What is evolution, not what some think

originally posted by: borntowatch



I am saying God created every animal exactly as they are today, with slight variations.

Can you explain such a sparse fossil record?
It would help if we could see the lineage of evolution.

How did modern animals survive the dinosaur age?

How did modern animals survive the ice age?

Were there dinosaurs on the ark?

Why have so many species gone extinct?

As for the fossil record:

To make a fossil, an animal has to die in exactly the right place, not have its bones eaten by scavengers or decomposed by fungus & bacteria or weathered away to nothing by the elements.

Then, the bone has to be covered by just the right amount of sediment, with just the right moisture level (too wet, sediment doesn't solidify, too dry, bone never dissolves).

The water permeating the sediment has to have just the right compounds dissolved in it (enough alkali or acid to dissolve the bone, enough minerals already dissolved in the water to replace the dissolved bone).

The sediment then needs to remain untouched for millions of years, to allow both the sediment to solidify into rock, and to allow the mineralization process to occur: the sediment can't be eroded by rivers, wind, or ocean waves.

The rock with the fossil inside then needs to survive millions of years of tectonic activity: if it's near a fault-line, it could be ground down by shifting plates, or subsumed under another plate, to melt down into magma under the surface of the Earth. The fossil-bearing rock can't be melted by volcanic activity on the surface, or destroyed by meteor or lightning strikes, or pushed up to create a mountain range that is then completely eroded away. It can't be buried by avalanche, nor washed away from its expected place by floods.

The area in which the fossil lies also cannot be shifted to an area that eventually becomes the bottom of an ocean, where humans are unlikely to find it (75% of the Earth's surface is now under an ocean, but not all of that was always underwater).

The fossil-bearing rock then must be eroded just enough so that a visible piece of the fossil is exposed (but only exposed long enough to be found: too long, and the elements will wear it away to nothing).

Then, after all that, after millions of years of geological peril, a fossil has to be seen by a human-- one of the tiny few humans who can actually recognize the fossil for what it is, and not just another rock.

As you can see, the odds are amazingly stacked against humans finding fossils.



Lastly, Paleontologists see the lineage of evolution in fossilized remains all the time. It's not difficult to look at the skeletal structure of modern animals and see the similarities with their ancestors. You first have to accept the legitimacy of the relationships in order to see the lineage. You don't see the lineage because you don't believe that the relationships exist in the first place.

a reply to: borntowatch

Watch this video.

originally posted by: borntowatch


I wonder if you deliberately sidestepped my question or didnt read my post.
I thought it was simple and clear

I havnt seen a single clear statement ever replying clearly and concisely, here is your chance.

Prove it was a new trait, not just a dormant pre existing trait

See as i understand it was a dormant trait, prove otherwise and you win

simple isnt it

You have to first define "proof."

You don't want links to scientific studies.

You don't want information copied and pasted from scientific studies.

What, exactly, should I present as "proof" that the larger cranium developed by homo erectus was not a "dormant trait" in homo habillis? How can a trait that has never been seen in a particular species be considered "dormant"?

The reason you refuse to accept anything being presented to you in this thread is because you aren't thinking about the amount of time involved in these changes. If a trait is "dormant", why does it sometimes take millions of years to "awaken"?? You believe this nonsense with ZERO scientific reasoning... just your own manipulation of the data to fit into your world view. That is not how an honest person approaches any subject.

Also, borntowatch, before you throw around "dormant trait" too much, you might want to think long and hard about what you're implying.

You should look up the definition of Atavism since that's basically what you're implying.

Some examples of atavism (or dominant traits being reactivated) recorded in humans:

Babies have been born with a vestigial tail, called "coccygeal process", "coccygeal projection", and "caudal appendage". Atavism can also be seen in humans who possess large teeth, like those of other primates. In addition, a case of "Snake Heart", the presence of "coronary circulation and myocardial architecture which resemble those of the reptilian heart", has also been reported in medical literature.

Some examples of the same in other animals:

-Hind legs on whales or snakes.
-Hind fins on dolphins.
-Extra toes on horses, as in archaic horses.
-Re-emergence of sexual reproduction in the flowering plant Hieracium pilosella and the Crotoniidae family of mites.
-Teeth in chickens.

If the notion of dominant traits reactivating isn't evidence of evolution, I don't know what is.

Critics of evolution, like BornToWatch who doesn’t understand the first thing about evolution, always fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that’s clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it’s also not true. We have seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.

First, get this through your head: A NEW SPECIES IS DEFINED AS A LIFEFORM WHO CANNOT REPRODUCE WITH ITS ANCESTOR. IT CAN ONLY REPRODUCE WITH ITS OWN KIND, OR THE NEW SPECIES.

For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers – the western salsify, the meadow salsify and the oyster plant – were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren’t sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species – the classic definition of a new species.

And just because we can’t see all speciation events from start to finish doesn’t mean we can’t see species splitting. If the theory of evolution is true, we would expect to find species in various stages of separation all over the globe. There would be ones that have just begun to split, showing reproductive isolation, and those that might still look like one species but haven’t interbred for thousands of years. And that’s exactly what scientists find.

The apple maggot fly is a prime example of a species just beginning to diverge. These flies are native to the United States, and up until the discovery of the Americas by Europeans, fed solely on hawthorns. But with the arrival of new people came a new potential food source to its habitat: apples. Over time, some flies realized they could eat the apples and began switching trees. While alone this doesn’t explain why the flies would speciate, a curious quirk of their biology does: apple maggot flies mate on the tree they’re born on. As a few flies jumped trees, they cut themselves off from the rest of their species, even though they were but a few feet away. When geneticists took a closer look in the late 20th century, they found that the two types – those that feed on apples and those that feed on hawthorns – have different allele frequencies – in other words a different code for their genome.

Creationists have no legs to stand on. Speciation happens and happens frequently. The fossil records are full of examples. I'm not going to include any links because I don't want to give BornToWatch acid indigestion or a stroke.

originally posted by: borntowatch
I seem to have to repeat myself an awful lot, I BELIEVE IN MiCROEVOLUTION YES I DO

I seem to have to repeat myself an awful lot, but MICRO & MACRO EVOLUTION ARE THE SAME.

Either you accept evolution as fact, or you do not. There is no halfway. If you believe in micro, you believe in macro because they are not any different. To put it in terms you can relate to: That is like me saying I believe in the bible, and Jesus but not god. It doesn't make sense. You already agreed with every statement I made about evolution originally, so you do believe in evolution after all. It's funny how things work out sometimes.

and saying Macro evolution is millions of years of Micro evolution is not science, its a 1st grade statement. You have been found out

No, that is the primary fact that you deny. You separate macro from micro. They are not different, regardless of how many times you claim otherwise. Prove that micro and macro evolution are different without links! GO! Remember, you can't just say it and hope it's true, you need to prove it. But I'll only accept Encyclopedia Britannica direct sources, none of this online hocus pokus! If you don't set up a lab in my living room and prove this via experiment, you have no argument. You have been found out!!!

And those DNA examples have been observed where, just a little more detail please. I said no links, didnt say no references You cant just say its the truth, you have to prove it. I dont think you have a clue what you are talking about, I want you to explain what you believe not what others believe. I dont think you understand evolution and are to scared to admit it. Even if you said those images come from a Rhino I could chase it up, you said nothing.

LMAO. Yeah I'll give you references alright. Because you are totally going to look them up and read them.

You won't even read a link, and I'm to believe that if I reference a book you will pull it out of the library and read it? Now that's a new level of funny. I didn't think it was possible at this point, but congrats.

Hundreds of experiments have been done with DNA. There is an entire field of science built on this. Are you denying genetics as well?

We are on an online message board, how can anybody prove anything without links to the research? Become a scientist if you want the answers. Don't sit here on a message board scoffing at people who don't share your faith and hate for evolution.

and no red herrings or strawman, DNA is a code and it has information that is passed on just like a designed computer. Your argument is week, nearly non existent.

My analogy is dead on accurate. The fact that you offered no rebuttal whatsoever, only changed the subject speaks volumes. Are there any other fields of science you plan to deny? Thus far you've denied evolution, biology and genetics. How about we go for chemistry next? Let's get it all out of the way now. Cherry pick your science and let me know which theories you accept so we can try to build on that.

You know what I just realised Barcs, you have nothing of value to add to this conversation.
Take away your ability to throw up a wall of texts and you cant explain what you believe. Your understanding of evolution is someone elses, you havnt a clue as to what you believe you believe.

I'm not sure whether to laugh or to feel sorry for you. I explained everything clearly and you offered nothing but denial. It's really a shame that you can't comprehend anything beyond one liners and grammar school concepts. It's never too late to get an education. Many professions will even pay your way through these days. The knowledge is out there. It's your choice what you want to do, but you aren't changing anybody's minds on a message board by slandering evolution as you have.

This is why I stopped responding to you initially. It's funny though, I always seem to give people the benefit of the doubt. See, I believe in redemption, I have faith in humanity. I gave you yet another chance and you squandered it. Time and time again I think to myself, "Yes, this will be the time he responds with a well reasoned explanation rather than denial". Time and time again you prove that I have too much faith in you. I guess this is where we end it... again. Bump this thread in another 4 months and maybe you can sucker me into another wasted conversation trying to explain things to a brick wall.

I have the admit the whole "prove it without links, only direct references" thing is original and hilarious. I also have faith in trolls. This one has done quite well for himself. I believe it has earned itself a reward!

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: borntowatch


I seem to have to repeat myself an awful lot, I BELIEVE IN MiCROEVOLUTION YES I DO

Then why can't millions of years of microevolution culminate in substantial changes?

Now can that be out of the way for a little while

and ok, man didnt come from monkeys, whatever, why dont you show me the evidence of where we came from, prove we didnt come from monkeys.

Actually, modern apes and men have a common ancestor. So no, we didn't "come from monkeys." We're actually an evolved primate.

This is the family tree:

and saying Macro evolution is millions of years of Micro evolution is not science, its a 1st grade statement. You have been found out

What? Microeconomics and Macroeconomics are both ways of studying the principles of economics... one just looks at small-scale changes and the other looks at the bigger picture. Same with micro vs macro evolution. The dichotomy was fabricated by creationists to fit their own agenda. They are not two different types of evolution.

There is one particular aspect of evolution that needs to be given specific attention: the somewhat artificial distinction between what is called “microevolution” and “macroevolution”, two terms often used by creationists in their attempts to critique evolution and evolutionary theory.

Microevolution is used to refer to changes in the gene pool of a population over time which result in relatively small changes to the organisms in the population — changes which would not result in the newer organisms being considered as different species. Examples of such microevolutionary changes would include a change in a species’ coloring or size.

Macroevolution, in contrast, is used to refer to changes in organisms which are significant enough that, over time, the newer organisms would be considered an entirely new species. In other words, the new organisms would be unable to mate with their ancestors, assuming we were able to bring them together.

You can frequently hear creationists argue they accept microevolution but not macroevolution — one common way to put it is to say that dogs may change to become bigger or smaller, but they never become cats. Therefore, microevolution may occur within the dog species, but macroevolution never will.

There are a few problems with these terms, especially in the manner that creationists use them. The first is quite simply that when scientists do use the terms microevolution and macroevolution, they don’t use them in the same way as creationists. The terms were first used in 1927 by the Russian entomologist Iurii Filipchenko in his book on evolution Variabilität und Variation. However, they remain in relatively limited use today. You can find them in some texts, including biology texts, but in general most biologists simply don’t pay attention to them.

You havnt answered a single question, just complained that I generalised with monkeys. Smoke screen for an inability to justify science you believe in?

More like frustration caused by trying to teach Trigonometry to a person who doesn't believe that 2+2=4.

"Prove to me that the earth goes around the sun! Don't just use some stupid scientist's data... prove it yourself!"

Do you see how stupid that argument is? Nobody can walk up to you and show you a box full of evolutionary processes... I don't know what you expect from your "show me your own evidence, not a link" nonsense.

Your understanding of evolution is someone elses, you havnt a clue as to what you believe you believe.

So you'd rather hear someone's opinion than the researched, peer-reviewed, repeatable scientific data presented by professionals?

You're not interested in evidence, but you want to hear what someone believes? That's a completely backwards way of thinking.

I can use science to prove the earth goes around the sun, but its not worth it to you.
You have already made your mind up.

Nice comment about Micro/Macro but its a comment that has no validity, its empty.


and I want a clear concise opinion based on a peer review that is backed up with scientific evidence. Ho Hum

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: borntowatch

Watch this video.

Watch the video, sorry cant I live in the outback, my computer isnt able to download videos, never mind that we dont have anything better than old dial up and well you know, its a cop out because you cant explain it yourself

Cant explain it yourself?

originally posted by: Barcs


I have the admit the whole "prove it without links, only direct references" thing is original and hilarious. I also have faith in trolls. This one has done quite well for himself. I believe it has earned itself a reward!

Please by all means support anything you have to offer with references, references is a little different to using someone elses 50 pages of information to support one single point you want to bury under a pile of irrelevant dribbles

a reply to: borntowatch

I can use science to prove the earth goes around the sun, but its not worth it to you. You have already made your mind up.

You could also use science to see the evidence for evolution for yourself, but you're content not to. You have already made your mind up.

Nice comment about Micro/Macro but its a comment that has no validity, its empty.

Only to you. The scientific community defines and understands the difference in the way Answer described. It's you who's trying to redefine the terms to suit your needs.

and I want a clear concise opinion based on a peer review that is backed up with scientific evidence. Ho Hum

That's been presented to you, you choose to ignore it. All you're really saying here is, "I want to read, but not too much, and only if it'll reinforce the conclusion that I've already reached."

a reply to: borntowatch

You're not satisfied with anything.

You want links.

But won't read them.

You want it put into their own words.

But than dismiss it as them repeating what others say.

You want references.

But what the hell are references if not links or what others say?

Short of being a scientist in the field yourself nothing is good enough.

Seriously, what is your deal? You completely boggle my mind.

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

Answer to that is simple.

The Bible.

a reply to: boymonkey74

The Bible suggests the world is flat and is the center of the universe.

I wonder if he trusts the science that proves that false.

I'm just going to assume no.

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Barcs


I have the admit the whole "prove it without links, only direct references" thing is original and hilarious. I also have faith in trolls. This one has done quite well for himself. I believe it has earned itself a reward!

Please by all means support anything you have to offer with references, references is a little different to using someone elses 50 pages of information to support one single point you want to bury under a pile of irrelevant dribbles

You have a habit of not reading the posts that deliver the information that you requested. You simply ignore them, do absolutely no research on your own and go back to square one i.e. "I want direct evidence, I want scientific proof, I want, I want, I want".

Well everything a sane person would need to know about evidence for evolution - macro, micro, speciation - is right here in this thread - even without links. That you don't get it, is your problem. I think you're intentionally running around in circles and refuse to engage in an intelligent conversation.

originally posted by: iterationzero
a reply to: borntowatch

I can use science to prove the earth goes around the sun, but its not worth it to you. You have already made your mind up.

You could also use science to see the evidence for evolution for yourself, but you're content not to. You have already made your mind up.

Nice comment about Micro/Macro but its a comment that has no validity, its empty.

Only to you. The scientific community defines and understands the difference in the way Answer described. It's you who's trying to redefine the terms to suit your needs.

and I want a clear concise opinion based on a peer review that is backed up with scientific evidence. Ho Hum

That's been presented to you, you choose to ignore it. All you're really saying here is, "I want to read, but not too much, and only if it'll reinforce the conclusion that I've already reached."

Stop preaching at me, back it up with science, I am sick of your religious connotations and evangelism.
USE SCIENCE
Do it of your own bat and not of someone elses, prove you are not a drone repeating what you are taught by messrs Dawkins, justify your point of view.
Prove you know what you are talking about because most evolutionists havnt a clue howtheir beliefs work

a reply to: borntowatch

You are hypocritical. You get mad at people for posting links to scientific studies and evidence so then people try to explain the science to you in their own words and you get mad at them for "preaching" to you. There really is no talking to you.

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: iterationzero
a reply to: borntowatch

I can use science to prove the earth goes around the sun, but its not worth it to you. You have already made your mind up.

You could also use science to see the evidence for evolution for yourself, but you're content not to. You have already made your mind up.

Nice comment about Micro/Macro but its a comment that has no validity, its empty.

Only to you. The scientific community defines and understands the difference in the way Answer described. It's you who's trying to redefine the terms to suit your needs.

and I want a clear concise opinion based on a peer review that is backed up with scientific evidence. Ho Hum

That's been presented to you, you choose to ignore it. All you're really saying here is, "I want to read, but not too much, and only if it'll reinforce the conclusion that I've already reached."

Stop preaching at me, back it up with science, I am sick of your religious connotations and evangelism.
USE SCIENCE
Do it of your own bat and not of someone elses, prove you are not a drone repeating what you are taught by messrs Dawkins, justify your point of view.
Prove you know what you are talking about because most evolutionists havnt a clue howtheir beliefs work

Everything in this thread has been backed up by science - except for you. You're the only one who can't post a link or a reference. Why don't you post a link that supports your view???

a reply to: borntowatch

Stop preaching at me,

No one here is preaching except for you. You have a vehement anti-science stance based wholly on your religious beliefs, even though you claim to accept all of the individual factors of evolution.

back it up with science,

Already done. You refuse to read anything that anyone posts for you directing you to the science.

I am sick of your religious connotations and evangelism.

RIght.

USE SCIENCE Do it of your own bat and not of someone elses, prove you are not a drone repeating what you are taught by messrs Dawkins, justify your point of view.

Can you show me where I've quoted Dawkins anywhere in this thread? You can't, for two reasons:

1. You refuse to read anything.

2. I haven't quoted Dawkins at all. I've cited scientific resources that provide the answers you're looking for.

Prove you know what you are talking about because most evolutionists havnt a clue howtheir beliefs work

Already done. You refuse to read anything that anyone posts for you directing you to the science.

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: iterationzero
a reply to: borntowatch

I can use science to prove the earth goes around the sun, but its not worth it to you. You have already made your mind up.

You could also use science to see the evidence for evolution for yourself, but you're content not to. You have already made your mind up.

Nice comment about Micro/Macro but its a comment that has no validity, its empty.

Only to you. The scientific community defines and understands the difference in the way Answer described. It's you who's trying to redefine the terms to suit your needs.

and I want a clear concise opinion based on a peer review that is backed up with scientific evidence. Ho Hum

That's been presented to you, you choose to ignore it. All you're really saying here is, "I want to read, but not too much, and only if it'll reinforce the conclusion that I've already reached."

Stop preaching at me, back it up with science, I am sick of your religious connotations and evangelism.
USE SCIENCE
Do it of your own bat and not of someone elses, prove you are not a drone repeating what you are taught by messrs Dawkins, justify your point of view.
Prove you know what you are talking about because most evolutionists havnt a clue howtheir beliefs work

If you knew what science was, you wouldn't be asking the same question a hundred times. Get a dictionary.

"and I want a clear concise opinion based on a peer review that is backed up with scientific evidence. Ho Hum"

Let's have some of that from you!!