Designer.

Accepting the FACT of common descent requires no faith whatsoever. The strongest evidence for it is in retroviral genes. You probably don’t know what those are, but they prove common descent beyond any rational doubt whatsoever. If you’d like to challenge this assertion, please provide an alternative explanation for them besides common descent.

You can make claims and create “evidence” to support them, but there is not a shred for a true transitional species.

No one can “create” evidence and there are lots of transitional forms. They’ve already been cited in this thread.

I might choose to remain ignorant of some of the “scientific” evidence presented for common descent

That’s the first thing you’ve said I agree with.

just as many of you choose to ignore a common Designer.

There is no EVIDENCE for a designer. There is nothing to ignore.

Show me a transitional species

We already have. You’ve chosen to ignore them.