Creationist questions evolution

[James R]

If evolution is a fact, and happens so slowly, then why aren't there half-breeds (missing links) still alive today? They should still be walking the Earth.

I'm not sure what you mean by "half-breeds". Are you thinking of something like a cross between a duck and dog, or between a shark and and an elephant?

Evolution doesn't work like that. Ducks and dogs are different species. They do not interbreed. That's why they are different species, at a definitional level.

All dogs evolved from wolves. Are there intermediates between dogs and wolves? Think about wild dogs, as a rough example.

You might put a wolf and a poodle side by side and think they are very different, and that one couldn't possibly be related to the other. Nevertheless, there's a recent (in geological terms) common ancestor of all poodles and all wolves that are alive today. Poodles, of course, have not just been naturally selected. We humans have deliberately messed with their evolution. We created poodles from wolves.

Speaking more generally, though, here's where your thinking is going wrong: all modern species evolved from earlier species. Think about the common picture of the "tree" of life. In that picture, all modern animals, for example, are leaves at the outer ends of various branches of the tree. If we follow inwards from the leaves to the recent twigs, to the older and larger branches, to the trunk, everything is joined together. But the question you're asking is like asking why there are no leaves half way between two given leaves on separate outer branches of the tree. There's zero reason to propose that there should be a "branch" half way between dogs and ducks, for example. What is true is that if we were to follow the dog branch back towards the trunk of the tree (back in time), then at some point it would join with the duck branch - the point where the species that led to modern dogs and modern ducks branched away from one another.

You can't deny that there are intermediates. You are not identical to your father, who is not identical to his father. Your father is a clear intermediate between you and your grandfather. Continue the small variations over thousands of generations and ask yourself why you would expect your distant ancestors to look the same as you.

 

[James R]

davewhite04:

And I don't know if evolution is correct or not, I have no faith in it as it's not important to me. An atheists faith hinges on evolution and not God.

Evolution is a scientific theory. It has nothing to do with faith. If you doubt any piece of evidence or argument for evolution, you are free to go away and learn about it and check its truth for yourself, in principle. There's no atheist bible telling you to just accept evolution or you'll go to atheist hell.

I seriously doubt that, for most atheists, the belief that God doesn't exist depends on the truth of the theory of evolution. That theory is certainly consistent with atheism, but it isn't a prerequisite for it. Moreover, there are plenty of theists who do not believe that the theory of evolution threatens their faith in any way.

Evolution certainly is a problem for Creationists, but they make up only a percentage of theists.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Evolution certainly is a problem for Creationists, but they make up only a percentage of theists.

The most recent figures suggest 40% of US are creationist...that was 2014.

I could not find more recent figures.

Alex

 

[exchemist]

You could of just said "Your name will appear on your monitor NOW!"

Of? Have, surely?

 

[iceaura]

Evolution certainly is a problem for Creationists, but they make up only a percentage of theists.

Probably a majority of Abrahamic theists, world wide.
An ostensible majority of the US Republican Party, including its representatives in government at State and Federal levels, as well.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

I bet if US did not have a military science would be outlawed but thank god they understand you need science to wage war.

Alex

 

[Jan Ardena]

Probably a majority of Abrahamic theists, world wide.
An ostensible majority of the US Republican Party, including its representatives in government at State and Federal levels, as well.

It is a problem for evolutionists as well.
Denial doesn’t make it go away!

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I seriously doubt that, for most atheists, the belief that God doesn't exist depends on the truth of the theory of evolution. That theory is certainly consistent with atheism, but it isn't a prerequisite for it. Moreover, there are plenty of theists who do not believe that the theory of evolution threatens their faith in any way.

You have to be an atheist to believe that God doesn’t exist. The theory of evolution merely gives the appearance of confidence of your atheism.

Those theists that believe Darwinian ideas are not in conflict with theism, haven’t, in my opinion, either thought it through properly, or have invented their own brand of theism, which is an atheistic endeavour.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Evolution doesn't work like that. Ducks and dogs are different species. They do not interbreed. That's why they are different species, at a definitional level.

We’re not talking about whether or not they can breed. The idea of a dog and a duck is random. What it asks is where is the evidence the one type of animal gave rise to a different kind of animal, the measure of which could be likened to the difference in anotomical, and genetic structures like a dog and a duck.

You might put a wolf and a poodle side by side and think they are very different,

While they make look different, they are both dogs. Both due to intelligence, IMO.

Nevertheless, there's a recent (in geological terms) common ancestor of all poodles and all wolves that are alive today. Poodles, of course, have not just been naturally selected. We humans have deliberately messed with their evolution. We created poodles from wolves.

How does this give credibility to Darwinian evolution?
What did the wolf evolve from?

Speaking more generally, though, here's where your thinking is going wrong: all modern species evolved from earlier species.

Saying it is one thing, showing evidence of it is an entirely different ball-game.
Drawing pictures of animals, drawing lines to connect them, does not evidence make.

But the question you're asking is like asking why there are no leaves half way between two given leaves on separate outer branches of the tree.

The question I am asking is where is the scientific evidence to show that these animals were formed out of one another?

What is true is that if we were to follow the dog branch back towards the trunk of the tree (back in time), then at some point it would join with the duck branch - the point where the species that led to modern dogs and modern ducks branched away from one another.

What is the evidence for this?

You can't deny that there are intermediates. You are not identical to your father, who is not identical to his father.

I am identical in the sense that, like my father, I am also a human being. My children, and their children are also identical in that sense.
So at what point would human offspring begin to lose their human traits, and exhibit other than human traits?

Jan.

 

[davewhite04]

davewhite04:


Evolution is a scientific theory. It has nothing to do with faith. If you doubt any piece of evidence or argument for evolution, you are free to go away and learn about it and check its truth for yourself, in principle. There's no atheist bible telling you to just accept evolution or you'll go to atheist hell.

I seriously doubt that, for most atheists, the belief that God doesn't exist depends on the truth of the theory of evolution. That theory is certainly consistent with atheism, but it isn't a prerequisite for it. Moreover, there are plenty of theists who do not believe that the theory of evolution threatens their faith in any way.

Evolution certainly is a problem for Creationists, but they make up only a percentage of theists.

Hi James still hanging in there! Entertaining thoughts without accepting them, classic.

"faith" i don't mean it in a religious context. You don't know if evolution is true or not, end of story.

So James, in your opinion, what is the difference between an agnostic and an atheist? the atheists on this site have always acted differently to the atheists i know.

Evolution is a problem for you, you just haven't read the right books.

 

[iceaura]

So at what point would human offspring begin to lose their human traits, and exhibit other than human traits?

There is no such "point".
You have never bothered to acquaint yourself with Darwinian evolutionary theory, obviously. You don't know what it says, how it works, etc.

How does this give credibility to Darwinian evolution?

Demonstrates the mechanism.

The question I am asking is where is the scientific evidence to show that these animals were formed out of one another?

In the rocks, the taxonomy, and the genetic relationships.

What it asks is where is the evidence the one type of animal gave rise to a different kind of animal,

In the rocks, the taxonomy, and the genetic relationships.

Drawing pictures of animals, drawing lines to connect them, does not evidence make.

But it does evidence show, evidence explain, evidence analyze. You can learn from it. And it's past time you did.

 

[billvon]

Those theists that believe Darwinian ideas are not in conflict with theism, haven’t, in my opinion, either thought it through properly, or have invented their own brand of theism, which is an atheistic endeavour.

Or they are merely smarter than you, and see at a higher level that there is no conflict.

 

[billvon]

We’re not talking about whether or not they can breed. The idea of a dog and a duck is random. What it asks is where is the evidence the one type of animal gave rise to a different kind of animal, the measure of which could be likened to the difference in anotomical, and genetic structures like a dog and a duck.

Fossil evidence - fossils that show a change from one organism to another.
Molecular biology - evidence
Simple observation - we have seen speciation happen while we were watching.

While they make look different, they are both dogs.

Are hyenas dogs? How about wolves? Foxes? Dingos? Coyotes? Jackals? Raccoon dogs? Civets? Raccoons?

How does this give credibility to Darwinian evolution?

It shows that rapid change is possible due to mutation. It uses a different method of selection, though.

What did the wolf evolve from?

A wolf-like creature (a canid) that was called a dawn-wolf. It looked like a fox but was aboreal. It split from felinids (cats) before that.

Saying it is one thing, showing evidence of it is an entirely different ball-game.
Drawing pictures of animals, drawing lines to connect them, does not evidence make.

Correct. But fossil evidence and DNA evidence is quite strong.

The question I am asking is where is the scientific evidence to show that these animals were formed out of one another?

Fossil evidence. DNA evidence.

I am identical in the sense that, like my father, I am also a human being. My children, and their children are also identical in that sense.
So at what point would human offspring begin to lose their human traits, and exhibit other than human traits?

They already are changing. We have less hair and larger heads than our predecessors. Most humans have evolved to drink alcohol. The future will bring more changes, although evolution proceeds very differently once we (rather than nature) decides who lives and dies - and who is never born in the first place.

 

[DaveC426913]

Drawing pictures of animals, drawing lines to connect them, does not evidence make.
The question I am asking is where is the scientific evidence to show that these animals were formed out of one another?

What city do you live in Jan?
Doesn't matter. I will come visit you and together we will go to your local museum and we will pick up and examine the bones of ancient animals and primates, including humans.

We will see the compete skeletons of quadropeds up to Miacis and prehistoric Dire Wolves and on to modern wolves, and dogs.

We will follow the irrefutable trail of evolution over millions years from proto-ape through Homo sapiens sapiens.

Then we will explore another dozen museums for as long as our money lasts, until you are buried in a mountain of real, scientifically-sound and provenanced physical evidence.

And that will certainly be the last you will ever mention "drawing picture of animals and lines to connect them".

 

[iceaura]

Are hyenas dogs?

Met one being walked on a leash in a park in Wisconsin.
It was not a dog. Every hair follicle on the back of my neck knew it wasn't a dog.

 

[DaveC426913]

It was not a dog.

Indeed it was not.
Both are Order Carnivora. Dogs are suborder Caniformia; Hyenae are Feliformia.

Seals, walruses and bears (also Caniformia) are closer to dogs than hyenae are.
Hyenae are closer to mongoose and civets than to dogs.

Like cats, hyenae can retract their claws, dogs cannot.

 

[iceaura]

Seals, walruses and bears (also Caniformia) are closer to dogs than hyenae are.

And seals don't make the hairs on the back of my neck stand up, when I meet them - even in the water.
Beavers do, a bit. So do large fish.
Humans know from dog, somehow. It's visceral. Even the ones afraid of dogs (past very young) normally have a bad experience in their past, which affected them strongly in the way betrayals will.
(Some of that aura surrounds horses. Lots of people are a bit scared of cows - many city kids visiting a dairy farm will get spooked when cows turn and look at them and walk over without a fence between; the reaction is much milder, even absent, if horses do the same).

One more thing creationists have a hard time explaining.

Like cats, hyenae can retract their claws,

They can't.
They are much like dogs in many other respects as well - body proportions, head shape, diet, even adaptability to walking on a leash - but they don't pass; they trigger primal brain warning circuitry.

 

[DaveC426913]

They can't.

I stand corrected.
"Many" feliformia can; but not Hyenae, apparently.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

It is funny how creationists reject the mountains of real put your hands on evidence for evolution and yet happily form their religious beliefs upon no tangible evidence and happily accept that a mythical creator made a mud model which he caused to become a living human, and later built a mate ..given that he was building these humans in his image one wonders if this creator was a male or a female☺....and these two humans populated the world until the creator becoming upset killed all life except the life that 8 humans could save...and from that unhappy situation all life started again...its beyond belief... but why believers try to turn this myth into fact defies all logic...do believers understand the notion of logic?

They are unable to look at how their minds sadly have been rendered unable to look at anything rational that may hint their beliefs are simply wrong.

To believe evolution is incorrect is really swimming against the tide...so who do they believe? the great body of work in support of the science of evolution put together in times where folk know where the Sun goes at night?...or to get their knowledge from an ancient text? which has been demonstrated to be made up and pradgerised from earlier works?. That is a fact with real evidence in support...not made up but an established fact as real as the Sun.

We have evidence from clay tablets making it clear that the biblical account was not only made up but second hand to boot...that is a fact as real as the Sun.

There is no contest yet creationists hold on to the lies that were burnt into their minds before they had any ability to think...and it appears that they have never found the ability to think rationally about the con that is religion.

How they can hold on knowing that all they believe is a made up secondhand lie demonstrates the real damage that is caused by dismissing real evidence with a casual " but its my faith" shut down...

You expose yourself to being exploited by the con artists.

Faith is what you cling to in the absence of evidence in support of belief and that you cling to in the face of evidence that your good book is made up.


Its so hard to admit one has been conned but such an admission is their only hope.

Another funny thing as it relates to christians...
They will tell you, if you mention the old testaments endorsement of slavery or killing ones neighbours who work on the sabath...that the new testament works on a new covenant or something such that they dont follow it these days...yet they are happy to take the creation myth from the old testament...kinda makes you think they just make stuff up as they go along...well that is the way of it given so much christianity was invented by the catholic church centuries after the mythical JC was claimed to exist.

But perhaps the best question to ask any believer is how much have you and your family paid these con artists in your time...watch them blush.

Jan is learning about evolution slowly and it is wonderful to see he is starting to understand the basic principles of evolution and is now educating himself by asking questions.

Hopefully he no longer fights the strawman built by creationist and addresses the actual science and becomes enlightened.
..and hopefully a time will come where he no longer shares his hard earned cash with any con artist.


Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Creationist or crazy person