Jan:
One would think that at some stage of its evolution, there would be some disadvantage to the form. Unless you are suggesting that at every point of the transition, the environmental condition/nature evolves along with the different forms and in doing so, accomodates the transition at every point.
Changes to the environment drive evolution. If a species exists in a stable environment, then there is nothing driving the species to change in any particular way, since it is already well adapted. But suppose the environment changes in some way (for example: predator numbers or types change, temperature changes, local vegetation changes, or the species itself migrates to a new location). Then, natural selection acts on the population, giving those who are slightly better adapted to the new conditions a survival advantage over those less well adapted. Thus, species evolve with their environment.
Me: However, at the same time, other branches are growing, and sprouting new branches, such as happened when the common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans split into the two populations which eventually led to the separate species we see today.
You: What did this "common ancestor" evolve from?
The common ancestor of humans and chimpazees (call it X) evolved from earlier ancestor species. Trace things back a little further on the evolutionary tree and you find the common ancestor of X and the modern gorilla. Call this species Y - the common ancestor of the African apes. Trace the tree further back and you find the common ancestor of Y and the Asian apes (Orang utans and gibbons). An example of an ancestor species existing at this particular stage is the species
Proconsul.
So you're saying the "common ancestor" rapidly evolved and was at no time during the transitional process, lacking in any bodily parts?
If you're looking at recent evolution (last 25 million years or so) of apes, then yes. Anatomical features have obviously changed over that time, but not in the kind of major way you're talking about. For example, the human face is flatter than that of the chimpanzee. The human brain is larger. But both chimps and humans have brains and faces, and eyes and legs and arms and so on, and so did all their ancestors to the point where I've traced back above.
I read somewhere that the fossil record was seriously incomplete due to.....lack of fossils.
Yes, that's what I said.
There was no actual pelvic girdle.
I don't know what you're referring to here.
This is not a fact, it is speculation. Nothing was found to indicate the Ambulocetus had active hind-legs. Please correct me if i'm wrong.
I would have to look into that. Do you have a handy reference for your statement, because if so it will save some time.
Some evolutionists indicate that those "back-leg bones" serve a purpose to the Whales. So you cannot be sure that they are useless.
Presumably, you have a reference for this. Which evolutionists? Where?
Personally i have no problem with Darwins theory of evolution. Even though i believe the universe was intelligently designed, there is still alot of fascinating things to learn from the alternative theories. But it should not (IMO) be put forward as fact.
Aren't you contradicting yourself in these two sentences? Either you believe Darwin was right, or you believe he was wrong. You can't have "no problem" with his theory and at the same time think it is wrong.
This idea [the "tree" of life] is just a devised mechanism for the theory of evolution, to accommodate the admission that the intermediates are missing. There is no current, observable data to prove this idea is factual.
That is incorrect. In my previous post I described several forms of evidence.
Me: To take one example, there are about 14 species of a particular type of bird in Europe which are all virtually identical in all visual and behavioural respects, but which nevertheless cannot interbreed with each other.
You: Which birds are these?
The gulls
Larus argentatus. Another similar example can be found in species of salamander
Ensatina.
Me: Also, chimps are still evolving. So is every other living thing on the planet.
You: 1) How do you know this?
Because every chimp which is born has different DNA from every other chimp (excepting identical twins).
2) What are we (humans) evolving into?
Different kinds of humans.
3) And what part of this transition is purely naturalistic?
All of it.
There are similarities, i agree. But that is no reason to think we have some common evolutionary ancestor from which we sprang forth, on account of natural selection.
That is wrong. There are very good reasons for thinking exactly that.
It is quite possible that they were, are, and always be, what they are, and we what we are. Our forms could have been created that way.
If they were created that way, millions of years ago, they would have evolved into something quite different by now. All scientific evidence is against that, however. We do not, for example, find fossils of modern animals below a certain depth in the fossil record. Perhaps you can explain why using your creation theory.
What would it take to convince you that everything is designed by a superior intelligence?
Some evidence which cannot be accounted for by a naturalistic explanation. Evidence that a superior intelligence exists might also help, though that would be very indirect.
Me: That is, chimpanzees are more like humans than they are like gorillas, or, indeed, any other ape or monkey.
You: So what? Why couldn't they have been purposely designed like that? How do you know they weren’t?
That was not my point; the point is contained in the next quote:
Me: It therefore makes no sense to classify chimpanzees and gorillas into a class of which excludes human beings.
You: They aren't human are they? They may be similar. But human they aint.
You missed the point, so I'll repeat it.
It makes no sense to classify chimpanzees and gorillas into a meaningful taxonomic class which excludes human beings.
A good argument is not necessarily true, even if convincing.
No, but a good argument is more likely to be true than a bad one, right?
Me: Are you different from your father? Is he different from your grandfather? If the answer is "yes", then your father shows features intermediate between you and your grandfather.
You: But the process of the creation is due to persons (intelligent life-forms) not random events. There is a cause and effect.
I don't understand what you're saying here, but as far as I can tell it doesn't alter the impact of my point at all.
Me: If your father was fossilised, he would be an "intermediate" fossil.
You: 1) Between what?
Between your grandfather and you.
2) His fossil would not be my father. I would not recognise it as my father.
This is irrelevant to the issue at hand, and I wonder why you even mention it.
I am aware of this type of logic, but I think it is fundamentally wrong.
Why?
I believe in evolution, but not exactly in the sense Darwin or modern evolutionists propose(d).
Which type of evolution do you believe in, and why?
Me: …it is necessary to throw away the idea that the animal kingdom (or plants, or fungi) is neatly split up into "kinds" of creatures.
You: Why? They are different kinds of creatures with different bodies and mentalities.
You missed the point again. If you compare a cow to a worm, you will see many differences. This is because cows and worms are on widely separated branches of the evolutionary tree. But when you begin to look at species which are close to each other, such as the gulls mentioned previously, you see that the dividing lines between species are not as clear as you might imagine.
It works the other way around, too. Probably
the major obstacle people encounter in coming to an appreciation of Darwin's theory is in dispensing with their ideas of fixed, immutable "kinds" of animals and plants. To even begin to appreciate how natural selection works, you need to recognise that no two individuals of the same species are identical. So, not only are cows different from worms, but any two cows are also different
from each other, though in more subtle ways.
I agree that we/they are all individuals, but the part of them that is individual is not fossilized.
That is obviously wrong. If I am fossilised and you are fossilised, and some archaeologist digs up our skeletons, he will immediately be able to point out differences between us, purely on the basis of our skeletons.
I’m sure I have a good understanding of what you are saying, and in some way I agree with you, but I don’t see it in the same way as you.
How do you see it, then? Please explain your version of evolution.
I accept evolution, but stop short of biological evolution.
What kind of evolution is non-biological? I have no idea what you're talking about. I hope you can explain it for me.
I believe the soul transmigrates from one species to another in much the same order as Darwin proposed.
So, the soul of a worm transmigrates into a human?
What evidence can you provide which supports your belief?
And when it attains a human form it has the ability to stop the process of transmigration by remembering its original, eternal form.
Are you asserting that the human form is "original" and "eternal"? In what sense? And what evidence supports that contention?
