Evolution Questions

[Monfang]

Why aren't there bodies of creatures who only partially evolved and only bodies of fully evolved creatures who for some reason where able to die and not be eaten or touched?

[Kuroikaze]

Your question makes no sense, there is no such thing as a "partially evolved" creature, to ask this question shows that you are simply very ignorant of evolutionary biology. It is such a horrible question I am not even sure how to explain your wrongness on this topic. You need to start with a high-school biology text book and move on from there. What do you expect? Some weird mutant with an arm growing out of his forehead? Every animal will look normal or "fully evolved" to use your poor wording.

 

As for not being eaten or touched, first things are fossilized VERY rarely, I doubt if even 0.00001 % of every thing that has lived became fossilized. Second, have you ever looked at fossils? It is very VERY rare to find a fossil that is mostly complete, because they often ARE disturbed, bones are spread out, and many are often missing. Of course there are rare fossils that are found mostly complete, usually because some kind of disaster killed the animal and then covered it up very quickly, like a serious earthquake or volcano.

[Monfang]

What I mean to try and say is this:

 

"But the fossil record has been against the Darwinian theory from the very beginning. It's true that different kinds of organisms lived on the earth at different times. But what is not seen in the fossil record is the steady progressive change of one kind of thing into something completely different. Instead, if something new shows up in the rocks, it shows up all at once and fully formed, and then it stays the same."

http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/fossil.htm

[agjohnson]

Christians like to claim this, despite it being completely untrue. The evolution of the eye is a prime example. It evolved over many steps, from light sensitive pigments, to light sensitive cups, to pinhole light sensors with directionality, to fully enclosed light sensors with more sensitive light cells, to fully enclosed light sensors with rudimentary lenses, to systems with better lenses, to systems with focusing capability. All of this happened in steps. To say that the eye pops up fully formed is completely false.

[Monfang]

Christians like to claim this, despite it being completely untrue. The evolution of the eye is a prime example. It evolved over many steps, from light sensitive pigments, to light sensitive cups, to pinhole light sensors with directionality, to fully enclosed light sensors with more sensitive light cells, to fully enclosed light sensors with rudimentary lenses, to systems with better lenses, to systems with focusing capability. All of this happened in steps. To say that the eye pops up fully formed is completely false.

 

Mhmm... you got the proof? Pictures or fossilized eyeballs?

[Super FZL]

Why aren't there bodies of creatures who only partially evolved...?

 

If by "partially evolved," you mean "in a transition from one species to another," I can offer some insight. First you must know that species is a "group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring." Anything that can evolve is a species of some sort, because evolution takes place as natural selection runs its course through reproduction. Here are some examples of animals that you may consider "partially evolved."

 

Homo Erectus - a hominid from Africa. Certainly not human; certainly not monkey.

 

Homo Ergaster - another hominid from Africa

[Kuroikaze]

What I mean to try and say is this:

 

"But the fossil record has been against the Darwinian theory from the very beginning. It's true that different kinds of organisms lived on the earth at different times. But what is not seen in the fossil record is the steady progressive change of one kind of thing into something completely different. Instead, if something new shows up in the rocks, it shows up all at once and fully formed, and then it stays the same."

http://www.straight-...tion/fossil.htm

 

Except you are entirely and compltely wrong.

 

First look at the quote you use, you are getting VERY bad information.

 

It uses this term "fully formed" Well of course its FULLY formed, if it wasn't then it could not live or function. The problem is that you (who do not understand biology or evolution) is reading and getting information from someone who understands it JUST AS LITTLE as you do. If you would study ACTUAL science instead of some idiots summary of his understanding of it.....

 

This guy wrong, on many many levels, so wrong that I do not even know were to begin.

 

A criticism of the evolutionary idea was, and is, the lack of the hypothesized intermediates between one species and another. If land animals truly came from sea creatures, one would expect to find plenty of evidence of this, such as fossils of fish with their fins turning into legs. Darwin wrote in his Origin of Species that "innumerable transitional forms must have existed." The predicted large numbers of fossil intermediate forms were never found.

 

Take this quote for example, scientists HAVE, in fact, found just these sorts of things, but because creationists grossly misunderstand the term transitional they deny the transitional fossils that have been found are REALLY transitional

 

I would suggesting watching a few of this guys videos

 

http://www.youtube.com/user/AronRa

[Wertbag]

I'm interested to hear what the alternative is? It sounds like by saying "It's true that different kinds of organisms lived on the earth at different times" that the particular Christian this quote came from believes in an old earth, but probably not in a story that matches Genesis?

To believe in an old earth, and creation, and that creatures were spread through their own time periods, wouldn't this mean God would have to have returned many times to do his creation magic over and over again?

Did God just get bored of dinosaurs so wiped them out with a meteor and started again?

[Ouroboros]

Why aren't there bodies of creatures who only partially evolved and only bodies of fully evolved creatures who for some reason where able to die and not be eaten or touched?

You, I, everyone, and every living thing is a partially evolved body. Every single dead body you find is a partially evolved body. Every form is a transitional form B, from body A to body C.

 

So just look in the mirror, and you'll see one.

[Monfang]

Nice try. But recent discoveries have debunked the "evolutionary line" that is used to describe human evolution.

 

But the idea that a "species is a group of animals that interbreed" suggests that say... a lion can only breed with a lion.

 

What about the Liger?

 

What about the Savanna Cat for that matter.

 

oh hey, read this. Apparently our "evolution" wan't a straight line.

 

http://news.scotsman.com/latestnews/African-skulls-find-throws-story.3314779.jp

[Monfang]

Did God just get bored of dinosaurs so wiped them out with a meteor and started again?

Not really the point of this but I will like to note that the Bible contains a chapter and a half of text about Dinosaurs. :3

[Monfang]

What I mean to try and say is this:

 

"But the fossil record has been against the Darwinian theory from the very beginning. It's true that different kinds of organisms lived on the earth at different times. But what is not seen in the fossil record is the steady progressive change of one kind of thing into something completely different. Instead, if something new shows up in the rocks, it shows up all at once and fully formed, and then it stays the same."

http://www.straight-...tion/fossil.htm

 

Except you are entirely and compltely wrong.

 

First look at the quote you use, you are getting VERY bad information.

 

It uses this term "fully formed" Well of course its FULLY formed, if it wasn't then it could not live or function. The problem is that you (who do not understand biology or evolution) is reading and getting information from someone who understands it JUST AS LITTLE as you do. If you would study ACTUAL science instead of some idiots summary of his understanding of it.....

 

This guy wrong, on many many levels, so wrong that I do not even know were to begin.

 

But the point is. If there was a failed evolution where is the fossil?

 

http://www.vedicsciences.net/articles/darwin-debunked.html

[Ouroboros]

Nice try. But recent discoveries have debunked the "evolutionary line" that is used to describe human evolution.

And recent discoveries have debunked the debunking of the so called "evolutionary line." Just kidding. The question is not about if we are related to the animals, but if we came from the animals in a straight line. The tree of life isn't a tree anymore, it's a network diagram, but it has not removed the relations.

 

And it's obvious from the DNA that we have a common ancestor to the chimps.

 

Sorry. Nice try. But you failed.

 

But the idea that a "species is a group of animals that interbreed" suggests that say... a lion can only breed with a lion.

No. It doesn't say that. Your lack of knowledge is showing.

 

The categorization of species is overall not an exact science.

 

Look into ring species for instance.

 

What about the Liger?

 

What about the Savanna Cat for that matter.

 

oh hey, read this. Apparently our "evolution" wan't a straight line.

Exactly. It wasn't a straight line. That part of understanding evolution has changed, but it doesn't change the fact that we are related to the animals.

 

There's a difference between a straight line and multiple crossing lines. But it doesn't change the fact that the lines are there.

 

http://news.scotsman.com/latestnews/African-skulls-find-throws-story.3314779.jp

Right. So there were some intermediate steps instead of a direct line... and that means that there is still a relationship... yes? Or was that too complicated for you?

[Midnight-mindwanderings]

I'm with you Kurio... these questions make my brain hurt.

 

Here is the first thing you have to understand about species: its a human invention of ordering animals for our convenience. Thus the idea of transitional species is somewhat flawed because it evokes the idea of animals that are only half way between species in our modern understanding of where they are currently. We get questions like, "If humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" Here is an easier way to understand: everything is always in transition.

 

Environmental stress will cause more drastic changes over time whereas a species well suited for its environment will change more slowly. So when populations of a species separate into different environments they will evolve differently and at different rates in accordance to natural selection within the environment they live. Or it will simply become extinct and that happens more often than not.

 

There is no such thing as partially evolved. Only whole animals exist. The fossils we see of animals in transition between reptile and bird are fully formed creatures in their own right. It is we who place parameters of speciation on them.

 

There is no species barrier that prevents enough micro evolutions to produce a "macro" evolution. Its the exact same process.

[Monfang]

So.. Homo Erectis has been "in transition" for... 1.5 million years?

 

....with the discovery this year of a 1.5 million-year-old footprint in northern Kenya – - the oldest relic of primitive man since Mary Leaky discovered 3.75 million-year-old tracks in the volcanic ash of northern Tanzania.Darwinist scientists who the footprint discovered in Kenya reluctantly came to the conclusion that it was made by Homo Erectus who had no business appearing in the lower Paleolithic period of world history.

 

By scanning the footprints with lasers and measuring sediment compression, the scientists determined that the individual who left this print had a modern foot and stride: a mid-foot arch, straight big toe and heel-to-toe weight transfer.

 

 

http://nocompromisemedia.com/2009/07/10/darwin-debunked-by-shocking-discovery/

[Midnight-mindwanderings]

Wow. Citing a blog. I'm convinced

[Monfang]

Wow. Citing a blog. I'm convinced

So debunk it.

 

hey, try this: http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=66517

[Super FZL]

Nice try. But recent discoveries have debunked the "evolutionary line" that is used to describe human evolution.

 

But the idea that a "species is a group of animals that interbreed" suggests that say... a lion can only breed with a lion.

 

What about the Liger?

 

What about the Savanna Cat for that matter.

 

oh hey, read this. Apparently our "evolution" wan't a straight line.

 

http://news.scotsman.com/latestnews/African-skulls-find-throws-story.3314779.jp

 

You misquoted my above post where I said, "species is a 'group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring.'" Ligers cannot reproduce and make more ligers. Ligers are only made from tigers and lions reproducing. Male Savannah cats are sterile until the fifth generation. And those are not the only cross-species (and non-reproducing animals). Donkeys and horses reproduce and make mules. Mules cannot reproduce.

 

You titled this thread "Evolution Questions." However, you seem to have more answers than questions. (And I use the term "answers" tenuously, because your answers are false). I'm beginning to suspect that...

 

[Kuroikaze]

 

But the point is. If there was a failed evolution where is the fossil?

 

http://www.vedicscie...n-debunked.html

 

Depends on what you mean by failed evolution. One could say that EVERY fossil is an example of failed evolution. The species no longer exists right? It failed to survive, of course some went extinct and others just evolved into something else. Evolutionary science is about figuring out which is which.

 

However, when you say this I think you mean animals which were clearly not suited to survive in ANY environment, all I can say is that those do not exist because this is not how evolution works.....read a book instead of expecting me to be your teacher. Such animals would never exist, because they would they would never be born in the first place so there would be nothing to fossilize.

 

If you can't understand why they would not exist then that is your lack of knowledge that is the problem, not my issue.

[Monfang]

That was a fun monster to fight in Dragon Quest.

 

And I'm sorry for being ignorant. I never took the time to really research those creatures.

 

Moving on. After hearing the story of Piltdown Man.. I call into question of anything found to try and prove Darwinism and Evolution.

 

http://www.clarku.ed...an_forgery.html

 

Oh wait.... they shouldn't be DARWINist..... because it wasn't his theory!

 

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=66517

[Wertbag]

Not really the point of this but I will like to note that the Bible contains a chapter and a half of text about Dinosaurs

 

No it doesn't. I've heard some people attempt to link vague descriptions given for leviathan and behemoth to dinosaurs, but both are just as easily explained by modern animals.

[Super FZL]

 

But the point is. If there was a failed evolution where is the fossil?

 

http://www.vedicscie...n-debunked.html

 

From what you have been saying in this thread thus far, I am getting the impression that you think two monkeys have sex and out pops a human. That's not how it happens. Evolution happens little by little, extremely slowly. However, we know, without a shadow of a doubt, that it is definitely happening small-scale, and that it is most likely happening on a large scale as well.

 

And if you don't believe me, look at Staphylococcus aureus. That's right, Staph infection. Also, look at its derivatives: Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and Vancomycin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. These evolutions have happened fairly recently due to the use of medications treating Staph infection.

[Monfang]

Not really the point of this but I will like to note that the Bible contains a chapter and a half of text about Dinosaurs

 

No it doesn't. I've heard some people attempt to link vague descriptions given for leviathan and behemoth to dinosaurs, but both are just as easily explained by modern animals.

 

Ya.. I read it and seen the "explanation" but they don't fit. If you really want to talk about that, start another topic and I'll be happy to post on there.

[Overcame Faith]

If you are truly interested in having some of your questions answered by a reputable scientist, then watch this video.

 

[Midnight-mindwanderings]

None of your links really say anything. Piltdown man wasn't a real fossil. Thats the beauty of science, people double check things to prove their authenticity. Darwin was influenced by other scientists of his time. And?