Professors and Students Defend Evolution (page 2)

LoveUniHateExams

@Sea Breeze - just because four top professors do a poor job of explaining evolution, it doesn't mean evolution is incorrect.

The evidence for evolution is plentiful.

What a lot of people are looking for here is observable support for Darwins claims of evolution, not just adaptation. Something where say a Giraffe turns into an elephant, or a dog into a cat. People want something that doesn't require faith, something they can test and see.

Can you think of one example?

truth_b_known

Macroevolution is a process that takes place over millions of years. I do not know of anyone who has observed it, but the fossil records have plenty of examples of macroevolution.

Disillusioned JW

Giraffes don't turn into elephants and dogs don't turn into cats. Claims that if evolution is true then giraffes should turn into elephants and that dogs should turn into cats are straw man arguments of young earth creationists. They are the very arguments used in some creationist literature. For example, the evolutionist (though not a scientist and though not believing that natural selection is the cause of macroevolution) Francis Hitching's Neck of the Giraffe book contains of an illustration from such creationist literature which show the following misrepresentations of evolution: an animal with the main body of an elephant and the head of a giraffe; an animal with the main body of a giraffe and the head of elephant; an animal with the main body of a dog and the head of cat; an animal with the main body of a cat with the head of a dog. I know that because I have Hitching's book, checked out from the library. The creationist illustration shown in the book (In "chapter five: Creation v. evolution") is accompanied by the following words.

"People who believe in evolution say that one animal can change into another. The Bible says they can't. Have you ever seen any of these animals? Have you ever seen a 'giraffant' or an "eleraff'? How abut 'pigdeer' or a 'catdog'?"

Giraffes evolved (by descent with modification) from some animals which were not elephants, elephants evolved from some animals which were not giraffes, cats evolved from some animals which were not dogs, and dogs evolved from some animals which were not cats (recent scientific evidence indicates that dogs evolved from grey wolves). But, the known fossil record clearly shows the following:

anatomically modern humans evolved from humans who were less human looking than modern day humans;

the earliest ape-like hominid beings existed before the first humans (the ones which are less anatomically modern looking humans than modern humans) [in this example I am defining human as those who are assigned to the genus Homo];

the earliest apes existed before the earliest ape-like hominids;

an ape species (Aegyptopithecus zeuxis) existed with some monkey-like features (including a tail as an adult) before the first full apes existed;

the first primates (ones who were not monkeys) existed before the first monkeys (monkeys, apes, and humans are some types of primates);

the first mammals existed before the first primates existed;

the first mammal-like animals (synapsids, which used to be commonly called mammal-like reptiles since in a number of ways they resembled reptiles) existed before the first mammals;

the first four legged terrestrial egg laying animals existed before the first mammal-like animals;

the first amphibious four legged animals with webbed feet existed before the first four legged terrestrial animals;

the first fish with leg-like limbs and webbed feet existed before the first fully amphibious four legged animals with webbed feet;

the first fish with lobe fins as limbs and paddle-like digits existed before the first fish with leg-like limbs and webbed feet;

the first fish with a nasal passage to the throat existed before the first lobe finned fish existed (lobe finned fish, amphibians, reptiles, and mammals have a nasal passage to the throat);

the first fish with jaws existed before the first fish with both jaws and the the nasal passage to the throat;

the first fish without jaws existed before the first fish with jaws;

the first vertebrate existed before the first fish;

etc.

I know the above about the fossil record because in science books I have seen illustrations of discovered fossils of that which I stated above.

Disillusioned JW

Minor correction to my prior post: I had some typos when I said "Have you ever seen a 'giraffant' or an "eleraff'? How abut 'pigdeer' or a 'catdog'?" Instead I should have said the following. 'Have you ever seen a "giraffant" or an "eleraff'? How about a "pigdeer" or a "catdog"?'

The young earth creationist illustration I referred to also misleadingly shows a flying fish with feathered wings (the wings of a bird). In contrast, evolutionist scientists (more than 95% of scientists are evolutionists) say that birds evolved from biped non-avian dinosaurs, and that none of the bird's fish ancestors had bird wings, and that all of the bird's fish ancestors are from hundreds of millions of years ago. Numerous fossils have been found of biped non-avian dinosaurs with feathers on their forelimbs (arms) and some of those fossils look more like fossils of birds than do the other fossils of feathered non-avian dinosaurs.

jhine

Sorry got the dislike by mistake . Just in case you wondered who disliked your post.

Jan

Disillusioned JW

Hi Jan. I don't see any dislikes for my two most recent posts; maybe your error was corrected. Maybe the website will now let you post a "like" for the post you intended to say "like" to.

Disillusioned JW

In my earlier post where I said "lobe finned fish, amphibians, reptiles, and mammals have a nasal passage to the throat" I should also have said that birds also contain a nasal passage to the throat.

Please see https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_03.html . It says the following.

'Paleontologist Jenny Clack thought the textbook story of tetrapod evolution was implausible: How could fishlike creatures, stranded on land, somehow evolve limbs and survive to become the first tetrapods? The search for an answer took her to Greenland, where she found one of the earliest known tetrapods, called Acanthostega. With its fishlike tail and gills, it was certainly adapted to an aquatic environment, but its paddle-shaped fins end in tiny fingers. Vertebrates, it turns out, grew fingers before they left the sea. From Evolution: "Great Transformations" '

Please note that the last paragraph of the above mentioned PBS web page says the following about Acanthostega and Ichthyostega.

"From these finds, it now appears that the four legs common to land animals today really evolved for another purpose: navigating swampy wetlands, not as a means of moving to land. But once on land, the animals found their limbs a survival advantage there, too. Evolution frequently produces adaptations that come to be useful in the future for a different purpose."

I wish to quote a lot more from the above mentioned web page, but if I did so it would amount to quoting nearly the entire page, thus I urge people to visit the web page.

Please also read the science news article located at https://www.livescience.com/42525-early-fish-evolved-rear-legs.html . It is called "Strange Ancient Fish Had Front And Back Legs". It is about a fossil of a "375-million-year-old fish known as Tiktaalik roseae, discovered in 2004". It says the following regarding the fossil.

"These findings reveal that a key step in the evolution of hind limbs happened in fish, challenging previous theories that such appendages evolved only after the move to land.

...

This ancient creature was undoubtedly a fish, possessing gills, scales and fins. However, it also had features seen in modern tetrapods — four-limbed creatures like amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals — such as a mobile neck and robust ribcage.

This extinct fish had large forefins and shoulders, elbows and partial wrists, enabling it to support itself on ground. This makes it the best-known example of an intermediate between finned animals and limbed animals marking the evolutionary leap from water to land for vertebrates, or creatures with backbones."

Disillusioned JW

As my above posts show, being convinced that biological evolution is true does not require faith. The conviction of evolution being true can come from knowledge of observable scientific evidence in conjunction with rational analysis based upon such evidence. Such is the case with me.

The information I presented in my prior posts in this topic thread are a minuscule percentage of the vast information I have found which convinces me that biological evolution is a scientific fact.

The PBS web page I mention referenced the TV episode called 'From Evolution: "Great Transformations" '. I first saw that episode (on broadcast TV) about 20 years ago, along with the other episodes of the TV miniseries (called "Evolution") of which it is a part of - see https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/about/overview_series.html . Many years later I rented a DVD of the miniseries from the library. It is an excellent miniseries!

Rafe

There is much evidence of evolution but where is there evidence of supernatural beings /spirits ?

Ancient mythological expressions?

Professors and Students Defend Evolution

Share this