Evolution

Perhaps, it would be good for you to review the OP. This Thread is supposed to a forum for people to express why they either believe in evolution or not. Which I originally did, I did not argue with others about their reasons but just stated mine. Then I was asked to elaborate on my reasons, which I did. Then I was asked more questions about those elaborations. I didn’t use the Bible in those posts. Some where along the line, and I take some of the fault, this discussion has become about me and the Bible, well no matter how you cut it that was not the intent of this thread. If I had originally said that my reason for not believing in evolution was the Bible, then the Bible would relevant but I did not and thus the Bible is irrelevant in the discussion in this thread.

Once again, you resort to a personal attack and consider it some how meaningful.

Please, show me where I’ve ever criticized anyone for assuming evolution is true, I have criticized the theory of evolution and I have criticized people for stating evolution "is" true and "has" been proven, those are not assumptions but statements of fact about things that are not yet facts.

 

Hoatzin, you might as well give up and do something more productive, like rearrange you sock drawer. Any thinking person who keeps up with his posts knows by now that he has completely closed his mind and takes every word in the Bible as the last word on everything. Most recently, on another post, he's tried to justify stoning a person to death for gathering firewood on the Sabbath. It's like arguing with somebody from the Flat Earth society. I think there could be a productive discussion about evolution, but the participants would have to ignore OWB, because he just parrots the same old line. I find it interesting, though, to see how far he'll go with the biblical literalism, and so far its all the way.

 

I'm continually amused by people who feel that by posting things like this some how disproves what has been said.

It's like if I were to call Hoatzin and Okiefreak closed minded and that a discussion with them would be like arguing with someone from the flat Earth society or that they parrot the same old lines or say they have a ridiculously rose-tinted view of matters or that they are hypocritical or hypocrites and I could go on, using things they have already said about me but the interesting thing is that all these things even if they were true do not prove or disprove what has been said.

They are just appeals to emotion and require very little thinking ability, while they may sway some to their side of the discussion, those swayed will not have been swayed because of reasoning but because of the emotional impact of personal attacks.

Also perhaps you would so good as to show how this personal attack on me has anything to do with a discussion of evolution?

 

I think you refuted yourself long ago, man, but you'll never know it. It's a matter of judgment, not proof. I welcome those others who may still be tuned in to weigh the relative merits of the arguments and evidence you and others present, especially in light of what you've been saying on other threads, and make a judgment whether they think any of your arguments hold water.

 

You have as much as done this, but my primary reason for calling your analysis rose-tinted is that you have asserted that people are assuming evolution is true after they have presented you with their evidence. In other words, you are implying faith - like the faith you have in the Bible - where people have made ample efforts to explain that, no, in fact they believe based on substantial evidence. Your interest seems to be not just in ignoring evidence, but trying to imply that evidence is worthless, and that in the end it just comes down to which belief you've picked. This makes your belief in the Bible a useful point of comparison, since you base it on very little evidence by comparison. I just can't understand why you aren't aware how frustrating it is to have any attempt to further a debate met with feigned incomprehension and those awful s all the time. I would call it smug superiority, but I know that all that will lead to is you asking me to quote a post where you have said you are smug and superior, because obviously while you're free to insist that someone hasn't read or understood your posts based on little more than them disagreeing with maybe part of them, anyone else drawing any conclusions from your posts is a cardinal sin.

They seem to be the only thing that you are able to respond to with anything approaching honesty.

You have no interest in discussing evolution and have demonstrated this over and over again with the incessant barrage of posts to the effect that "but what if the evidence was just a matter of opinion, could you prove evolution then?" and "you weren't an eye witness to evolution, therefore you can't prove anything".

 

..........

 

Good point! I agree.

 

:willy_nilly:

 

And that is the same as actually doing it, oh, okay.

 

WASHINGTON - The latest fossil unearthed from a human ancestral hot spot in Africa allows scientists to link together the most complete chain of human evolution so far.

The 4.2 million-year-old fossil discovered in northeastern Ethiopia helps scientists fill in the gaps of how human ancestors made the giant leap from one species to another. That’s because the newest fossil, the species Australopithecus anamensis, was found in the region of the Middle Awash — where seven other human-like species spanning nearly 6 million years and three major phases of human development were previously discovered.

“We just found the chain of evolution, the continuity through time,” study co-author and Ethiopian anthropologist Berhane Asfaw said in a phone interview from Addis Ababa. “One form evolved to another. This is evidence of evolution in one place through time.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12286206/

 

Fossil discovery fills gap in human evolution

‘We just found the chain of evolution, the continuity through time’

Modern man belongs to the genus Homo, which is a subgroup in the family of hominids. What evolved into Homo was likely the genus Australopithecus (once called “man-ape”), which includes the famed 3.2 million-year-old “Lucy” fossil found three decades ago. A key candidate for the genus that evolved into Australopithecus is called Ardipithecus. And Thursday’s finding is important in bridging — but not completely — the gap between Australopithecus and Ardipithecus.

In 1994, a 4.4 million-year-old partial skeleton of the species Ardipithecus ramidus — the most recent Ardipithecus species — was found about six miles from the latest discovery.

“This appears to be the link between Australopithecus and Ardipithecus as two different species,” White said. The major noticeable difference between the phases of man can be seen in Australopithecus’ bigger chewing teeth to eat harder food, he said.

While it’s looking more likely, it is not a sure thing that Ardipithecus evolved into Australopithecus, he said. The finding does not completely rule out Ardipithecus dying off as a genus and Australopithecus developing independently.

The connections between Ardipithecus and Australopithecus have been theorized since an anamensis fossil was first found in Kenya 11 years ago. This draws the lines better, said Alan Walker of Penn State University, who found the first anamensis and is not part of White’s team.

Rick Potts, director of the Smithsonian’s Human Origins Program, agreed: “For those people who are tied up in doing the whole human family tree, being able to connect the branches is a very important thing to do.”



I don't know about you but I'm really convinced now, I don't know what I could have thinking of of these years.

 

What's up with the bold face type?

Are you trying to prove a point or something?

I take it you consider the fossilized bones of this creature to be just another random animal that was put here by "the powers that be" to do nothing other than die off in grand fashion millions of years ago, some plan.

 

Without reading the previous 40 pages, and in the assumption that we are still on the OP's topic, my view of evolution is thus. I do not believe in macro evolution, or the radical changes that "evolved" a dinosaur to a bird or so forth, it goes against the story of Genesis and also is just too far-fetched in my eyes.
Micro evolution, I do believe in. My proof being the millions of species in the world, some bred by humans (dog species for example), some bred in nature (the common mule or hinny).

 

Bold face type? Must have been a computer error.

 

We're all still handing around the topic of evolution but I believe your post is more what the OP had in mind.

 

Tiktaalik

Tiktaalik represents an intermediate form between fish and amphibians. Unlike many previous, more fishlike transitional fossils, Tiktaalik's 'fins' have basic wrist bones and simple fingers, showing that they were weight bearing. Close examination of the joints show that although they probably were not used to walk, they were more than likely used to prop up the creature’s body, push up fashion.[4] The bones of the fore fins show large muscle facets, suggesting that the fin was both muscular and had the ability to flex like a wrist joint. These wrist-like features would have helped anchor the creature to the bottom in fast moving current.

Also notable are the spiracles on the top of the head, which suggest the creature had primitive lungs as well as gills. This would have been useful in shallow water, where higher water temperature would lower oxygen content. This development may have led to the evolution of a more robust ribcage, a key evolutionary trait of land living creatures.[2] The more robust ribcage of Tiktaalik would have helped support the animal’s body any time it ventured outside a fully aquatic habitat. Tiktaalik also lacked a characteristic that most fishes have – bony plates in the gill area that restrict lateral head movement. This makes Tiktaalik the earliest known fish to have a neck. This would give the creature more freedom in hunting prey either on land or in the shallows.

http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/meetTik.html

 

Archaeopteryx

sometimes referred to by its German name Urvogel ("original bird" or "first bird"), is the earliest and most primitive bird known. The name is from the Ancient Greek ἀρχαῖος (archaios) meaning "ancient", and πτέρυξ (pteryx), meaning "feather" or "wing"; pronounced /ˌɑrkiːˈɒptərɨks/ AR-kee-OP-ter-iks.

Archaeopteryx lived in the late Jurassic Period around 150–145 million years ago, in what is now southern Germany during a time when Europe was an archipelago of islands in a shallow warm tropical sea, much closer to the equator than it is now.

Similar in size and shape to a European Magpie, Archaeopteryx could grow to about 0.5 metres (1.6 ft) in length. Despite its small size, broad wings, and inferred ability to fly or glide, Archaeopteryx has more in common with small theropod dinosaurs than it does with modern birds. In particular, it shares the following features with the deinonychosaurs (dromaeosaurs and troodontids): jaws with sharp teeth, three fingers with claws, a long bony tail, hyperextensible second toes ("killing claw"), feathers (which also suggest homeothermy), and various skeletal features.

The features above make Archaeopteryx the first clear candidate for a transitional fossil between dinosaurs and birds.[1][2] Thus, Archaeopteryx plays an important role not only in the study of the origin of birds but in the study of dinosaurs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx

 

The reason an evolutionist will never "win" and argument with a creationist, to the satisfaction of creationists, is that they're playing by different methodological rules. To a creationist, all the "transitional" species cited to establish macro-evolution are simply distinct separate species.Archaeopteryx is just a funny looking bird with teeth and a lizard's tail; or a funny looking lizard with wings. And there are no eyewitnesses to evolution. I a criminal trial, if there were no eyewitnesses and the prosecution had to rely only on circumstantial evidence, the creationists on the jury would acquit every time. Just because the accused was found standing over the body with a bloody knife belonging to him in his hand and forensics established that the deceased died from a knife wound made by the same weapon wouldn't be nearly enough evidence. But creationists have relatively loose standards for eyewitnesses testimony. Third or fourth hand hearsay is acceptable.

 

Ahem: I think you'll find those are "kinds". Honest, non-fancy-schmancy-pantsy God-given "kinds".

 

I thought this was pretty cool and may help to illustrate how various living organisms evolved and are still in the process of evolving today.

Top 10 Useless Limbs (and Other Vestigial Organs)

10. The Wings on Flightless Birds

9. Hind Leg Bones in Whales

8. Erector Pili and Body Hair

7. The Human Tailbone (Coccyx)

6. The Blind Fish Astyanax Mexicanus

5.Wisdom Teeth in Humans

4.The Sexual Organs of Dandelions

3. Fake Sex in Virgin Whiptail Lizards (Vestigial Behavior)

2. Male Breast Tissue and Nipples

1. The Human Appendix

The link goes into detail on 1-10 I found it interesting...

http://www.livescience.com/animals/top10_vestigial_organs-1.html