Questions on Evolution and the Existence of God and... (page 7)

Apognophos

Can't you provide at least one scientific example of where one "kind" turned into a different "kind" of animal. Surely science could accomplish something this simple if it happened millions and millions of times by accident.

It might be possible to turn a fox into a buzzard, but it would take millions of years. You would have to subject the fox to a series of environments that encouraged his traits to shift, slowly over time, to that of a bird. If we start now, we might have convincing evidence for you in the year 2,002,013 AD. This doesn't mean that evolution is unlikely just because science would find this so hard to do; it can be much harder to make a specific thing happen on purpose than by accident (and in this case, it's not something that happened at all, since foxes are not derived from birds or vice-versa).

Unless I misunderstand your question and you're asking for an example of this already happening, naturally. If so, that's an unfair question. It's a bit like asking, "Show me where exactly on the color wheel red turns into yellow." There's a wide gradient of life between one species and any other species and there's hardly any space between them that hasn't been filled in the present or in the past, by extant or extinct species. So how can we point to a spot and say, "Here is where one kind turned into another"?

adamah

Perry said- The infamous archaeopteryx isn't necessary for this discussion.

Uh, say what? It may not be 'necessary' (as if you mean to suggest that the evidence of sinosauropteryx fossils is all the evidence you need to see: however, I doubt that is your claim!). However, archaeopteryx is VERY relevant.

In case you're not aware of the history of those who've made the creationist claim in the past, in the 1950's Bible believers pointed to the existence of missing links in the fossil record, pointing to the lack of smooth intermediate transitory forms from one "kind" to the next "kind" (which you likely mean as 'species').

Fine, so in 2013, we now HAVE many more examples in the fossil record, and sinosauropteryx and archaeopteryx both present the very evidence those who shared you claim in the past demanded; they species couldn't interbreed with each other (especially since they lived on opposite sides of the Earth!)

But now that you have such evidence readily before your eyes, you suddenly want to "move the goalposts"?

Perry said- Can't you provide at least one scientific example of where one "kind" turned into a different "kind" of animal. Surely science could accomplish something this simple if it happened millions and millions of times by accident.

Perry, I don't think you understand how evolution operates, since many fossils of archaeopteryx and sinosauropteryx are confirmed, and they represent one "kind" (dinosaur) changing into another "kind" (bird). Evolution is not magic, and such changes don't happen overnight, but via SLOW changes.

BTW, your fellow Xian, Dr Mary Schweitzer, is cited in the paper (#3) below, providing protein evidence for the relationship between dinos and birds:

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_birds

Fossil evidence also demonstrates that birds and dinosaurs shared features such as hollow, pneumatized bones, gastroliths in the digestive system, nest-building and brooding behaviors. The ground-breaking discovery of fossilized Tyrannosaurus rex soft tissue allowed a molecular comparison of cellular anatomy and protein sequencing of collagen tissue, both of which demonstrated that T. rex and birds are more closely related to each other than either is to the alligator. [3]A second molecular study robustly supported the relationship of birds to dinosaurs, though it did not place birds within Theropoda, as expected. This study utilized eight additional collagen sequences extracted from a femur of Brachylophosaurus canadensis, a hadrosaur. [4] A study comparing juvenile and adult archosaur skulls concluded that birds derived from dinosaurs by neoteny. [5]

The origin of birds has historically been a contentious topic within evolutionary biology. However, only a few scientists still debate the dinosaurian origin of birds, suggesting descent from other types of archosaurian reptiles. Among the consensus that supports dinosaurian ancestry, the exact sequence of evolutionary events that gave rise to the early birds within maniraptoran theropods is a hot topic. The origin of bird flight is a separate but related question for which there are also several proposed answers.

Adam

snare&racket

People asking for examples of one kind turning into another, dont comprehend what they are asking.

The genetic distribution is like a tree, with branches and twigs, you are asking for an example of one branch jumping across and becoming another branch. The reality is a commonn ancestor to both of the branches, in their history. Just like following two branches back to a thicker branch that sprouted them both.

Also these changes take millions of years, with no discernable change per generation, like watching a baby from birth to old age, every day the changes are minute, unobservable as a total change. You are asking for a half baby, half old person, not comprehending the evolutionary process.

Perry

It might be possible to turn a fox into a buzzard, but it would take millions of years.

That's not science. It can't be replicated, no matter how hard scientists have tried..... and boy have they tried. There always seems to be some "just so" story that accounts for something in the "millions" paradigm, and of course the other consistent feature is that it just so happens that it can't be replicated.

See, this is just where my Bull Corn meter just starts whizzzzizng out-of-control.

jgnat

How broad is your reading, Perry? Here's an experiment that has clocked 24,000 generations.

https://www.msu.edu/~lenski/sciencearticle.html

Perry

jgnat,

I read the whole article. There was a self-congratulatory tone to the article. However, this seems to be the point:

"the granddaddy of these experiments--the 11-year, 24,000-generation E. coli cultures in Lenski's laboratory--is telling stories about predictability, chance, and history that other experiments have echoed. All 12 of Lenski's cultures experience the same stresses: a daily boom-and-bust cycle, in which the bacteria are transferred to fresh glucose medium every 24 hours, then undergo 6 hours or so of plenty followed by 18 hours of starvation. All 12 lines have adapted to this regimen; when the researchers do a head-to-head comparison between the evolved bacteria and the ancestral strain, plucked from the freezer and revived, the descendants now grow about 60% faster in their standard glucose-containing medium. All 12 populations show other parallel changes, too--for example, a still-unexplained, twofold increase in cell size."

Big deal. They started with bacteria and ended with bigger bacteria. It's still bacteria. Rather than supporting Macro (Darwinian) Evolution, this seems to demonstrate the incredible resistence of organism to change outside of their "kind" over time. How do you go from this to the outrageous, sweeping claims Darwin made?

jgnat

I should have expected such a response. Your belief system is secure from attack. Congratulations.

adamah

Perry said- That's not science. It can't be replicated, no matter how hard scientists have tried..... and boy have they tried. There always seems to be some "just so" story that accounts for something in the "millions" paradigm, and of course the other consistent feature is that it just so happens that it can't be replicated.

Where'd you get the incorrect idea that science requires replication?

We don't: instead, we need verifiable tangible concrete evidence. In this case, evidence exists in the fossil record, by performing DNA comparisons, protein comparisons (oh, thanks to Dr Mary Schweitzer, a fellow Xian believer who believes in evolution, and is annoyed by YECs like you who ignore evidence to support a goofy idea).

Ironic that you reject evolution by demanding evidence in the form of replication (m-kay, give us a million years: Darwin lived what, 150 yrs ago)? Instead, you're completely willing to accept the stuff found in ancient scrolls containing mythology which is completely DEVOID of evidence (and where MOUNTAINS of counter-evidence exists to disprove the Bible), but you're OK with THAT, relying on what you likely call "faith" (but instead looks alot like nothing more than bullheaded obstinancy from where I'm sitting)?

Adam

Apognophos

Perry won't be happy until scientists can start with something like E. coli and end with a fish In a way, I don't blame him for his skepticism. There's a certain appeal to only believing what you can observe directly ("Show me the money"). I think that over time we'll be able to observe larger evolutionary changes in lab specimens, perhaps starting with getting unicellular life to become sponges, then sponges to become jellyfish, as evolution is supposed to have proceeded. Until then, I can understand why some people will hold out for a definite demonstration, even for one that they can reproduce on their own.

But I think it's worth noting that Perry is willing to extrapolate a lot of "known facts" from a little evidence when it comes to religious subjects, but instantly becomes super-skeptical when it comes to evo science. The products of the scientific method are all around us and we benefit from them, but suddenly the scientific method and the knowledge of the community is extremely suspect when it comes to this one subject. (Edit: adamah beat me to this observation.)

alecholmesthedetective

Perry,

Define "kind" please.

Questions on Evolution and the Existence of God and...

Share this