[_ Old Earth _] Theistic Evolution

[Corn Pop]

View attachment 8532

 

[Barbarian]

If fossils are millions of years old you would expect to see something in the process of evolution.

Humans, for example. Tibetans, over just a few thousand years, evolved a number of adaptations to high altitude. Genetically, they are Chinese, but have evolved to adapt to a new environment.

A multi million year old scollop fossil still looks like a scollop

Scallops have evolved markedly since the first species. "Looks like" is often not a very good guide in biology, since similar life styles often produce similar (but not identical) adaptations. This is the homology/analogy issue that so often trips up creationists, as it did this time.

and a bird still looks like a bird.

Hmmm...

No, you missed on that one, too. Notice that the bird Archaopteryx, has dinos teeth, dino tail, dino ribs, dino pelvis, dino legs, dino sternum, etc. But it has feathers, pneumatized bones, and could fly (because it has assymetrial flight feathers).

We see many other examples. Let's test your belief. Find me any two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll see if I can find a transitional form. You're on. Let's see what you can find.

 

[Cygnus]

God doesn't say. Why would you think it matters?



Not necessarily to all humans; just the descendants of Adam and Eve, who are the ancestors of all surviving humans.



Hard to say what "evolutionism" says. It's your invention, so it could be anything. Evolutionary theory doesn't work like that.

I kinda wish you would answer my question.

 

[Barbarian]

I kinda wish you would answer my question.

I did. God doesn't say. But you didn't answer my question. Why do you think it matters?

And you haven't answered this:
Let's test your belief. Find me any two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll see if I can find a transitional form. You're on. Let's see what you can find.

 

[Corn Pop]

Humans, for example. Tibetans, over just a few thousand years, evolved a number of adaptations to high altitude. Genetically, they are Chinese, but have evolved to adapt to a new environment.



Scallops have evolved markedly since the first species. "Looks like" is often not a very good guide in biology, since similar life styles often produce similar (but not identical) adaptations. This is the homology/analogy issue that so often trips up creationists, as it did this time.



Hmmm...

No, you missed on that one, too. Notice that the bird Archaopteryx, has dinos teeth, dino tail, dino ribs, dino pelvis, dino legs, dino sternum, etc. But it has feathers, pneumatized bones, and could fly (because it has assymetrial flight feathers).

We see many other examples. Let's test your belief. Find me any two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll see if I can find a transitional form. You're on. Let's see what you can find.

There all just there own fully develoved species you show in that graph. Species devolbe if anything, they dont evolve.


The first in that picture has a short arm, then the next species in the picture has a full wing. Wheres the evolution?. There just 3 different animals.

 

[Barbarian]

I kinda wish you would answer my question.

Already did. God doesn't say. But you still haven't answered my question.
Why do you think it matters?

And you haven't answered this:
Let's test your belief. Find me any two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll see if I can find a transitional form. You're on. Let's see what you can find.

And as you see, birds have changed a lot since they first appeared:

No, you missed on that one, too. Notice that the bird Archaopteryx, has dinos teeth, dino tail, dino ribs, dino pelvis, dino legs, dino sternum, etc. But it has feathers, pneumatized bones, and could fly (because it has assymetrial flight feathers).

There all just there own fully develoved species

Every transitional form is its own fully developed species. But notice that the early bird Archaeopteryx actually has more dinosaur characters than avian ones. Yet it's a flying bird with feathers.

you show in that graph.

I could, if you like. For example, I can show you how gradually the change took place, starting with advanced theropods, and ending with modern birds. It's a very gradual evolution toward modern bird. Would you like me to graph that for you?

Species devolbe if anything, they dont evolve.

I know you want to believe that, but the evidence says otherwise. Even most creationists admit that new species evolve.

The first in that picture has a short arm, then the next species in the picture has a full wing.

It's an arm, as every wing is. With free fingers, unlike the modern wing which has fused and reduced digits. Transitional between the arm of the dinosaur and the arm of a modern bird. And notice the allometric relative increase in wing size, as a result of an absolute decrease in body size.

Wheres the evolution?

Upper limbs,sternum, hips, tail, skull, feathers, legs, hands, teeth, etc. And since this drawing was made a few years ago, we have more transitionals that show even more gradual change over time. Would you like to learn about them?

There just 3 different animals.

Two rather different animals, with a transitional form between them. Precisely what Huxley predicted many years ago, based on anatomical data alone. This is compelling evidence. But even more compelling is the fact that we never see these homologies where evolutionary theory says they shouldn't be. No bones in scorpions, no feathers on mammals, no gills on whales.

And that is one of the reasons why evolutionary theory is so well established. And you still haven't answered my question. Name me any two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, and we'll see if I can locate a transitional.

 

[Cygnus]

Already did. God doesn't say. But you still haven't answered my question.
Why do you think it matters?

And you haven't answered this:
Let's test your belief. Find me any two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll see if I can find a transitional form. You're on. Let's see what you can find.

And as you see, birds have changed a lot since they first appeared:

No, you missed on that one, too. Notice that the bird Archaopteryx, has dinos teeth, dino tail, dino ribs, dino pelvis, dino legs, dino sternum, etc. But it has feathers, pneumatized bones, and could fly (because it has assymetrial flight feathers).



Every transitional form is its own fully developed species. But notice that the early bird Archaeopteryx actually has more dinosaur characters than avian ones. Yet it's a flying bird with feathers.



I could, if you like. For example, I can show you how gradually the change took place, starting with advanced theropods, and ending with modern birds. It's a very gradual evolution toward modern bird. Would you like me to graph that for you?



I know you want to believe that, but the evidence says otherwise. Even most creationists admit that new species evolve.



It's an arm, as every wing is. With free fingers, unlike the modern wing which has fused and reduced digits. Transitional between the arm of the dinosaur and the arm of a modern bird. And notice the allometric relative increase in wing size, as a result of an absolute decrease in body size.



Upper limbs,sternum, hips, tail, skull, feathers, legs, hands, teeth, etc. And since this drawing was made a few years ago, we have more transitionals that show even more gradual change over time. Would you like to learn about them?



Two rather different animals, with a transitional form between them. Precisely what Huxley predicted many years ago, based on anatomical data alone. This is compelling evidence. But even more compelling is the fact that we never see these homologies where evolutionary theory says they shouldn't be. No bones in scorpions, no feathers on mammals, no gills on whales.

And that is one of the reasons why evolutionary theory is so well established. And you still haven't answered my question. Name me any two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, and we'll see if I can locate a transitional.

All you did was present fossils...and similiar traits...and not similiar traits....and called it evolutionism.
Just for the record...there were birds long befor Archy.

This evo-based site also says no to birds evolving from dino's. Perhaps you should get your own house in order before making such claims.

 

[Barbarian]

All you did was present fossils...and similiar traits...

Homologies. You're confusing analogous structures with homologous ones. And the fossil evidence, while compelling, is only part of the evidence for the dinosauran ancestry of birds. We'll get to that. As you just learned, Archaeopteryx, one of the earliest birds, is actually more like a dinosaur than a bird. And the transitional nature of Archaeopteryx between dinosaurs and birds is undeniable

.....and called it evolutionism.

No, "evolutionism" is a strawman produced by creationists, who are aware that they cannot hope to refute evolutionary theory.

Just for the record...there were birds long befor Archy.

There are indeed, more primitive birds than Archaeopteryx. Would you like to learn about those?

This evo-based site also says no to birds evolving from dino's.

From your link:
NO EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION - Scientists' Research and Darwinism

PROBLEMS WITH CHEMICAL EVOLUTION OF LIFE THEORIES

If you think that's "evo-based" then we've located one of your difficulties. And the scientists they cite differ from mainstream scientists only in arguing that dinosaurs and birds had a common ancestor, instead of birds evolving from dinosaurs. That really offers you no comfort at all, does it?

Indeed, as you also learned, many creationists now admit that speciation is a fact. "Answers in Genesis" is one of the largest and oldest creationist organizations. And they admit:
Before the time of Charles Darwin, a false idea had crept into the church—the belief in the “fixity” or “immutability” of species. According to this view, each species was created in precisely the same form that we find it today. The Bible nowhere teaches that species are fixed and unchanging.
https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/speciation/

Perhaps you should get your own house in order before making such claims.

And you were going to respond to my question and name me those two major groups that scientists think are evolutionarily connected, which lack transistional forms. When do you think you're going to be able to do that?

 

[turnorburn]

Probably a somewhat calmer and more reasoned post would be more convincing. Try to gather some facts that support your position, and present those.

Or have you already tried that?

Why muddy the water when that's exactly what it does "fuels their argument against Gods word" just ask Richard Dawkins

 

[Barbarian]

Why muddy the water when that's exactly what it does "fuels their argument against Gods word" just ask Richard Dawkins

Just suggesting that a more reasoned approach would serve you better than:

evolution promotes humanism atheism and communism it actually fuels their argument against Gods word..

 

[Lewis]

turnorburn wrote
justask Richard Dawkins

What did he do, well when he was alive ? Oops my bad that is the wrong Richard Dawkins that I was thinking about.

 

[Corn Pop]

Already did. God doesn't say. But you still haven't answered my question.
Why do you think it matters?

And you haven't answered this:
Let's test your belief. Find me any two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll see if I can find a transitional form. You're on. Let's see what you can find.

And as you see, birds have changed a lot since they first appeared:

No, you missed on that one, too. Notice that the bird Archaopteryx, has dinos teeth, dino tail, dino ribs, dino pelvis, dino legs, dino sternum, etc. But it has feathers, pneumatized bones, and could fly (because it has assymetrial flight feathers).



Every transitional form is its own fully developed species. But notice that the early bird Archaeopteryx actually has more dinosaur characters than avian ones. Yet it's a flying bird with feathers.



I could, if you like. For example, I can show you how gradually the change took place, starting with advanced theropods, and ending with modern birds. It's a very gradual evolution toward modern bird. Would you like me to graph that for you?



I know you want to believe that, but the evidence says otherwise. Even most creationists admit that new species evolve.



It's an arm, as every wing is. With free fingers, unlike the modern wing which has fused and reduced digits. Transitional between the arm of the dinosaur and the arm of a modern bird. And notice the allometric relative increase in wing size, as a result of an absolute decrease in body size.



Upper limbs,sternum, hips, tail, skull, feathers, legs, hands, teeth, etc. And since this drawing was made a few years ago, we have more transitionals that show even more gradual change over time. Would you like to learn about them?



Two rather different animals, with a transitional form between them. Precisely what Huxley predicted many years ago, based on anatomical data alone. This is compelling evidence. But even more compelling is the fact that we never see these homologies where evolutionary theory says they shouldn't be. No bones in scorpions, no feathers on mammals, no gills on whales.

And that is one of the reasons why evolutionary theory is so well established. And you still haven't answered my question. Name me any two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, and we'll see if I can locate a transitional.

You said you can can show a graph for a gradual evolution, is there evidence for this gradual change, like a thousand full fossils showing the full process of evolution?

I dont care if animals share the same bone structure or have bones that,are the same, I have legs as well, just show me one animal fully evolving from fossils for evidence. I want to see a wing develop slowely over millions of years from a single animal, and all the full fossils.

 

[Barbarian]

You said you can can show a graph for a gradual evolution,

Yep.

is there evidence for this gradual change,

Yep.

like a thousand full fossils showing the full process of evolution?

There are millions of fossils showing the process of evolution. But we were talking about birds. Want to see how the process went?

I dont care if animals share the same bone structure

As you learned, even honest creationists admit that there are many, many such series that show evidence for evolution. Would you like me to show you some of them?

or have bones that,are the same, I have legs as well, just show me one animal fully evolving from fossils for evidence. I want to see a wing develop slowely over millions of years from a single animal

Individual animals don't evolve. Populations evolve. If you want to learn about evolution, you'll have to accept it the way God did it. He is not obligated to meet your demands as to how it will be done.

 

[Barbarian]

For example, you can graph the gradual changes that led to bird beaks...

Herrerasaurus is a very primitive dinosaur, Euparkeria is a very early archosaur, of the group that gave rise to dinosaurs, pterosaurs, and crocodiles. Guanlong is a primitive theropod dinosaur, and Archaeopteryx is a very early bird. As you see, the evoution of beaks was occasioned by the gradual reduction in the nasals and maxilla and the increase in size of the premaxilla.

Would you like to see other graphs, showing how birds gradually evolved?

 

[Corn Pop]

For example, you can graph the gradual changes that led to bird beaks...

Herrerasaurus is a very primitive dinosaur, Euparkeria is a very early archosaur, of the group that gave rise to dinosaurs, pterosaurs, and crocodiles. Guanlong is a primitive theropod dinosaur, and Archaeopteryx is a very early bird. As you see, the evoution of beaks was occasioned by the gradual reduction in the nasals and maxilla and the increase in size of the premaxilla.

Would you like to see other graphs, showing how birds gradually evolved?

But thats just the same bird, so each change is labelled another species, but its still the same bird.

I believe in corruption and mutation that causes change, like blue eyes, green eyes, white skin, black skin, broen hair, blond hair type thing, all are unique, but there still human, but I dont believe every living thing has a single common ancestor.

Man is still man. Dog is still dog. Bird is still bird. Even if they many different types, but there all after there own kind.

I dont believe apple is man and whale is bird.

People believe in this full evolution because they dont think God can do it, just ask the pope, he said in his own words God is not powerful enough so thats why he had to do it all through evolution.

 

[Barbarian]

But thats just the same bird, so each change is labelled another species, but its still the same bird.

Wrong. It's not even the same class. Some are reptiles. Some are birds, and some are just a matter of opinion, depending on what you want to call a bird.

I believe in corruption and mutation that causes change, like blue eyes, green eyes, white skin, black skin, broen hair, blond hair type thing, all are unique,

So all those are "corruption?" I don't get that kind of reasoning.

but there still human,

Actually brown hair, and light skin are pre-human.

but I dont believe every living thing has a single common ancestor.

Reality is not obliged to follow our beliefs or wishes. The evidence shows that all living things on Earth have a common ancestor.

 

[Corn Pop]

Barbarian, how do you explain seed bearing plants on the third day of creation and living creatures of the sea on the 5th day?. Do you think the bible is wrong, or have you found something to harmonise the oldest fossil of life being water based?, when the bible says it was land based, at least the seed.

Or do you think the bible only speaks whats relavant, so other things, like micro organisms are valid, there just out of scripture.

 

[Corn Pop]

Wrong. It's not even the same class. Some are reptiles. Some are birds, and some are just a matter of opinion, depending on what you want to call a bird.



So all those are "corruption?" I don't get that kind of reasoning.



Actually brown hair, and light skin are pre-human.



Reality is not obliged to follow our beliefs or wishes. The evidence shows that all living things on Earth have a common ancestor.

I thought light skin was due to lack of pigment through some type of genetic malfunction. I guess I was lied to again.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian, how do you explain seed bearing plants on the third day of creation and living creatures of the sea on the 5th day?

The "days" of Genesis are figurative. We know this, because there cannot be a literal day with mornings and evenings and no Sun to have them. They are categories of creation, expressed in a figurative form.

Or do you think the bible only speaks whats relavant, so other things, like micro organisms are valid, there just out of scripture.

The Bible is about man and God and our relationship, so such things aren't of any consequence for us in Genesis.

 

[Barbarian]

I thought light skin was due to lack of pigment through some type of genetic malfunction.

Some apes have dark skins. Some don't. Some are variable. "Malfunction" really doesn't apply. Mutations can be adaptive, maladaptive, or neutral. That is all. "Malfunction" is anthropomorphism.

I guess I was lied to again.

More likely, misled by someone who knew no more than you do.