[_ Old Earth _] How well do you actually know The Theory of Evolution?

[Edward]

There has been Project Steve, but that was almost a joke to mock the efforts of Creationists to try and show how many scientists oppose evolution. The fact is that this isn't a contested issue in the scientific circle, so there really isn't any drive to a do a full survey. However, pretty much every major scientific organization has stated their acceptance of Evolution, some estimates put support for Evolution among Biologists at 99%.

You see organizations, such as the Discovery Institute or Answers in Genesis, are more interested in trying to convince the uneducated masses with fallacies and pseudoscience, than actually publishing their work in peer-reviewed formats. The only danger it poses is political.

That's your defense now, that well almost everyone believes it so it must be true? Since when has the majority ever been right, lol?

 

[Doulos Iesou]

That's your defense now, that well almost everyone believes it so it must be true? Since when has the majority ever been right, lol?

When did I say that Evolution is true because most scientists accept it? Please quote where I made this argument.

I was addressing a question regarding my statement about Scientists support for Evolution, and I responded with that post.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

I thought I said this already. If the fine tuning of the earht and universe was the littlest bit out of balance then life wouldn't be possible let alone evolve. Plus who maintains it? It's pretty obvious.

Okay, so I'm just going to stop responding to this, as Fine Tuning is not an argument against evolution, but an argument for the existence of God, which I agree with.

 

[Gary]

I've already posted the evolutionary evidence for Giraffes, and this guy attempts to create problems for evolution by looking at the modern Giraffe, which some form of this Giraffe has been around evolving and adapting for the past 8 million years. The neck hasn't always been this long.

Do you have documentation of this evolving and adapting? I would like to see it. To observe something in the process of actually evolving has got to be an evolutionists dream.

You say the neck was somewhat shorter. I would like to see evidence of this claim if you don't mind. By evidence I mean fossil evidence. I would like to see what the Giraffe looked like without that long neck. Shouldn't be too difficult, the fossil evidence is there.........right?

This is the usual kind of Creationist "science," it basically goes like this: "this can't really be explained, it must be design."

Well here's your chance to put the Creationist in his place.
.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Do you have documentation of this evolving and adapting? I would like to see it. To observe something in the process of actually evolving has got to be an evolutionists dream.

I already provided the transitional fossils earlier in the discussion, we can't go back in time and take a look, but we can observe the transitional fossils that we have discovered. Such as the Shansitherium, a now extinct ancestor of modern Giraffes, these incremental changes in populations led to the long necked Giraffes we observe today.

We also have evidence of evolutionary change in the detour that the nerve in the neck took, rather than going 2 inches, which would be direct, it travels 15 feet. Does this seem odd to you from a design aspect?

We also have observed Evolution happening, in Lenski's experiment, would you like learn more about this?

You say the neck was somewhat shorter. I would like to see evidence of this claim if you don't mind. By evidence I mean fossil evidence. I would like to see what the Giraffe looked like without that long neck. Shouldn't be too difficult, the fossil evidence is there.........right?

As I referenced before, here is the Shansitherium, from which modern Giraffes are descended.

This is pictured from a museum in China, but this shows a neck of decent length, but nearly as large as the Giraffes, but the skull is really where the similarities lie.

View attachment 5395

I find it interesting, how Creationists always demand fossil evidence for every little thing, yet fossils are so extremely rare due to the conditions required to actually preserve it for the fossilization process. Which of course would take a long time, too long to allow for a Young Earth.

Well here's your chance to put the Creationist in his place.

I already did, he presented a straw man in that evolutionists don't believe Giraffes started with a long neck, but all these different factors evolved together. Not uncommon in nature. Also, he used an argument from incredulity, which is a logical fallacy. No valid argument to be found.

 

[Gary]

As I referenced before, here is the Shansitherium, from which modern Giraffes are descended.

Ok, now where is the fossil evidence of this transition? You have the beginning and the end, where's the in between evidence that proves your theory?
.

 

[Gary]

I find it interesting, how Creationists always demand fossil evidence for every little thing, yet fossils are so extremely rare due to the conditions required to actually preserve it for the fossilization process. Which of course would take a long time, too long to allow for a Young Earth.

I would like to hear your explanation for this.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

I would like to hear your explanation for this.

Bat Evolution has been addressed at length in another thread.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Ok, now where is the fossil evidence of this transition? You have the beginning and the end, where's the in between evidence that proves your theory?
.

There isn't a beginning really, it's a progression in a sense, but this is where some of the features began to distinguishable.

The other examples that I offered are the Samotherium and the Bohlinia, which Paleontologists have analyzed the limited fossils we have as being taller more elongated mammals like the Giraffe.

Here is the skull of the Samotherium and a leg bone of the Bohlinia.

We're also just talking about the Fossil evidence, which often is limited due to previously stated reasons, and there is far more reason to believe that Giraffes are related to deers and sheep for example.

 

[Gary]

Here is the skull of the Samotherium and a leg bone of the Bohlinia.

We're also just talking about the Fossil evidence, which often is limited due to previously stated reasons, and there is far more reason to believe that Giraffes are related to deers and sheep for example.

Where the rest of the skeleton? You have a complete skeleton of the Giraffe before it started evolving, it only stands to reason these other fossils should be much more complete and in abundance because they are thousands if not millions of years younger than the Shansitherium.

One leg bone isn't evidence of anything other than a really big animal existed at one time.

Show me the full body skeletons that depict actual change.
.

 

[jay55]

There has been Project Steve, but that was almost a joke to mock the efforts of Creationists to try and show how many scientists oppose evolution. The fact is that this isn't a contested issue in the scientific circle, so there really isn't any drive to a do a full survey. However, pretty much every major scientific organization has stated their acceptance of Evolution, some estimates put support for Evolution among Biologists at 99%.

It seems that your sample size is even less concrete/sizable than mine. Again, if the view of creationism among biologists is as remote and unlikely as you suggest then I should consider myself quite fortunate to actually know the two biologists that fall into this category. I'd best go buy myself a lottery ticket.

 

[Gary]

Bat Evolution has been addressed at length in another thread.

In that other thread, is an explanation given as to why nothing has ever been found linking the bat to earlier ancestors?

Why do they just suddenly appear in the fossil record?

 

[Gary]

Do you have an explanation for this?

 

[jay55]

That's your defense now, that well almost everyone believes it so it must be true? Since when has the majority ever been right, lol?

Hey Edward, your comment here brings one of many related/supportive bible verses to mind about most not finding the truth (and hence the majority being wrong/misguided). In fact spoken directly by Jesus himself...
"But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." (Matt 7:14).

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Where the rest of the skeleton? You have a complete skeleton of the Giraffe before it started evolving, it only stands to reason these other fossils should be much more complete and in abundance because they are thousands if not millions of years younger than the Shansitherium.

One leg bone isn't evidence of anything other than a really big animal existed at one time.

Show me the full body skeletons that depict actual change.
.

Wow, it's amazing how much you know about fossils. Are you a Paleontologist who knows what is reasonable to expect to find with fossils?

There are remains that are thousands of years old that may not nearly be as complete or put together as fossils that are millions of years old, because the conditions under which these remains fossilized may be different. Therefore it's not as simple as "young fossil = more complete fossil," this isn't some exact process that can easily be predicted or quantified.

I imagine I could present loads of different fossils that are complete for other species and you'll still ask for more. You're simply not inclined to believe due to prior assumptions and beliefs.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

It seems that your sample size is even less concrete/sizable than mine. Again, if the view of creationism among biologists is as remote and unlikely as you suggest then I should consider myself quite fortunate to actually know the two biologists that fall into this category. I'd best go buy myself a lottery ticket.

You're a conservative Christian, and I know nothing about your friends credentials and their claim to be "biologists," so I don't think it's unlikely that you know people who have studied biology and yet are evolutionists based on that information.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

In that other thread, is an explanation given as to why nothing has ever been found linking the bat to earlier ancestors?

Why do they just suddenly appear in the fossil record?

We actually provided a very detailed intermediate fossil, and we have plenty of evidence linking bats with the rest of the mammal branches. They don't just appear out of nowhere, they evolved over millions of years, and our fossil record is a very incomplete record of history as the conditions especially for finding small brittle boned creatures like bats is rare to find.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Hey Edward, your comment here brings one of many related/supportive bible verses to mind about most not finding the truth (and hence the majority being wrong/misguided). In fact spoken directly by Jesus himself...
"But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." (Matt 7:14).

Most people believe murder is wrong. Most people believe it is wrong to steal. Does this logic apply to these topics unrelated to the text? No.

So why does it apply with evolution vs creationism. The Bible isn't a book where you can just cut and paste texts to apply to whatever self-serving situation you may find yourself in, there is this thing called a context that you have to take into account.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Do you have an explanation for this?

I can't watch this right now, but I'll take a look at it when I can.

 

[Gary]

Wow, it's amazing how much you know about fossils. Are you a Paleontologist who knows what is reasonable to expect to find with fossils?

Is this a necessary part of the conversation?

If you're becoming exasperated, you can simply withdraw.

There are remains that are thousands of years old that may not nearly be as complete or put together as fossils that are millions of years old, because the conditions under which these remains fossilized may be different. Therefore it's not as simple as "young fossil = more complete fossil," this isn't some exact process that can easily be predicted or quantified.

So what you're basically saying is, every transitional fossil fossilized in conditions that destroyed the evidence of their existence. That has to be true because there is absolutely no evidence of transitional evolution.

I imagine I could present loads of different fossils that are complete for other species and you'll still ask for more.

I will ask for proof of transitional evolution. (of which there is none)

You're simply not inclined to believe due to prior assumptions and beliefs.

Please do not assume that you know who I am. The questions I'm asking you are the same questions I was asking in grade school. The language may have a bit more crude but the answers were all pretty much the same. "I don't know".

I don't believe in evolution because the evidence is simply not there.