You can always look online, there's plenty of resource. There are tons of books. The hard part is reading them with open minds. Right now most of id has shown doubt about what was spoon feed to most of us during high school and college. Even the biased stuff I think is okay as long as you take it with a grain of salt. I only believe this because a lot of evolution articles and books are biased to, so you can arrive at a happy medium and make a good choice. I get a lot a hatred of my use of the word transitional forms, but I can't think of another way to say it. I guess I just need the B. A to C can seem logical but to me the B is the import step. I need the how A ended up at C.
I want to see evidence of a whale born in what that was able to walk on land. You said the tree of life supports this. It must have existed but where is it. The records will show similarities but the holy grail still hasn't been found. The whale with legs is a start but there must have been whales with nubs all the way up to whales with pelvic bones and skeletal structures that would all the legs to hold it's weight. Right now it looks like a abnormality or something that could have been used for swimming. In evolution these forms must have existed but I don't see them all hiding or by chance their fossil records just don't exist. We will keep digging and maybe the records will show us this happening but it hasn't. It's easier for evolution because they can just keep digging and saying well we are close and maybe in a million years the tree of life will be complete or at least show the walking whale. For id they have to work extra hard and so far, I believe, they've done a pretty good job.
I'll have to find a newer article for this. It was just the first in the list I found. I probably should have done research but I wanted to keep up the dialogue and not drag it from days into months. I was thinking of the tail thing for human embryos. The offspring of animals do differ but not by much. I guess with evolution now going with such small successions of changes there never will be a transformational phase. As long as any creature is similar to another that should be good enough. The fossils don't even need to reflect it because it can always be said that we just need to keep find more fossils and modifying the tree of life to fit what we find. I figured evolutionists were still looking for the walking whale. I suppose this should be good enough for now or until some evidence is found that makes for a new rule.
Interesting, seems like a good theory. I'm going to have to read up on these. I thank you for the dialogue. I'm going to read more extensively on these subjects as I'm am of no way an authority in them. It's been easy enough to take something from a current evolution pro and find an id con for it. At least that way I can see what both sides say before making a conclusion. One thing cool about all this is there's so much back and forth in the science. But at least I don't have to sit around with no knowledge of the subjects when it's brought to life.
Here's an article that might show a problem with the basilosarus.
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.p hp/id/839
There's a section on whales there that was interesting. For the embryos I thought all vertebras develop in this fashion. But I haven't looked at a tree of life in a while I'm sure that it states all vertebras come from the same lineage. I see your point on morphology. I'm leery than about that discipline of science. If anything can morph into anything than what good is it?
I suppose your right that we will never know and that God can fill those holes, but is it much different than nature filled those holes? And maybe there will come evidence that the cambrian period was really long and natural select had time to create all these creatures, but you still believe that the cambrian period was longer than what science thinks it is now. Scale is good to use, but with that we can take a scale and wonder how could a single cell have come to create so much diversity. Faith doesn't have to be on a lack of evidence. I guess creationists now have a lot of scientific evidence showing that evolution might not be the answer to humans being here. So far the 2 major positions are God created it or nature created it, if there's not enough evidence for nature and design starts creeping in than so be it. We shouldn't be saying that since design calls for God that science should go in a different direction. If that's where the data is taking you in your research than there's nothing you can do about that, at least ethically.
Yes I would say life from that period would be different to a degree. It seems like there was simple life forms than boom a bunch of different ones. There's going to be change over time but such a radical event seems like it would either seriously change evolutionary theory or dump it for a new one. What source are you using that humans came from eukaryotes and opisthokonts? I'm finding lots of for and against on this subject. I guess I'm looking for the smoking gun, which isn't going to happen.
I guess I can see how dna could show that. But also, how many ways are there to make a wheel, quite a few but they are all still wheels. Fingers, hearts, lungs, etc. pretty much act the same way and perform the same functions. But aren't evolutionists looking for the whale with legs. At that point they can say what was a whale walked on land and helped form land mammals. It sounds like evolutionists have given up on that. The body plans are different enough to warrant a different classification. I'm human just like someone from Africa is human and someone from Japan is human as well.
Ah, thanks for the correction. I guess I wasn't sure exactly what about eukaryotes you were using. Can you give me an article to read about your point? Thanks. Also, thank you for the dialogue, I think I learn more with these conversations than anything else. Only because I want to make sure I at least read some articles on subjects I'm not totally sure about before forming an opinion. Oh and that first article I know was biased, to me it seemed to fit what you were getting at but I was wrong.
I definitely agree with you there. Life on this planet is very similar. We could even throw in that it's all carbon-based life. But unless a transitional form is found we still have just lots of life with similarities. On the phyla thing, this site seems to show what I was talking about.
http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/GRAPHI CS-CAPTIONS/sub2.html
For stop evolving your right, there are always changes. I guess I mean that we see a bunch of radically different life forms in a very short period of time and from there on we don't see the same thing ever happen again. Life changes to fit the environment, but we never get bacteria changing into something else that changes into something else and so on until it's unrecognizable as coming from bacteria.
I guess what I'm saying is because some life is similar doesn't mean that they evolved from a root ancestor. Beaks of finches might serve as an example; they are still finch's just different beaks. With 90% of the phyla showing up in fewer than 2% of animals being here it seems that it would be hard for simple organism to mutate into a bunch of complex ones and then stop evolving, those figures might not be exact but they are pretty close. Or at least leave some evidence of it happening. It would be like saying the next version of the ENIAC, pretty much the first computer, was the DOE/NNSA/LLNL, top rated supercomputer, without showing the years of progression. This is a really bad example when compared to a single celled organism eventually becoming the animal life we see today.
Well with almost all of the evolution taking place in less than 2% of the time creatures have been on earth does put a damper on slow small changes that macroevolution takes. I guess maybe the terminology is changing again. When I was younger there was evolution and natural selection. I thought now it was microevolution, natural selection, and macroevolution, evolution. All I'm saying is single celled organisms didn't evolve into what we see today. And you are right there are scientists that are coming up with data and reviewing others data and there are those that don't take into account any new data just using the old because at one time it worked. There are those on the other side of the fence that do the same thing. With how heated this debate is objective science is hard to come by.
Here's one article I found on that subject.
http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board =humanbio&main=428309&type=post
There were bunches more on google about the subject of dinosaurs to bird hypothesis. I agree that we should keep digging. There's no reason not to study the fossils of extinct animals. Plus it's interesting to see all the cool creatures that once inhabited the earth.
That works for me. Darwin did see that they were pretty much the same and showed that microevolution did this. These are good observations and well thought out. I guess the problem comes when that ancestor finch evolved from some other bird like creature that evolved from something else all the way back to a single celled organism. Although it seems like evolutionists I've talked to recently kind of ignore this part of the theory. Has it been taken out of the current evolutionary theory? I'm just curious.
Ah, that is a good point. But I thought that is exactly what they said.
"So, simply observing that some groups have become "reproductively isolated", while basing a definition of "species" on that concept, and then extrapolating that whole new genotypes arrive from it, really has no easy evidence in nature. We cannot show how one genotype can change and be modified simply by natural selection to create subsequent novel genotypes."
I guess I misinterpreted this. I was just trying to figure out how finches with different beaks made them different finches altogether. If so does that mean a man with black skin and one with white are different creatures? Seems that the regions these people came from encouraged skin color while the region the finch came from encouraged a type of beak.
Yes it was. But for the history of living organisms on this planet it accounts for like 2% of time they have been here, I don't have the exact number. So all of a sudden there's a bunch of different phyla's with no transitional fossils and then no macroevolution takes place after that. So microevolution didn't cause the macroevolution of the cambrian period. And I would ask you to do the same. Why would a lot of evolutionists disregard data that doesn't help prove their theory? All the data is picked apart from both sides. New data comes along that seems to be the smoking gun for one side and is then discredited by the other. We just need to keep studying and go where the data points us. I'm not saying that iders don't do the same thing. It seems that for this particular subject there will be no objective science. People have put too much faith in either side and no one wants to back down. With the way the data comes in by helping either side it's tough to know which one is right. I say put your faith where you want. I believe God created the creatures of this world and you believe evolution did it. I do like dialoging about it though. It's always interesting to see what new scientific data has revealed to us.
I'm looking into getting some quick, but I will check out this book to see for myself. Just wanted some redirects from this article since you've read the book and probably others on the finch subject. I haven't been able to find any on the internet. http://fdocc.blogspot.com/2005/12/finch-variation. html.
Thanks
Interesting read. A couple questions though. It talks about whales and snakes being similar but can't breed, and then it talks about human families with cousins and siblings. It seems to show that yes the humans are the same because technically all the people in the same family can breed with each other but the whales and snakes can. So they are totally different, at least from what the author of this points out. The article also seems show a more conservative evolution. It says there where a bunch of different organisms that changed into all the life we see today. So not everything stems from a single cell through the tree of life. With this I would say that naturalism doesn't explain life on earth. Are they trying to reconcile this or is it new to evolutionary? Also the genetics part seemed weird. Life on earth is pretty complex. How many ways can dna make the proteins needed for an arm? So because our arms and apes arms are similar than I would think the genetic codes would be similar. So if something looks or has a similar internal makeup similar to something else one would have to assume that the dna would be a pretty close match.
Oh, my bad. I thought that evolution started with a single cell organism and than over very large periods of time morphed into different types of multi celled organisms and so on until all that we see today. I didn't realize the theory had been updated.
Slashdot Mirror
You can always look online, there's plenty of resource. There are tons of books. The hard part is reading them with open minds. Right now most of id has shown doubt about what was spoon feed to most of us during high school and college. Even the biased stuff I think is okay as long as you take it with a grain of salt. I only believe this because a lot of evolution articles and books are biased to, so you can arrive at a happy medium and make a good choice. I get a lot a hatred of my use of the word transitional forms, but I can't think of another way to say it. I guess I just need the B. A to C can seem logical but to me the B is the import step. I need the how A ended up at C.
Oh, I'm sorry. I've only been responding to emails sent by slashdot. Could you send me some links. Thanks.
I want to see evidence of a whale born in what that was able to walk on land. You said the tree of life supports this. It must have existed but where is it. The records will show similarities but the holy grail still hasn't been found. The whale with legs is a start but there must have been whales with nubs all the way up to whales with pelvic bones and skeletal structures that would all the legs to hold it's weight. Right now it looks like a abnormality or something that could have been used for swimming. In evolution these forms must have existed but I don't see them all hiding or by chance their fossil records just don't exist. We will keep digging and maybe the records will show us this happening but it hasn't. It's easier for evolution because they can just keep digging and saying well we are close and maybe in a million years the tree of life will be complete or at least show the walking whale. For id they have to work extra hard and so far, I believe, they've done a pretty good job.
I'll have to find a newer article for this. It was just the first in the list I found. I probably should have done research but I wanted to keep up the dialogue and not drag it from days into months. I was thinking of the tail thing for human embryos. The offspring of animals do differ but not by much. I guess with evolution now going with such small successions of changes there never will be a transformational phase. As long as any creature is similar to another that should be good enough. The fossils don't even need to reflect it because it can always be said that we just need to keep find more fossils and modifying the tree of life to fit what we find. I figured evolutionists were still looking for the walking whale. I suppose this should be good enough for now or until some evidence is found that makes for a new rule.
Interesting, seems like a good theory. I'm going to have to read up on these. I thank you for the dialogue. I'm going to read more extensively on these subjects as I'm am of no way an authority in them. It's been easy enough to take something from a current evolution pro and find an id con for it. At least that way I can see what both sides say before making a conclusion. One thing cool about all this is there's so much back and forth in the science. But at least I don't have to sit around with no knowledge of the subjects when it's brought to life.
Here's an article that might show a problem with the basilosarus. http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.p hp/id/839
There's a section on whales there that was interesting. For the embryos I thought all vertebras develop in this fashion. But I haven't looked at a tree of life in a while I'm sure that it states all vertebras come from the same lineage. I see your point on morphology. I'm leery than about that discipline of science. If anything can morph into anything than what good is it?
I suppose your right that we will never know and that God can fill those holes, but is it much different than nature filled those holes? And maybe there will come evidence that the cambrian period was really long and natural select had time to create all these creatures, but you still believe that the cambrian period was longer than what science thinks it is now. Scale is good to use, but with that we can take a scale and wonder how could a single cell have come to create so much diversity. Faith doesn't have to be on a lack of evidence. I guess creationists now have a lot of scientific evidence showing that evolution might not be the answer to humans being here. So far the 2 major positions are God created it or nature created it, if there's not enough evidence for nature and design starts creeping in than so be it. We shouldn't be saying that since design calls for God that science should go in a different direction. If that's where the data is taking you in your research than there's nothing you can do about that, at least ethically.
Yes I would say life from that period would be different to a degree. It seems like there was simple life forms than boom a bunch of different ones. There's going to be change over time but such a radical event seems like it would either seriously change evolutionary theory or dump it for a new one. What source are you using that humans came from eukaryotes and opisthokonts? I'm finding lots of for and against on this subject. I guess I'm looking for the smoking gun, which isn't going to happen.
I guess I can see how dna could show that. But also, how many ways are there to make a wheel, quite a few but they are all still wheels. Fingers, hearts, lungs, etc. pretty much act the same way and perform the same functions. But aren't evolutionists looking for the whale with legs. At that point they can say what was a whale walked on land and helped form land mammals. It sounds like evolutionists have given up on that. The body plans are different enough to warrant a different classification. I'm human just like someone from Africa is human and someone from Japan is human as well.
Ah, thanks for the correction. I guess I wasn't sure exactly what about eukaryotes you were using. Can you give me an article to read about your point? Thanks. Also, thank you for the dialogue, I think I learn more with these conversations than anything else. Only because I want to make sure I at least read some articles on subjects I'm not totally sure about before forming an opinion. Oh and that first article I know was biased, to me it seemed to fit what you were getting at but I was wrong.
I definitely agree with you there. Life on this planet is very similar. We could even throw in that it's all carbon-based life. But unless a transitional form is found we still have just lots of life with similarities. On the phyla thing, this site seems to show what I was talking about. http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/GRAPHI CS-CAPTIONS/sub2.html
For stop evolving your right, there are always changes. I guess I mean that we see a bunch of radically different life forms in a very short period of time and from there on we don't see the same thing ever happen again. Life changes to fit the environment, but we never get bacteria changing into something else that changes into something else and so on until it's unrecognizable as coming from bacteria.
Here's one article that shows what that might not have happened. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4341_endosym biont.asp
Here's a longer one I found about eukaryotes but seems like it's probably less biased.
http://blog.nerac.com/2005/08/25/actin-%E2%80%93-a n-ageless-protein-with-an-intelligent-design/
We should invest more resources in a time machine and end the debate once and for all;).
I guess what I'm saying is because some life is similar doesn't mean that they evolved from a root ancestor. Beaks of finches might serve as an example; they are still finch's just different beaks. With 90% of the phyla showing up in fewer than 2% of animals being here it seems that it would be hard for simple organism to mutate into a bunch of complex ones and then stop evolving, those figures might not be exact but they are pretty close. Or at least leave some evidence of it happening. It would be like saying the next version of the ENIAC, pretty much the first computer, was the DOE/NNSA/LLNL, top rated supercomputer, without showing the years of progression. This is a really bad example when compared to a single celled organism eventually becoming the animal life we see today.
Well with almost all of the evolution taking place in less than 2% of the time creatures have been on earth does put a damper on slow small changes that macroevolution takes. I guess maybe the terminology is changing again. When I was younger there was evolution and natural selection. I thought now it was microevolution, natural selection, and macroevolution, evolution. All I'm saying is single celled organisms didn't evolve into what we see today. And you are right there are scientists that are coming up with data and reviewing others data and there are those that don't take into account any new data just using the old because at one time it worked. There are those on the other side of the fence that do the same thing. With how heated this debate is objective science is hard to come by.
Here's one article I found on that subject. http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board =humanbio&main=428309&type=post
There were bunches more on google about the subject of dinosaurs to bird hypothesis. I agree that we should keep digging. There's no reason not to study the fossils of extinct animals. Plus it's interesting to see all the cool creatures that once inhabited the earth.
That works for me. Darwin did see that they were pretty much the same and showed that microevolution did this. These are good observations and well thought out. I guess the problem comes when that ancestor finch evolved from some other bird like creature that evolved from something else all the way back to a single celled organism. Although it seems like evolutionists I've talked to recently kind of ignore this part of the theory. Has it been taken out of the current evolutionary theory? I'm just curious.
Ah, that is a good point. But I thought that is exactly what they said. "So, simply observing that some groups have become "reproductively isolated", while basing a definition of "species" on that concept, and then extrapolating that whole new genotypes arrive from it, really has no easy evidence in nature. We cannot show how one genotype can change and be modified simply by natural selection to create subsequent novel genotypes." I guess I misinterpreted this. I was just trying to figure out how finches with different beaks made them different finches altogether. If so does that mean a man with black skin and one with white are different creatures? Seems that the regions these people came from encouraged skin color while the region the finch came from encouraged a type of beak.
Yes it was. But for the history of living organisms on this planet it accounts for like 2% of time they have been here, I don't have the exact number. So all of a sudden there's a bunch of different phyla's with no transitional fossils and then no macroevolution takes place after that. So microevolution didn't cause the macroevolution of the cambrian period. And I would ask you to do the same. Why would a lot of evolutionists disregard data that doesn't help prove their theory? All the data is picked apart from both sides. New data comes along that seems to be the smoking gun for one side and is then discredited by the other. We just need to keep studying and go where the data points us. I'm not saying that iders don't do the same thing. It seems that for this particular subject there will be no objective science. People have put too much faith in either side and no one wants to back down. With the way the data comes in by helping either side it's tough to know which one is right. I say put your faith where you want. I believe God created the creatures of this world and you believe evolution did it. I do like dialoging about it though. It's always interesting to see what new scientific data has revealed to us.
I'm looking into getting some quick, but I will check out this book to see for myself. Just wanted some redirects from this article since you've read the book and probably others on the finch subject. I haven't been able to find any on the internet. http://fdocc.blogspot.com/2005/12/finch-variation. html.
Thanks
By showing that all of a sudden, relatively short period of time with no transitional fossils, we have all or most of the phylas that we see today.
Hahaha, I think evolution would then finally have it's smoking gun.
I would have to say the same thing to you. Here's an article I found on it. There's others if you just look up cambrian explosion and or darwin tree of life and upside down. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=cach e:tSQAUDJFdDsJ:63.74.14.138/pubs/btg/btg-150.pdf+d arwin+tree+upside-down
Hahaha, I like the analogy. I guess our faith needs to be put somewhere, whether evolution or design.
Interesting read. A couple questions though. It talks about whales and snakes being similar but can't breed, and then it talks about human families with cousins and siblings. It seems to show that yes the humans are the same because technically all the people in the same family can breed with each other but the whales and snakes can. So they are totally different, at least from what the author of this points out. The article also seems show a more conservative evolution. It says there where a bunch of different organisms that changed into all the life we see today. So not everything stems from a single cell through the tree of life. With this I would say that naturalism doesn't explain life on earth. Are they trying to reconcile this or is it new to evolutionary? Also the genetics part seemed weird. Life on earth is pretty complex. How many ways can dna make the proteins needed for an arm? So because our arms and apes arms are similar than I would think the genetic codes would be similar. So if something looks or has a similar internal makeup similar to something else one would have to assume that the dna would be a pretty close match.
Oh, my bad. I thought that evolution started with a single cell organism and than over very large periods of time morphed into different types of multi celled organisms and so on until all that we see today. I didn't realize the theory had been updated.