Genesis Creation vs. Darwin's Macroevolution Myth

[Alter2Ego]

What exactly do you want? Evidence from the fossil record? From Vestiges? Atavisms? Dead genes? Bad design? Geographical patterns on continents? Geographical patterns on continental islands vs oceanic islands? Just a few lines of evidence that show evolution is true off the top of my head.

And for humans we have a wonderful line of fossils that show our common ancestry with chimps. We know we share over 98.5 percent of our DNA sequence with chimps. And if evolution is true what kind of fossils should we expect? The older the common ancestor the more it will look like chimps and gorillas but still show some human elements that are coming in. The more recent we get we should start to see more human features come in (larger brains, canine teeth getting smaller, tooth row becoming less rectangular and more curved, and the posture becoming more erect etc) This is exactly what we see

We have fossils for Sahelanthropus tchadensis, Orrorin tugenensis, Australopithecus anamensis, Australopithecus afarensis are a couple of our older ancestors. H. Neanderthalensis, H. Heidelbergensis, H. Erectus, and H. Ergaster are a few of our more recent ancestors. These are just a couple examples. I can lift more if you'd like
All these fossils are really just icing on the cake for the truth of evolution in my opinion

A good book I'd recommend for you to read is Why Evolution Is True by Jerry Coyne. It goes over all this

ALTER2EGO -to- SON OF ALETHEIA:
Let's start with the fossils record. Paleontologists have not found a single bone that connects one kind of creature with something entirely different. So they look at similarities and speculate that the creatures evolved from one another. Meanwhile, for the past 60 years, they have been lamenting the lack of evidence in the fossils. Below are a couple examples of their lamentations along that line. Keep your eyes on the words in bold print within the quotations.

1. "There is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways it has become almost unmanageably rich, and discovery is out-pacing integration...The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps." (George, T. Neville, "Fossils in Evolutionary Perspective," Science Progress, vol. 48 January 1960, pp. 1-3.)


2. "As we shall see when we take up the creationist position, there are all sorts of gaps: absence of graduationally intermediate 'transitional' forms between species, but also between larger groups -- between say, families of carnivores, or the orders of mammals. In fact, the higher up the Linnaean hierarchy you look, the fewer transitional forms there seem to be." (Eldredge, Niles, The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism, 1982, p. 65-66.)


Look at the dates of those quotations. You would think by now they would have found evidence. Not so. But since you claim there is evidence in the fossils, suppose you post a few examples of it here for the rest of us to see.

[Ivellious]

ALTER2EGO -to- IVELLIOUS:
The forum is waiting for you to present examples of the "powerful and overwhelming" scientific evidence for evolution theory. You did not present a shred of scientific evidence to back up your grand claims. You simply told me what you opine.

First of all, yes, I accept evolution. But I spoke the truth. There is no other explanation in the entire scientific community that is "competing" with evolution for superiority, because no one has presented evidence that disproves evolution or supports a new theory. I said what I mean: If you have specific attacks against evolution, bring them forward. If you wish to provide evidence for any other explanation, bring it forward.

If you want me to explain evolution in its entirety in order for my stance to be valid, then that's a load of BS. You can look up the arguments for evolution on wikipedia. The evidence is out there if you look for it. You should also try looking for up to date information...

Let's start with the fossils record. Paleontologists have not found a single bone that connects one kind of creature with something entirely different.

Untrue, but even if you were correct, that's not much of an argument. What, you think we have to find literally every species to ever exist in order to support evolution? Even if evolution was true, that would be impossible. Hence, we take the fossils we find, and their locations and ages, and compare them to other fossils in that region at different parts of the timeline, in order to form logical continuity among similar creatures.

So they look at similarities and speculate that the creatures evolved from one another.

You call it "speculate" as if they just take some random fossils and play "pin the fossil on the timeline" and just make it up from that. You clearly know nothing about how paleontologists work on things like this. Once again, try reading up on some literature from evolutionary biologists or paleontologists on how they actually do their work before making ignorant statements about how they are just making it up.

Meanwhile, for the past 60 years, they have been lamenting the lack of evidence in the fossils. Below are a couple examples of their lamentations along that line. Keep your eyes on the words in bold print within the quotations.

1. "There is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways it has become almost unmanageably rich, and discovery is out-pacing integration...The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps." (George, T. Neville, "Fossils in Evolutionary Perspective," Science Progress, vol. 48 January 1960, pp. 1-3.)


2. "As we shall see when we take up the creationist position, there are all sorts of gaps: absence of graduationally intermediate 'transitional' forms between species, but also between larger groups -- between say, families of carnivores, or the orders of mammals. In fact, the higher up the Linnaean hierarchy you look, the fewer transitional forms there seem to be." (Eldredge, Niles, The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism, 1982, p. 65-66.)

Oh my, oh my...where to start. OK, let's look at your assertion that scientists are "lamenting" a lack of fossils to fill in evolutionary history. That's not even close to true. How about your expert analysis that supports your point? Are they solid?

Quote 1: Yeah, because a random quote from a journal that I can't even find on the internet from 1960 is good scientific material. First of all, 1960? Are you seriously taking something from 1960 and saying that it is perfectly relevant to science today? You don't think paleontology or biology have changed at all since then? and what is actually being said is interesting, as well. Essentially, he is admitting that we have not found a fossil for every species to ever walk the Earth, yet the number of species that we have found has grown exponentially. So, basically he is pointing out that we should continue looking for evidence and fossils instead of slowing down. Which itself says nothing about evolution.

Quote 2: Once again, your source is woefully outdated. And even worse, not actually a scientific source at all. I must admit, at first I thought that the book must have been a creationist attack on evolution, but as it turns out the author was a strong supporter of evolution, and this book is simply a book pointing out how creationists argue against evolution (and, of course, completely discrediting their scientific validity in the process). In fact, when I read the reviews of the book, they point out that much of the book is devoted to explaining the fossil record and how it is used to explain evolution, and why the creationist arguments against it are not true.

In short, you have taken a random quote out of the book to misrepresent the author's intent. Congrats on committing intellectual libel, in a sense. Perhaps you should actually pick up this book and read it...you might learn something about why creationist arguments against evolution don't stand up to evolutionary theory.

Look at the dates of those quotations. You would think by now they would have found evidence. Not so.

Please tell me you are joking. These dates are ancient in scientific terms, and one of them is from a book, not a scientific journal. If you really think science has not evolved and gained knowledge since 1960, then you need to learn about science in general, and I would love to help you with that, but somehow I don't think you really want that.

[Alter2Ego]

Seems the issue is the whole "macro vs micro" evolution thing.
It should be noted that evolutionary biologist don't really use the term "macro evolution" that much ( if at all).
Basically, the lay-persons definition of macro evolution tends to be quite different than that of EB.
IN a nutshell, the moment one species has changed enough from its original "group" that it can no longer breed successfully with it, it is a new species ( since it can breed withing itself) and macro evolution has occurred.

ALTER2EGO -to- PAUL SACRAMENTO:
Your point being?

It matters not that pro-evolution scientists do not use the term "macroevolution" that much. The fact remains that's what the entire evolution theory is based on, namely, that every biological being that has ever existed on earth evolved from a "common ancestor."

Every biological being, as you know, includes fish, bird, animals, plants, humans, etc. If they all evolved from a common ancestor, it means they macro-evolved. There is no evidence to prove any of this, mind you. The entire evolution theory is speculation-driven.

EX:
A group of wolves (B) branches out from its main group(A).
Over generations and generations of change and random mutations ( 1000's of years or longer) group B has evolved differently enough from group A that they can no longer breed.
Group B is a different spec ices than group A due to evolutionary changes that happened to both groups over the vast period of time.

Where is the scientific evidence to prove this? You presented speculations and nothing else besides. The fossils record says none of that happened.

[SonofAletheia]

ALTER2EGO -to- SON OF ALETHEIA:
Let's start with the fossils record. Paleontologists have not found a single bone that connects one kind of creature with something entirely different. So they look at similarities and speculate that the creatures evolved from one another. Meanwhile, for the past 60 years, they have been lamenting the lack of evidence in the fossils. Below are a couple examples of their lamentations along that line. Keep your eyes on the words in bold print within the quotations.

1. "There is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways it has become almost unmanageably rich, and discovery is out-pacing integration...The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps." (George, T. Neville, "Fossils in Evolutionary Perspective," Science Progress, vol. 48 January 1960, pp. 1-3.)


2. "As we shall see when we take up the creationist position, there are all sorts of gaps: absence of graduationally intermediate 'transitional' forms between species, but also between larger groups -- between say, families of carnivores, or the orders of mammals. In fact, the higher up the Linnaean hierarchy you look, the fewer transitional forms there seem to be." (Eldredge, Niles, The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism, 1982, p. 65-66.)


Look at the dates of those quotations. You would think by now they would have found evidence. Not so. But since you claim there is evidence in the fossils, suppose you post a few examples of it here for the rest of us to see.

I don't think quotes from over 50 years ago is really relevant. The fossil species Tiktaalik Roseae was found in 2004 for example.

But regardless, the transitional forms are abundant. For the transition from fish to amphibians we have the lobe-finned fish, Eusthenopteron foordi (dated around 385 million years ago) to a land-dwelling tetrapod, Acanthostega Gunnari (dated around 365 million years ago). And the recently found Tiktaalik Roseae which is a perfect example of a transitional form (dated around 375 million years ago). Notice the dating even fits perfectly. This transitional form is exactly what we'd expect to see: The Tikaalik has amphibian features (flat heads and bodies, a distinct neck, well-developed legs and limb girdles etc) and also had fish-like features (scales, limb bones, head bones etc).

For the transition from reptiles to birds we have a small, bipedal, carnivorous theropod dinosaur Compsognathus, the transitional form Archaeopteryx, and then we have a bird (example a chicken).
Again the transitional form is exactly what we would expect to see. It has some bird-like qualities and some dinosaur-like qualities. It has feathers and an opposable big toe but also has a skeleton like a dinosaur, teeth, a reptilian pelvis and a long bony tail.

I could also get into the fossil record for the whale (land back to sea), for humans, horses etc. But I think you get the idea. The fossil record looks exactly like it should if evolution is true. There are no legitimate opposing theories held by scientists because there is no serious debate.

[PaulSacramento]

Seems the issue is the whole "macro vs micro" evolution thing.
It should be noted that evolutionary biologist don't really use the term "macro evolution" that much ( if at all).
Basically, the lay-persons definition of macro evolution tends to be quite different than that of EB.
IN a nutshell, the moment one species has changed enough from its original "group" that it can no longer breed successfully with it, it is a new species ( since it can breed withing itself) and macro evolution has occurred.

ALTER2EGO -to- PAUL SACRAMENTO:
Your point being?

It matters not that pro-evolution scientists do not use the term "macroevolution" that much. The fact remains that's what the entire evolution theory is based on, namely, that every biological being that has ever existed on earth evolved from a "common ancestor."

Every biological being, as you know, includes fish, bird, animals, plants, humans, etc. If they all evolved from a common ancestor, it means they macro-evolved. There is no evidence to prove any of this, mind you. The entire evolution theory is speculation-driven.

EX:
A group of wolves (B) branches out from its main group(A).
Over generations and generations of change and random mutations ( 1000's of years or longer) group B has evolved differently enough from group A that they can no longer breed.
Group B is a different spec ices than group A due to evolutionary changes that happened to both groups over the vast period of time.

Where is the scientific evidence to prove this? You presented speculations and nothing else besides. The fossils record says none of that happened.

Here you go:
This is part 1, go through them and I think your questions will be addressed:
http://biologos.org/blog/evolution-basi ... ry-biology

[Alter2Ego]

Actually you don't even need fossils, just look at the DNA evolving.

ALTER2EGO -to- NEO-X:
Of course the pro-evolution community does not "need" fossils. You can't need what does not exist. That's why fossils are not "needed." How convenient.

BTW: DNA does not prove evolution theory. But since you are making the claim, I am sure you will have no problem demonstrating that for the rest of us.

[Alter2Ego]

ALTER2EGO -to- SON OF ALETHEIA:
1. "There is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways it has become almost unmanageably rich, and discovery is out-pacing integration...The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps." (George, T. Neville, "Fossils in Evolutionary Perspective," Science Progress, vol. 48 January 1960, pp. 1-3.)


2. "As we shall see when we take up the creationist position, there are all sorts of gaps: absence of graduationally intermediate 'transitional' forms between species, but also between larger groups -- between say, families of carnivores, or the orders of mammals. In fact, the higher up the Linnaean hierarchy you look, the fewer transitional forms there seem to be." (Eldredge, Niles, The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism, 1982, p. 65-66.)

I don't think quotes from over 50 years ago is really relevant. The fossil species Tiktaalik Roseae was found in 2004 for example.

ALTER2EGO -to- SON OF ALETHEIA:
The rule of reference is that factual statements remain acceptable until they are usurped by something more current. Even U.S. Court cases rely on decades old cases when making rulings--until new precedence is set and the decades-old court cases lose their credibility. Nothing has changed within the fossils record since those quotations were made that I quoted above. Below is another quotation from as recently as 2001, during which the same lamentations about gaps in the fossils record were being made.

4. "Given the fact of evolution, one would expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change from ancestral forms to the descendants. But this is not what the paleontologist finds. Instead, he or she finds gaps in just about every phyletic series." (Ernst Mayr-Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University, What Evolution Is, 2001, p.14.).

I don't think quotes from over 50 years ago is really relevant. The fossil species Tiktaalik Roseae was found in 2004 for example.

Please explain what is relevant about fossil species Tiktaalik Roseae being discovered in 2004, especially since it does not connect to the fossils of anything else that would have "evolved" from it.

[SonofAletheia]

Why did you completely ignore the transitional fossils I've shown you? That was the majority of my post and you just talked about me questioning a 50 year old quote.

Which by the way is sort of pointless. Well over 95% of scientists believe in evolution (http://www.evolutionfaq.com/faq/isnt-it ... -evolution)

So I could start quoting scientists right back but that wouldn't really help things I'm guessing.

Edit: And you completely ignored the fossil's I listed in the previous post where I listed well established fossils that show our common ancestry with chimps.

[Alter2Ego]

Why did you completely ignore the transitional fossils I've shown you? That was the majority of my post and you just talked about me questioning a 50 year old quote.

ALTER2EGO -to- SON OF ALETHEIA:
I said far more than that. I provided a quotation from 2001 in which Ernst Mayr, an avid pro-evolution scientist, admitted that there are no transitional fossils, as follows:

4. "Given the fact of evolution, one would expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change from ancestral forms to the descendants. But this is not what the paleontologist finds. Instead, he or she finds gaps in just about every phyletic series." (Ernst Mayr-Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University, What Evolution Is, 2001, p.14.).

Within the very same post where I quoted the above, I addressed your claims about fossil species Tiktaalik Roseae, as follows:

Please explain what is relevant about fossil species Tiktaalik Roseae being discovered in 2004, especially since it does not connect to the fossils of anything else that would have "evolved" from it.

Ernst Mayr's admission says it all, and nothing has changed since he made that admission in 2001. It seems you want me to address every single supposed fossil transition that you mentioned in your previous post, when it has already been stated by Ernst Mayr and others that there are no transitional fossils. So I will elaborate on a few of your examples supposed fossil transitions beginning in my next post.

[SonofAletheia]

So if I start quoting from the 95%+ of scientist who believe in evolution will you be convinced? You seem to think that you quoting from arbitrary scientists from 15-50 years ago will change our minds and defeat the evidence we show.

You know this is not how debate works. This is not even how we find truth. You can't just go google searching for quotes that support your position and then copy-paste them and expect to win an argument.

I've listed numerous fossils (many of which have been found within the past 10 years). All of which fit perfectly with what evolution has to say. The dating, the attributes/forms of the transitional fossils, and more.

And this is just one of the many lines of evidence that support evolution. Like I mentioned in my first post, we can talk about 5-6 other lines of evidence if you want.

[Alpha~Omega]

You know, one really has to question the validity of these transitional fossils. I mean, have you looked at the different shapes a humans skull can be? There are many different shapes it seems. Apply this reasoning to the line of great apes. What im trying to say is that it seems like certain variables have been left out, perhaps because of bias. After all, it certainly wouldn't be the first time a scientist let bias get in the way. Just look at Nebraska man. So, it could very well be wishful thinking.

Which by the way is sort of pointless. Well over 95% of scientists believe in evolution (http://www.evolutionfaq.com/faq/isnt-it ... -evolution)

In the link it says this too...

"Gallup polls also show that 95% of all scientists accept evolution, though it should be noted that this figure includes scientists who study in unrelated fields, like Computer Science, Engineering, etc"

While not a deal breaker, this seems like a highly liberal estimation. I wouldn't feel so comfortable about leaning on the idea that just because X amount of people believe in something doesn't necessarily deem it to be true (argumentum ad populum). But that's pretty elementary; or at least I hope it is.

Back to fossils:

RTB, has a good video addressing the types of evolution, as well as giving examples of each kind. It is pretty basic, but is very convincing:

http://www.reasons.org/videos/through-t ... olution-sd

I'll expand on this later.

[SonofAletheia]

You know, one really has to question the validity of these transitional fossils. I mean, have you looked at the different shapes a humans skull can be? There are many different shapes it seems. Apply this reasoning to the line of great apes. What im trying to say is that it seems like certain variables have been left out, perhaps because of bias. After all, it certainly wouldn't be the first time a scientist let bias get in the way. Just look at Nebraska man. So, it could very well be wishful thinking.

It's more than just minor differences like shapes of heads. The fossil of the Tikaalik roseae has uncanny similarities with fish and the land-dwelling tetrapods. And it's dated right in between the two. Same with the Archaropteryx, the Microraptor gui, the Sinornithosaurus millenii, the Rodhocetus, the Dorudon, or the Sphecomyrma freyi. Just to name a few. The dating of these fossils combined with the forms they posses make them ideal transitional fossils.

And to take a step back: Simple organisms evolved before complex ones, the oldest life is quite simple, the most recent fossils are the most similar to living species, more complex life-forms are more recent, and we have excellent transitional fossil forms for the major groups. This makes perfect sense with evolution and no sense with any non-evolutionary theory.

While not a deal breaker, this seems like a highly liberal estimation. I wouldn't feel so comfortable about leaning on the idea that just because X amount of people believe in something doesn't necessarily deem it to be true (argumentum ad populum). But that's pretty elementary; or at least I hope it is.

It was never my intention to necessarily prove a point with these statistics. I agree completely that would be argumentum ad populum. I was just saying that Alter cannot just post random quotes from scientists from 50 years ago and that will dismiss all my arguments. When on the other hand I could do the same and with 95% of scientists behind me.
He's yet to address any of the facts I've shown.

What the stats do clearly show is that the more educated one is, the more likely they are to believe in evolution. Which is difficult to swallow if you are against evolution. Obviously that doesn't prove its right; but its interesting.

[hughfarey]

New to the forum, I am interested in this discussion as instead of displaying two sides to a single argument it appears to me to show two sides to two different arguments, which may account for the frustration i percieve on both sides.

I am a Christian and an evolutionary biologist, and am well aware of the problems which still remain to be solved. Every new fossil, or DNA analysis of a living organism, both fits into the model we have spent the last hundred years refining, and raises very specific problems of its own. Exactly what the pressures were that resulted in the evolution of this organism or that, the precise details of the flow of a river, the arising of volcanic island or the erosion of a mountain chain, for example, are discussed in minute detail. The facts may not be known, but plausible explanations must be found, or the edifice tumbles down.

Now I'm aware that there are different varieties of 'creationist,' but I think that in order to participate in their own discussions, some attention to details must be paid. So I'd very much like someone to tell me what might have been seen by a theoretical observer as the first tiger was created. From this speculation, further evidence may be adduced logically. Was there simply a patch of forest (created earlier) without a tiger in it, and then a tiger suddenly appeared? Was it an adult or young, and did it have the appearance of age, or was it a sort of epitome of tigerhood? Was it hungry? Presumably there were at least two, or maybe several in order to create sufficient genetic diversity to maintain the genus? Did they all appear at once? In different places? Or was the actual creative moment a sort of generalised cat, from which, say, lions, tigers and leopards subsequently diversified? If so, what sort of cat was it, and what did it live on?

I do not expect detailed evidence of any of these, of course, any more than the evolution of a whale from a hippo is known in exact detail, but I would genuinely like to know what 'creationists' believe happened, in order to explore their hypothesis to the same extent as I have my own.

[RickD]

Hughfarey,
Your profile says you're Christian, and you don't believe in creation. Could you explain that for us please?

[Philip]

Hughfarey,
Your profile says you're Christian, and you don't believe in creation. Could you explain that for us please?

Yes, Hugh, what ye say about Adam and Eve - were they real beings or not? Is their story merely allegorical? How was Adam created instantly, from dust, after all animals, given breath only after his creation? There was no female creature suitable for Adam - Scripture says Eve was created from Adam. What about all of this? Were Adam and Eve originally hominids which God infused with souls? Was the fall of man real? Did God just make it all up? A story referred to by Jesus and others in the New Testament - true or not? What's the deal, as you see it?

And as God was preparing earth's conditions for man - before Adam - why would there not have been extinctions and new species created? As God had the ability to create creatures from basic templates (most having symmetrical features: legs, arms, feet, eyes,, one head, mouth, tongue, etc), why is it not also possible that what some see as species linked through evolutionary processes are not instead creations from templates that God created from, allowed to go extinct, newly created species taking their place? Surely you wouldn't say that God lacks the ABILITY to create in such a way? How do you account for the incredible explosion of the Cambrian, from such simple lifeforms, yet in such an extremely narrow window (evolutionary speaking) of time? How is this at all possible? Who hit the evolution extreme-FF button? Mutations being rare and generally unstable and problematic - often sterile - and yet they are one of the key mechanisms of evolution?