[_ Old Earth _] The misconception of "the missing links"

[Milk-Drops]

Genetically Neanderthal were actually less similar to us than chimps.

Hi Meatballsub! Are you sure that's what you meant to say? Because Neanderthals are genetically much closer to humans than chimps. You even mentioned breeding. Close enough to breed with is much closer than chimps, which we can't breed with.

www.nature.com/nature/journal/v444/n7117/abs/nature05336.html

Yes, I meant to say that because at the time I was taking classes, (2007) that nature document was very new and had not been included into a revised text at the time. So the article actually pretty neat and shows how science can correct itself when new information is discovered.

 

[TOG]

I'd rather not use Wikipedia.

I can quote the Encyclopedia Britannica if you prefer.

This latter view has been reflected in the frequent inclusion of the Neanderthals within the species Homo sapiens, usually as a distinct subspecies, H. sapiens neanderthalensis; more recently they have often been classified as a different but closely related species, H. neanderthalensis.

Biologists actually have Neanderthal DNA

My point wasn't about Neanderthals per se, or their relation to us, but about the fact that scientists don't agree on whether they were a distinct species or not.

The definition of species is not opinion. There is a loose definition of species because there are tons of exceptions to the rule.

There is no such thing as the definition of species, not even a loose one. There are many definitions, and therein lies the problem. All dogs, for example, are considered one species because they are all interfertile. Wolves are considered a different species, even though they are interfertile, because they don't breed with domestic dogs in nature. The natural habitats of the Russian larch (Larix sukaczewii) and the Siberian larch (Larix sibirica) overlap. Where they grow naturally together they cross fertilize each other and produce fertile offspring. Even so, they are considered two separate species. Want to know the reason? They look different. I kid you not. My brother has a PhD in biophysics, and has focused his research on larches. I have this information first hand from an expert on larches.

Science is supposed to be objective. "Species" is one of the most important terms in the theory of evolution, if not the most important since the theory is all about the origin and development of species. As long as there isn't an objective definition of the meaning of the word "species" and an objective way of classifying individuals and groups into species, but rather a host of definitions that are used subjectively like we have now, we can't really call it a scientific theory. At best, it's bad science. At worst it's pseudoscience.

The TOG
​

 

[Milk-Drops]

I can quote the Encyclopedia Britannica if you prefer.

No, encyclopedias should be avoided because they are not scientific journals, and don't have the integrity of journals.

My point wasn't about Neanderthals per se, or their relation to us, but about the fact that scientists don't agree on whether they were a distinct species or not.

The problem is you aren't referencing any specific reason why scientists disagree. Its not all that important that scientists disagree on something, the reason is why they disagree that is important.

There is no such thing as the definition of species, not even a loose one. There are many definitions, and therein lies the problem. All dogs, for example, are considered one species because they are all interfertile. Wolves are considered a different species, even though they are interfertile, because they don't breed with domestic dogs in nature. The natural habitats of the Russian larch (Larix sukaczewii) and the Siberian larch (Larix sibirica) overlap. Where they grow naturally together they cross fertilize each other and produce fertile offspring. Even so, they are considered two separate species. Want to know the reason? They look different. I kid you not. My brother has a PhD in biophysics, and has focused his research on larches. I have this information first hand from an expert on larches.

The reason why there is such a problem with the term species is because the term was created before the discovery of genetics. There is reason then to understand that there will be times where the term species is arbitrary. However this doesn't change the theory of evolution, nor does this disrupt the evidence for the theory.

Science is supposed to be objective. "Species" is one of the most important terms in the theory of evolution, if not the most important since the theory is all about the origin and development of species.

Actually the theory of Evolution is about the adaptation of living organisms and how living organisms adapt and why. Species was one of 2 Title from Darwin's book on the original subject of the Theory of Evolution.

As long as there isn't an objective definition of the meaning of the word "species"

No, because you are currently not showing how the actual mechanics of the theory of evolution to be wrong. You are focusing on a word definition and how it has changed. I've pointed out several times that the term species was coined before the theory of evolution and the theory of genetics. For this reason there is going to be some reason to modify the term and possibly be exceptions to the rule. The term species does not pose a problem for the theory of Evolution.

and an objective way of classifying individuals and groups into species,

It does exist, its called phylogeny. However, phylogeny doesn't use only the term species. It uses the taxonomical ranks. This means that with genetics, biologists are able to classify all living things from the basic criteria of whether the organisms is alive, down to the very specific characteristics. I've already pointed this out, but you are choosing to ignore this in favor of arguing over the definition of species.

but rather a host of definitions that are used subjectively like we have now,

You have yet to even demonstrate the problem with the definition itself. You have only asserted a problem. What is the real problem and how does this problem discredit the mechanics of evolution?

we can't really call it a scientific theory.

Yes we can because you have yet to refute the actual theory. Only a definition of a word.

At best, it's bad science.

No, its not bad science because you haven't demonstrated the theory as such. You have to demonstrate the theory as false to demonstrate the theory as bad science.

At worst it's pseudoscience.

Then you should have no problem in explaining how the theory of evolution is pseudoscience. You have the floor, make your case.

 

[Barbarian]

TOG is quite right about "species" being a difficult thing to define. It is one of the reasons that scientists accept evolution. If there were independently created "kinds" as creationists imagine, there were be nice, neat classification systems. But if species evolve into other species, then there should be quarter-species, half-species, and all sorts of intermediate levels, in the process of speciation.

And that is exactly what we see. Usually, creationists don't want to talk about it. Give TOG credit for facing the fact.

 

[Asyncritus]

Michael Denton:


At the conclusion of his book, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Denton sums it up like this:

"...no one has ever observed the interconnecting continuum of functional forms [Darwin's many small steps] linking all known past and present species of life. The concept of the continuity of nature has existed in the mind of man, never in the facts of nature.

In a very real sense, therefore, advocacy of the doctrine of continuity has always necessitated a retreat from pure empiricism, and contrary to what is widely assumed by evolutionary biologists today, it has always been the anti-evolutionists, not the evolutionists, in the scientific community who have stuck rigidly to the facts and adhered to a more strictly empirical approach"(Denton pp.353-354).

 

[Sparkey]

There is no such thing as the definition of species, not even a loose one. There are many definitions, and therein lies the problem.

Contrary to what may be believed though, the word "kind" is clear enough. The Bible specifically mentions various "kinds". We are told these reproduce "after their kind" meaning that, at least in the big picture, like produces like.

And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Some will want to come and say that God commanded the earth to bring forth -- how He did it is not in dispute here -- but the fact that its seed was in itself, combined with the meaning of the word "miyn" (to portion out) causes me to understand that there are boundaries in place.

Just saying...

 

[Free Christian]

Sorry for the humour here but when I see depictions, artist depictions, of proofs and missing links, I am amazed that they have not yet told us that our noses are proof that we evolved from birds. That our noses were once birds beaks!

 

[Narwhalist]

What do you mean by "with their own kinds."
Evolution does not say animals of different "kinds" mate together, or animals give birth to different kinds. This is where I see how little you understand what "evolving" is.
Animals will always mate with their own kinds. "Microevolution" is simply subtle changes occurring in the organism due to environmental pressures or other pressures. "Macroevolution" is simply many "microevolution" events over a period of time that causes physical changes in an organism. Over millions of years of "microevolution" events the animal can look very different to the one it started with. But evolution does not say a cat will mate with a dog and give birth to a hybrid, or 2 chickens will give birth to a mammal.
It really grates on me when I hear the "kinds" argument and apply it to evolution.

 

[Sparkey]

It really grates on me when I hear the "kinds" argument and apply it to evolution.

I wonder how your came to your conclusion that I was speaking about evolution? Did I mention it? No.

 

[Narwhalist]

Never mind then, considering this thread is about missing link and evolution, why wouldn't I assume that's what you were talking about.

 

[Sparkey]

Never mind then, considering this thread is about missing link and evolution, why wouldn't I assume that's what you were talking about.

The thread is on a Christian site and discusses "missing links". As such, some have stated that the definition of "species" is not clearly defined. It was in contrast to that statement that I interjected the notion that was not the case for what God had said.

 

[Free Christian]

Isn't Micro/macro evolution also just a theory? That it never creates new information, just shuffles what's there around? That it also has not been observed in any creature, the creating of new info? There were crickets on some island which were thought extinct because no one heard them anymore. But they were found to be now silent because some introduced bird preyed on them, zeroing in on the chirp. The ones that were born defective without a chirp survived, multiplied and now are the crickets of that island. But no new info came about, info was lost. For a lizard to gain feathered wings would not the lizard need new info. No new info is observed anywhere. Like with hunting and fishing when people targeted the big ones they were culling out the "big ones" gene pool and the big ones got fewer and fewer, even when let to recover. Loss of info. So many species have gone from our planet, nothing new, just reshuffles like with dog breeds and so on. Loss of species, loss of info, loss of habitats, loss after loss. We can observe this loss. Fossil records prove it. There was once this and that, but they are no more. This once lived, but now does not. World in decay from sin. Decay equals loss. Now that is observable, we see the loss even today. Nothing new though!

 

[Vaccine]

Isn't Micro/macro evolution also just a theory? That it never creates new information, just shuffles what's there around? That it also has not been observed in any creature, the creating of new info? There were crickets on some island which were thought extinct because no one heard them anymore. But they were found to be now silent because some introduced bird preyed on them, zeroing in on the chirp. The ones that were born defective without a chirp survived, multiplied and now are the crickets of that island. But no new info came about, info was lost. For a lizard to gain feathered wings would not the lizard need new info. No new info is observed anywhere. Like with hunting and fishing when people targeted the big ones they were culling out the "big ones" gene pool and the big ones got fewer and fewer, even when let to recover. Loss of info. So many species have gone from our planet, nothing new, just reshuffles like with dog breeds and so on. Loss of species, loss of info, loss of habitats, loss after loss. We can observe this loss. Fossil records prove it. There was once this and that, but they are no more. This once lived, but now does not. World in decay from sin. Decay equals loss. Now that is observable, we see the loss even today. Nothing new though!

Excellent observation! What is observed is one thing, what is explained is quite another.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Isn't Micro/macro evolution also just a theory?

Micro and macro evolution are terms used by creationists to both say evoluiton is wrong, while also excepting some parts of it. There is no real differnce, except the artificial boundries constructed by people such as Kent Hovend, Ken Hamm, etc.

That it never creates new information, just shuffles what's there around?

That is false. DNA is made up of 4 differnt types of protiens, however the sequence can be changed and duplicated. This adds new information since the combination of the proteins determines the function.

That it also has not been observed in any creature, the creating of new info?

I've seen it myself in the labs of my college. I've seen mutations crop up. There is also tons of papers in ecology and evolutionary biology where mutation rates are tracked.

where There were crickets on some island which were thought extinct because no one heard them anymore. But they were found to be now silent because some introduced bird preyed on them, zeroing in on the chirp. The ones that were born defective without a chirp survived, multiplied and now are the crickets of that island. But no new info came about, info was lost.

Do you have the study or a link for this?

For a lizard to gain feathered wings would not the lizard need new info.

Lizards didn't gain feathers. Dinosaurs are not lizards. Several species of dinosaurs had modified scales that became feathers. This is evident in the fossil record.

No new info is observed anywhere.

Except where I saw plants that grew twice their size. Produce more seeds. Change flower color, and grow in soil not that was not meant for them to grow.

Like with hunting and fishing when people targeted the big ones they were culling out the "big ones" gene pool and the big ones got fewer and fewer, even when let to recover. Loss of info. So many species have gone from our planet, nothing new, just reshuffles like with dog breeds and so on.

Unless you give examples, you really aren't demonstrating anything. You are also ignoring, that species don't change over night. Also, if you hunt down and kill all organisms that have a specific trait, of course that trait will be lost, because the trait can't be passed on any more. However, the smaller of the species survived. They didn't loose anything, because they never had the trait to begin with. So the species, now takes the traits that make the smaller ones small, and expands it.

Loss of species, loss of info, loss of habitats, loss after loss.

I don't think you under what information means in the context of DNA.

Fossil records prove it. There was once this and that, but they are no more. This once lived, but now does not.

Its called extinction.

World in decay from sin.

There are new species now that didn't exist 1000 years ago, 10,000 years ago, etc.

Decay equals loss. Now that is observable, we see the loss even today. Nothing new though!

Then you have ignored the countless on new species. Every year, biologists discover new ones. There are several species emerging now thanks to human encroachment on environments.

 

[Free Christian]

Hi Meatballsub. There is the example of the big horn rams or sheep. They were hunted as trophies, the real big horn ones. Now a big horn one is rare but there are plenty of the same breed around with small horns. The same goes for fishing which is why as an angler I applaud the introduction of size limits for smallest size and maximum size allowed. It has ben recognised in some circles that taking all the big fish, the biggest, can and does cause loss of those big fish in next and upcoming generations. That, how ever you look at it equals loss. Seriously, do I have a link for the crickets or hunting, yes, will I bother posting it, no, because like other posts it will be ignored and people will assume this or that. Try simply googling it up, im sure you will find it. Yes plants have been shown to do that, no argument there, but not animals or other living creatures, true? Mutations equalling new info, added, same info messed up to me, or something simply switched on or off. New species emerging every year! More like species that existed but were not found yet in deep jungles or small things previously unnoticed, or now noticed as they are driven out of their habitat! New? Only in that no one saw it in the past. I would like to see proof of a new emerged species that has proof that it evolved! Other than simply as I stated it has simply been found. Is not science observation? I observe species loss, info loss, habitat loss. Why should I equate that with gain? Because something once existed but now does not why should I assume it is because it evolved into something? Huge dino goes, loss of habitat or over predation on its food source. We see, observe habitat loss today and as a result loss of species. We see over predation today and as a result see loss of species. Looks the same as what was past to me. Its called extinction, yes I know that. They once lived, now don't. I don't get what you are getting at there? Here in Oz we have big problems with cat and fox predation. Species are going, going, almost gone. In the future, depending upon how far God lets its go, when these creatures are "extinct", no longer exist, and lets say all info on them picture or writing records is lost, what would be the cry? "Look, we found a (bandicoot) fossil, it was once here but the things we see now have evolved from that into what we see now!" Huh! That to me is what I see happening today with evolution.

 

[Vaccine]

...the sequence can be changed and duplicated. This adds new information since the combination of the proteins determines the function......There is also tons of papers in ecology and evolutionary biology where mutation rates are tracked.

Good evening MBS, "science can correct itself when new information is discovered" For example:

[FONT=times, times new roman, serif]most mutant substitutions detected through comparative studies of homologous proteins (and the nucleotide sequences) are the results of random fixation of selectively neutral or nearly neutral mutations. This is in sharp contrast to the orthodox neo-Darwinian view that practically all mutant substitutions occurring within species in the course of evolution are caused by positive Darwinian selection[/FONT]
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v267/n5608/abs/267275a0.html

"These data enabled us to assign biochemical functions for 80% of the genome, in particular outside of the well-studied protein-coding regions."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22955616

Several species of dinosaurs had modified scales that became feathers. This is evident in the fossil record.

Another correction:

The structures are not modern feathers, say the roughly half-dozen Western paleontologists who have seen the specimens.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/278/5341/1229.2.short

 

[Milk-Drops]

Good evening MBS, "science can correct itself when new information is discovered" For example:
[FONT=times, times new roman, serif]most mutant substitutions detected through comparative studies of homologous proteins (and the nucleotide sequences) are the results of random fixation of selectively neutral or nearly neutral mutations. This is in sharp contrast to the orthodox neo-Darwinian view that practically all mutant substitutions occurring within species in the course of evolution are caused by positive Darwinian selection[/FONT]
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v267/n5608/abs/267275a0.html

This doesn't disprove my point, or evolution. Its stating that not all mutation are positive, I'll end that with a DUH!

"These data enabled us to assign biochemical functions for 80% of the genome, in particular outside of the well-studied protein-coding regions."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22955616

Yep, I'm familar with this. I took classes on taxonomy and Phylogeny.

Another correction:

The structures are not modern feathers, say the roughly half-dozen Western paleontologists who have seen the specimens.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/278/5341/1229.2.short

Yeah, this is just nit picking. They still had proto feathers. Many birds still have scales, and some have teeth.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Hi Meatballsub. There is the example of the big horn rams or sheep. They were hunted as trophies, the real big horn ones. Now a big horn one is rare but there are plenty of the same breed around with small horns. The same goes for fishing which is why as an angler I applaud the introduction of size limits for smallest size and maximum size allowed. It has ben recognised in some circles that taking all the big fish, the biggest, can and does cause loss of those big fish in next and upcoming generations. That, how ever you look at it equals loss.

Yes, you are using the term loss. This is not a problem for the theory of evolution, nor is it a problem for genetics.

Seriously, do I have a link for the crickets or hunting, yes, will I bother posting it, no, because like other posts it will be ignored and people will assume this or that.

Dude, the reason I'm asking you for links is so I can check on these things. I think I understand what you are trying to say here. I wanted the articles so I could verify my ideas and suspicions. That is it.
Also, I love reading biology stuff.

Yes plants have been shown to do that, no argument there, but not animals or other living creatures, true?

No, actually animals have shown to do this as well. Bacteria also is natorious for this. There are also major studies on flies where over several generations many things change. Such as number of legs, eyes, gender ratios, size, wings, no wings, etc.

Mutations equaling new info, added, same info messed up to me, or something simply switched on or off.

Ok, let me explain it this way. There are 26 letters in the English alphabet. I can use your same argument to say here has never been a new book or essay, ever. Its all just been a loss of information. Depending on how the letter are written, and the order, changes and adds new information. Just like, if the sequence changes, even just a little. Or if a new combination of a sequence is added through a mutation, that adds new information to genetics.

Does make sense?

New species emerging every year! More like species that existed but were not found yet in deep jungles or small things previously unnoticed, or now noticed as they are driven out of their habitat! New?

No, I really mean new species. As in divergence.

I would like to see proof of a new emerged species that has proof that it evolved!

Here is a new bird.

http://phys.org/news/2013-07-scientist-bird-species-peru-cloud.html

I observe species loss, info loss, habitat loss. Why should I equate that with gain? Because something once existed but now does not why should I assume it is because it evolved into something? Huge dino goes, loss of habitat or over predation on its food source. We see, observe habitat loss today and as a result loss of species. We see over predation today and as a result see loss of species. Looks the same as what was past to me. Its called extinction, yes I know that. They once lived, now don't. I don't get what you are getting at there?

In evolutionary biology there is this thing called "extinction events". What that means is there is a huge loss of species. What happens then is other species take over the niches left by the old species.
For instance, most modern mammals only exist because of the mass extinction of dinosaurs. You are forgetting about the huge explosion of mammals that happened shortly after the extinction of dinosaurs.

Here in Oz we have big problems with cat and fox predation. Species are going, going, almost gone. In the future, depending upon how far God lets its go, when these creatures are "extinct", no longer exist, and lets say all info on them picture or writing records is lost, what would be the cry? "Look, we found a (bandicoot) fossil, it was once here but the things we see now have evolved from that into what we see now!" Huh! That to me is what I see happening today with evolution.

What you are witnessing now is 2 seperate liniages of predators. Cats and Foxes. The cats and Foxes can't hunt indefiantely. What is happening now is that the species that can't survive, will die off. Those that can, will spread into the niches once filled by the species the foxes and cats went after. Eventually the cats and foxes will start to run out of food. That will trigger either specieation or extinction. Either the cats and foxes will adapt and hunt other things, or spread out to newer areas.

This is a constant process. This is how evolution happens.

 

[Free Christian]

Hi Meatballsub. I wrote a reply but it did not post. So im not going through it again in detail to see the same thing happen and waste my time. This'll be short in case. Flies with wings that had no muscles, not actual functioning wings just mutations etc. Typing the alphabet for a year non stop does not create new characters. Just repeats the same. Like DNA being replicated, nothing new added. To Archaeopteryx, Alan Feduccia, world authority on birds from the Uni of North Carolina says "Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth bound dinosaur. But its not. Its a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of paleobabble is going to change that." Archaeopteryx is just a chimera like our Oz Platypus. Imagine it the other way around the Archaeopteryx exists and the Platypus extinct. The Platypus would cause an uproar "look what we found". What's the diff? Proves nothing, just another chimera.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Hi Meatballsub. I wrote a reply but it did not post. So im not going through it again in detail to see the same thing happen and waste my time.

Usually if I have a large quote I want to address, I'll copy it into a word or text document and format it from there. Its saves me much frustration later.

Flies with wings that had no muscles, not actual functioning wings just mutations etc.

Dude, a mutation is new information. Its changing a former form. Meaning new. Also now you are ignoring the other mutation that benefited the flies.

Typing the alphabet for a year non stop does not create new characters. Just repeats the same.

Now you are changing the criteria to something nonsensical. You asked for new information. I explained how you can accomplish that.

You Like DNA being replicated, nothing new added.

Except where functions change. That very thing that changes information in genetics. Study genetics dude.

To Archaeopteryx, Alan Feduccia, world authority on birds from the Uni of North Carolina says "Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth bound dinosaur. But its not. Its a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of paleobabble is going to change that."

I never brought up archaeopteryx. I'm assuming you assumed my bird link lead to that.

Archaeopteryx is just a chimera like our Oz Platypus.

The platypus is not a chimera. Its a non placental mammal.

Imagine it the other way around the Archaeopteryx exists and the Platypus extinct.

No, because that isn't the case.

The Platypus would cause an uproar "look what we found". What's the diff? Proves nothing, just another chimera.

No, for instance Biologists understand where the platypus came from. Its one of the last of a genera of non placental mammal. Just like the echidna.

The platypus actually has ancestors that shows where its traits came from.