At my hometown

[Chas]

(22-09-2012 12:55 PM)DLJ Wrote:  Onthefence Wrote:
Is this what would be called a transitional species?

All species are or will be transitional.

Great, isn't it?

I'd loved to be stopped in the street by Ray "bananaman" Comfort when he's asking "can you name a transitional fossil" just so that I can reply...

"Yeah... you"

If all of the 'transitional' species that ever existed were still around, we would not be able to identify any species at all. The identification of an organism as a distinct species requires that the intermediate species all be extinct.

If all of the chimpanzees' ancestors and all of mankind's ancestors existed, there would be a continuum of 'species', each able to interbreed with the next, going all the way back from humans, then all the way forward to chimpanzees, and vice versa.
There would be consternation in deciding just precisely who is human.

[Erxomai]

(22-09-2012 02:16 PM)Chas Wrote:  

(22-09-2012 12:55 PM)DLJ Wrote:  Onthefence Wrote:
Is this what would be called a transitional species?

All species are or will be transitional.

Great, isn't it?

I'd loved to be stopped in the street by Ray "bananaman" Comfort when he's asking "can you name a transitional fossil" just so that I can reply...

"Yeah... you"

If all of the 'transitional' species that ever existed were still around, we would not be able to identify any species at all. The identification of an organism as a distinct species requires that the intermediate species all be extinct.

If all of the chimpanzees' ancestors and all of mankind's ancestors existed, there would be a continuum of 'species', each able to interbreed with the next, going all the way back from humans, then all the way forward to chimpanzees, and vice versa.
There would be consternation in deciding just precisely who is human.

Are you saying you don't have that consternation just by looking around?

[Chas]

(22-09-2012 02:18 PM)Erxomai Wrote:  

(22-09-2012 02:16 PM)Chas Wrote:  If all of the 'transitional' species that ever existed were still around, we would not be able to identify any species at all. The identification of an organism as a distinct species requires that the intermediate species all be extinct.

If all of the chimpanzees' ancestors and all of mankind's ancestors existed, there would be a continuum of 'species', each able to interbreed with the next, going all the way back from humans, then all the way forward to chimpanzees, and vice versa.
There would be consternation in deciding just precisely who is human.

Are you saying you don't have that consternation just by looking around?

Right; I meant more consternation.

[Onthefence]

(22-09-2012 02:10 PM)Chas Wrote:  

(22-09-2012 12:24 PM)Onthefence Wrote:  Thanks, for replying. I'll look into it. I suppose I was hoping for a simple answer. We've had Bible study on evolution and why it's false. However I'm seeing that most of the information they sited was seriously wrong.

The simple summary of DNA evidence is that all living creatures on Earth share the same DNA biochemistry and mechanisms; that there are genes in widely different species that are identical or very similar; that the more closely things seem to be related, the more similar is their DNA; we have about 98%+ of our DNA in common with chimpanzees.

When we look at the differences in DNA from species to species, we see a family of differences that are easily explainable as the branching tree that evolution would result in. Unless, of course, God has a sense of humor and put all of this together to fool us.

Oh wow. That's pretty amazing. So, DNA actually backs up evolution? This is the exact opposite I've been told. I've been told there isn't any proof to all that. They do say...well, I'm sure your aware of all the arguments...

They're just afraid. It's sad really.

[Onthefence]

(22-09-2012 12:55 PM)DLJ Wrote:  Onthefence Wrote:
Is this what would be called a transitional species?

All species are or will be transitional.

Great, isn't it?

I'd loved to be stopped in the street by Ray "bananaman" Comfort when he's asking "can you name a transitional fossil" just so that I can reply...

"Yeah... you"

That's a great way of looking at it!

[DLJ]

(22-09-2012 02:55 PM)Onthefence Wrote:  

(22-09-2012 12:55 PM)DLJ Wrote:  Onthefence Wrote:
Is this what would be called a transitional species?

All species are or will be transitional.

Great, isn't it?

I'd loved to be stopped in the street by Ray "bananaman" Comfort when he's asking "can you name a transitional fossil" just so that I can reply...

"Yeah... you"

That's a great way of looking at it!

In my imaginary conversation with Mr Comfort, he will reply: "Ah! No! I can't be a transitional fossil cos fossils are burried underground".
Then I will wittily retort: "That ...", pause for dramatic effect... raising of one sinister eyebrow "... can be arranged".

To add to Chas's continuum comment:

Not only is there a chronological continuum (that's probably not an official term, I've not googled this) but also speciation ... geographic continuum ... that we can see today...

I forget where I found out about it (Dawkins, I'd guess) but there is the example of two species of gull on an island. Species 1 cannot interbreed with species 2.
Go to the next land mass to the east and you'll find a slight variation (version 1.000001) and these two variations are close enough to interbreed. Then go east again to find another variation (1.000002).
Keep going around the world and you will get to a land mass just to the west of where you started and find a gull (version 1.999999) that can breed with species 2.

Read also about Darwin's finches.

"Speciation" seems to be ok with folks like Jonathan Sarfati (of Creation Ministries International) author of The Greatest Hoax on Earth (Refuting Dawkins on Evolution) but they argue that speciation only started happening after the flood.

Ah! I remember now! The Larus gull:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

The diagrams on this link would have saved me typing ... ah well!

Y'know, I've always had a problem with the "continuum vs species" thing. Not a problem with understanding it... a problem with applying it.
Once one realises that everything is so closely related you see artificially drawn lines everywhere:

A bank here in Singapore was fined $210m for ATMs being out of use for 7 hours.
Another bank was not fined for an outage of 6 hours and 59 minutes.

I can have legal sex with a girl as the clock chimes on her sixteenth birthday but premature (pre-mature... see what I did there?) ejactulation a few seconds earlier will see me behind bars.

I'm looking forward to what happens to our very own Teen Thread. Will it be like the movie Logan's Run? How will the teen mods eject the ex-teens when they get to 20yo. Will A-squared change the rules when it gets to his turn to be ejected?

Should gorillas and chimps have the same legal rights as us more solipsistic beings?


These are questions that prey on mind.

Much easier not to worry about it and spend time more productively hanging around in bars buying long island iced teas for 15.99999 year olds.

[Thomas]

My reply to the "Evolution is not true" crowd is simply this:

The Theory of Evolution as stated is that individuals with superior traits for survival will be more likely to survive and therefore pass on the superior genetic traits. Over time species evolve. With every scientific method of analysis known, from DNA to carbon dating, Evolution has not been disproven and every case where it can be confirmed it has been, for over 150 years. Overwhelming physical evidence supports evolution, where zero physical evidence contradicts it.


The problem is information like this that presents completely false information:
http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/
"Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a theory in crisis in light of the tremendous advances we've made in molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics over the past fifty years."

There is not evidence to contradict evolution. Scientific advances are not disproving evolution. They present evidence of disproof as the "unexplained by evolution".
"You can't show how evolution caused this; therefore, evolution is not true"

We will always have a percentage of fools in any society. Too bad it's over 50% in the US. In time this will decrease, but the sooner the better.

[Onthefence]

Thank you everyone who gave me such wonderful answers!

[Atothetheist]

Damn it, I missed all of the chances to flex my knowledge. Fuck you all, you are all smarty pants.