Andylusion
Platinum Member
I absolutely believe the Bible is literal.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Why do people still believe in macro evolution?
- Thread starter ObligationLaunch
- Start date
I absolutely believe the Bible is literal.
ObligationLaunch
Senior Member
- Feb 10, 2016
- 566
- 10
- 53
- Thread starter
- #102
You prefer to not have any ideas at all about how the diversity of life on Earth came to be.
Of course I have ideas. BUT all those ideas has to be TESTED to
be valid. marco evolution isn't valid at all.
Frankly I don't know how you manage to curb you imagination so much so that you refuse to even consider any theory about how the diversity of life on Earth came to be.
Curb my imaginaion? wow! Thats's an original Ad Hominem/
Doesn't say a thing though. Ad Hominems never do.
Meanwhile- there is only one theory- Evolution- which best fits the evidence we have.
You don't make the distinction between micro and macro evolution.
Scientist do,
You can reject the evidence- and the theory- and you can put your head in the sand.
I reject the theory because there is no evidence for macro-evolution.
Of course you can keep on believing that I reject evidence,
I don't. It is more simple then that. There is NO EVIDENCE..
Too difficult eh?
SixFoot
Get off my lawn!
- Sep 4, 2014
- 1,629
- 665
- 1,030
If you believe the bible is literal, I worry.I'm a Christian and I believe evolution to be a valid theory. If God created the Universe with a grand design in mind, I don't see why it's so far-fetched to acknowledge that it would include designing the very laws of physics/mechanics that govern our lower-dimensional existence.
...unless one reads the Bible in a strictly literal sense. In that case, I could understand one's confusion on the existence of existence.
So the Bible isn't literal? Then how do you if ANYTHING it says is even remotely true? I've never understood people who say "I'm a Christian, but I don't believe in the fundamentals of Christianity".
I absolutely believe the Bible is literal.
If you believe the Bible is literal, then you worship differently than others. Congratulations on being an individual. I'll see you in Heaven.
abu afak
ALLAH SNACKBAR!
- Mar 3, 2006
- 7,231
- 2,569
- 315
No No Brain Dead NONConversant NONdebater VomitedLunch...I reject the theory because there is no evidence for macro-evolution.
Of course you can keep on believing that I reject evidence,
I don't. It is more simple then that. There is NO EVIDENCE..
Too difficult eh?
There is plenty of EVIDENCE, you DENY/Necessarily Ignore it to save... your 'savior god.'
LYING FOR JESUS.
WHO DAT?
Man or Ape?
Or the most RECENT Find: Homo Naledi.
NALEDI FOSSILS | News
This Face Changes the Human Story. But How?
Scientists have discovered a new species of human ancestor deep in a South African cave, adding a baffling new branch to the family tree.
By Jamie Shreeve, National Geographic
Photographs by Robert Clark
SEPTEMBER 10, 2015
While primitive in some respects, the Face, Skull, and Teeth show enough Modern features to justify
H. naledi's placement in the genus Homo.
Artist Gurche spent some 700 hours reconstructing the head from bone scans, using bear fur for hair.
PHOTOGRAPH BY MARK THIESSEN, NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC
A trove of bones hidden deep within a South African cave represents a new species of human ancestor, scientists announced Thursday in the journal eLife. Homo naledi, as they call it, appears very primitive in some respects—it had a tiny brain, for instance, and apelike shoulders for climbing.
But in other ways it looks remarkably like modern humans. When did it live? Where does it fit in the human family tree? And how did its bones get into the deepest hidden chamber of the cave—could such a primitive creature have been disposing of its dead intentionally?
This is the story of one of the greatest fossil discoveries of the past half century, and of what it might mean for our understanding of human evolution.
[........]
This Face Changes the Human Story. But How?
Scientists have discovered a new species of human ancestor deep in a South African cave, adding a baffling new branch to the family tree.
By Jamie Shreeve, National Geographic
Photographs by Robert Clark
SEPTEMBER 10, 2015
While primitive in some respects, the Face, Skull, and Teeth show enough Modern features to justify
H. naledi's placement in the genus Homo.
Artist Gurche spent some 700 hours reconstructing the head from bone scans, using bear fur for hair.
PHOTOGRAPH BY MARK THIESSEN, NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC
A trove of bones hidden deep within a South African cave represents a new species of human ancestor, scientists announced Thursday in the journal eLife. Homo naledi, as they call it, appears very primitive in some respects—it had a tiny brain, for instance, and apelike shoulders for climbing.
But in other ways it looks remarkably like modern humans. When did it live? Where does it fit in the human family tree? And how did its bones get into the deepest hidden chamber of the cave—could such a primitive creature have been disposing of its dead intentionally?
This is the story of one of the greatest fossil discoveries of the past half century, and of what it might mean for our understanding of human evolution.
[........]
WHO DAT?
Man or Ape?
and again, We Have anatomical Vestiges of our Ancestors (Wisdom Teeth, Appendix, Coccyx/Tail) which only COMMON DESCENT explains. As do Other species, and all their [millions of] transitional ancestors/fossils.
+
ObligationLaunch
Senior Member
- Feb 10, 2016
- 566
- 10
- 53
- Thread starter
- #106
No No Brain Dead NONConversant NONdebater VomitedLunch...
There is plenty of EVIDENCE, you DENY/Necessarily Ignore it to save... your 'savior god.'
LYING FOR JESUS.
Wow! Lot of Ad Hominems here! You must really hate me, or what?
You are OR a bit blind, or can't read!
I have stated NUMEROUS TIMES that this is not about god or jesus!
Hell, In my vieuw the idiot 'jesus' has never existed!
I am ONLY looking at the lack of evidence!
Show me the evidence and I will accept marco-evolution.
Problem is, there is NOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNEEEEEEEEEEE
ONLY if you believe the non-sense before hand, you will see 'evidence' everywhere.
If you put these blinders off you really see there is none.
nowhere.
Last edited:
abu afak
ALLAH SNACKBAR!
- Mar 3, 2006
- 7,231
- 2,569
- 315
You Lunatical POS.Wow! Lot of Ad Hominems here! You must really hate me, or what?
You are OR a bit blind, or can't read!
I have stated NUMEROUS TIMES that this is not about god or jesus!
Hell, In my vieuw the idiot 'jesus' has never existed!
I am ONLY looking at the lack of evidence!
Show me the evidence and I will accept marco-evolution.
Problem is, there is NOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNEEEEEEEEEEE
ONLY if you believe the non-sense before hand, you will see 'evidence' everywhere.
If you put these blinders off you really see there is none.
nowhere.
I have posted Evidence, and you just keep denying it.
(ie, who/what are those creatures, above? Why do we have Anatomical Vestiges of our Evolutionary Ancestors?)
You are a Mental Defective who should be (or is) in an institution.
Here was another of your Insane/Conspiracy OPs
The moon landings were a HOAX
+
Last edited:
ObligationLaunch
Senior Member
- Feb 10, 2016
- 566
- 10
- 53
- Thread starter
- #108
You Lunatical POS.Wow! Lot of Ad Hominems here! You must really hate me, or what?
You are OR a bit blind, or can't read!
I have stated NUMEROUS TIMES that this is not about god or jesus!
Hell, In my vieuw the idiot 'jesus' has never existed!
I am ONLY looking at the lack of evidence!
Show me the evidence and I will accept marco-evolution.
Problem is, there is NOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNEEEEEEEEEEE
ONLY if you believe the non-sense before hand, you will see 'evidence' everywhere.
If you put these blinders off you really see there is none.
nowhere.
I have posted Evidence, and you just keep denying it.
(ie, who/what are those creatures, above? Why do we have Anatomical Vestiges of our Evolutionary Ancestors?)
You are a Mental Defective who should be (or is) in an institution.
Here was another of your Insane/Conspiracy OPs
The moon landings were a HOAX
+
Well, it seems you can't handle it.
You are confuising micro with macro evolution.
Furthermore you are trying to make me wrong by association which is a cheap trick if you have no solid arguments.
But, allright, yes, the moon landings were fake en there is no macro evolution and never was.
Difficult eh?
Now, can you explain why I belong in an institution?
( btw psychiatry is also, provable one big hoax!!)
Last edited:
ObligationLaunch
Senior Member
- Feb 10, 2016
- 566
- 10
- 53
- Thread starter
- #109
All quit on the western front?
Actually, there is evidence for what you incorrectly describe as macro evolution.No No Brain Dead NONConversant NONdebater VomitedLunch...
There is plenty of EVIDENCE, you DENY/Necessarily Ignore it to save... your 'savior god.'
LYING FOR JESUS.
Wow! Lot of Ad Hominems here! You must really hate me, or what?
You are OR a bit blind, or can't read!
I have stated NUMEROUS TIMES that this is not about god or jesus!
Hell, In my vieuw the idiot 'jesus' has never existed!
I am ONLY looking at the lack of evidence!
Show me the evidence and I will accept marco-evolution.
Problem is, there is NOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNEEEEEEEEEEE
ONLY if you believe the non-sense before hand, you will see 'evidence' everywhere.
If you put these blinders off you really see there is none.
nowhere.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent
ObligationLaunch
Senior Member
- Feb 10, 2016
- 566
- 10
- 53
- Thread starter
- #111
Actually, there is evidence for what you incorrectly describe as macro evolution.No No Brain Dead NONConversant NONdebater VomitedLunch...
There is plenty of EVIDENCE, you DENY/Necessarily Ignore it to save... your 'savior god.'
LYING FOR JESUS.
Wow! Lot of Ad Hominems here! You must really hate me, or what?
You are OR a bit blind, or can't read!
I have stated NUMEROUS TIMES that this is not about god or jesus!
Hell, In my vieuw the idiot 'jesus' has never existed!
I am ONLY looking at the lack of evidence!
Show me the evidence and I will accept marco-evolution.
Problem is, there is NOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNEEEEEEEEEEE
ONLY if you believe the non-sense before hand, you will see 'evidence' everywhere.
If you put these blinders off you really see there is none.
nowhere.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent
Really? and I see macro evolution mentioned in there.
What is 'macro evolution'?
There is evolution.
If you want to deny the evidence that points to evolution being the best explanation for the diversity of life on Earth, that is your right.
What is the theory that you believe explains the diversity of life on Earth?
Macro Evolution is the concept that something came from nothing, and grew to something else, which grew to something else, and eventually over the magic of time and chance, we're now humans.
Micro Evolution, is really the idea of adaptation, where you take a fruit fly, and gradually over hundreds of generations, lower the humidity level, to well below where they naturally thrive, and if you do this slowly enough, the fruit flies will adapt until they are able to survive in low humidity.
Most of those who think that evolution is supported by the "evidence" often are really showing support for adaptation. For example, the prior post talking about 'Anatomical vestiges'. These do not support evolution, by any stretch of ones imagination. What is shows is adaptation, where a particular function was no longer needed in a given environment, and thus was lost.
A true support of evolution would come from showing an animal which needed a NEW function, and gain a third eye, or something like that.
But no such example throughout all human scientific history can be found. In fact, DNA that is lost, can't be remade. When they did the research on the fruit flies, they tried to bring the humidity back up, but the flies all died. The DNA that was lost, which allowed them to function in a low humidity environment, did not magically come back, when they moved them back up to a humid environment.
There is no known biological method for adding any information to DNA.
Even then, adaptation has limits. No matter how far an adaptation can go in allowing an organism to survive by adapting to a different environment, there is at concrete limit to how far that can go. This idea that you can evolve into anything, is not supported by the evidence. That somehow, you can just have a fruit fly adapt endlessly, until they are able to live in any environment... not true. There are limits to how far adaptation can go.
So while there is tons of evidence that supports adaptation, there is none, none whatsoever that supports evolution.LOL. "Coming from nothing" has nothing to do with evolution. That's separate.Macro Evolution is the concept that something came from nothing
Introduction to Human Evolution | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program
The idea that any DNA code, can come into existence, and have a meaning, without a superior intelligence to create that code... is intellectually dishonest.
.
No- just because you refuse to believe it can- doesn't make it intellectually dishonest.
But meanwhile- that has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.
If you think that the DNA code, which is millions of times more complex, than the most detailed man-made code, was created by nothing.... it is 100% intellectually dishonest. Belief has nothing to do with it. A code, does not self-create. By definition, it must be created. To claim otherwise, is more a leap of blind irrational faith, than me believing in a creator.
And yes, it has everything to do with evolution. Name me something you claim evolved, that didn't use a DNA code. When you can answer that, we'll talk.
Wow- what a great example of circular logic.
Once again- how life began on earth is not evolution- evolution is not how life began on earth.
Now DNA is fascinating- because DNA does provide evidence of evolution. However you arguing that someone must have created DNA because.....well that is the only way it could have happened....doesn't prove your claim- nor does it have anything to do with evolution.
Actually, there is evidence for what you incorrectly describe as macro evolution.No No Brain Dead NONConversant NONdebater VomitedLunch...
There is plenty of EVIDENCE, you DENY/Necessarily Ignore it to save... your 'savior god.'
LYING FOR JESUS.
Wow! Lot of Ad Hominems here! You must really hate me, or what?
You are OR a bit blind, or can't read!
I have stated NUMEROUS TIMES that this is not about god or jesus!
Hell, In my vieuw the idiot 'jesus' has never existed!
I am ONLY looking at the lack of evidence!
Show me the evidence and I will accept marco-evolution.
Problem is, there is NOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNEEEEEEEEEEE
ONLY if you believe the non-sense before hand, you will see 'evidence' everywhere.
If you put these blinders off you really see there is none.
nowhere.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent
Really? and I see macro evolution mentioned in there.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
The Scientific Case for Common Descent
Version 2.89
Copyright © 1999-2012 by Douglas Theobald, Ph.D.
Great article- and since the author gave permission to repost it- I will
Evolution, the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences, in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses. In evolutionary debates one is apt to hear evolution roughly parceled between the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution". Microevolution, or change beneath the species level, may be thought of as relatively small scale change in the functional and genetic constituencies of populations of organisms. That this occurs and has been observed is generally undisputed by critics of evolution. What is vigorously challenged, however, is macroevolution. Macroevolution is evolution on the "grand scale" resulting in the origin of higher taxa. In evolutionary theory, macroevolution involves common ancestry, descent with modification, speciation, the genealogical relatedness of all life, transformation of species, and large scale functional and structural changes of populations through time, all at or above the species level (Freeman and Herron 2004; Futuyma 1998; Ridley 1993).
Universal common descent is a general descriptive theory concerning the genetic origins of living organisms (though not the ultimate origin of life). The theory specifically postulates that all of the earth's known biota are genealogically related, much in the same way that siblings or cousins are related to one another. Thus, universal common ancestry entails the transformation of one species into another and, consequently, macroevolutionary history and processes involving the origin of higher taxa. Because it is so well supported scientifically, common descent is often called the "fact of evolution" by biologists. For these reasons, proponents of special creation are especially hostile to the macroevolutionary foundation of the biological sciences.
This article directly addresses the scientific evidence in favor of common descent and macroevolution. This article is specifically intended for those who are scientifically minded but, for one reason or another, have come to believe that macroevolutionary theory explains little, makes few or no testable predictions, is unfalsifiable, or has not been scientifically demonstrated.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
The Scientific Case for Common Descent
Version 2.89
Copyright © 1999-2012 by Douglas Theobald, Ph.D.
What is Universal Common Descent?
niversal common descent is the hypothesis that all known living, terrestrial organisms are genealogically related. All existing species originated gradually by biological, reproductive processes on a geological timescale. Modern organisms are the genetic descendants of one ancient, original species (broadly defined as a communal population of organisms exchanging genetic material). Genetical "gradualness", a much misunderstood term, is a mode of biological change that is dependent on population phenomena; it is not a statement about the rate or tempo of evolution. Truly genetically gradual events are changes within the range of biological variation expected between two consecutive generations. Morphological change may appear fast, geologically speaking, yet still be genetically gradual (Darwin 1872, pp. 312-317; Dawkins 1996, p.241; Gould 2002, pp. 150-152; Mayr 1991, pp. 42-47; Rhodes 1983). Though gradualness is not a mechanism of evolutionary change, it imposes severe constraints on possible macroevolutionary events. Likewise, the requirement of gradualness necessarily restricts the possible mechanisms of common descent and adaptation, briefly discussed below.
Common Descent Can Be Tested Independently of Mechanistic Theories
In this essay, universal common descent alone is specifically considered and weighed against the scientific evidence. In general, separate "microevolutionary" theories are left unaddressed. Microevolutionary theories are gradualistic explanatory mechanisms that biologists use to account for the origin and evolution of macroevolutionary adaptations and variation. These mechanisms include such concepts as natural selection, genetic drift, sexual selection, neutral evolution, and theories of speciation. The fundamentals of genetics, developmental biology, molecular biology, biochemistry, and geology are assumed to be fundamentally correct—especially those that do not directly purport to explain adaptation. However, whether microevolutionary theories are sufficient to account for macroevolutionary adaptations is a question that is left open.
Therefore, the evidence for common descent discussed here is independent of specific gradualistic explanatory mechanisms. None of the dozens of predictions directly address how macroevolution has occurred, how fins were able to develop into limbs, how the leopard got its spots, or how the vertebrate eye evolved. None of the evidence recounted here assumes that natural selection is valid. None of the evidence assumes that natural selection is sufficient for generating adaptations or the differences between species and other taxa. Because of this evidentiary independence, the validity of the macroevolutionary conclusion does not depend on whether natural selection, or the inheritance of acquired characaters, or a force vitale, or something else is the true mechanism of adaptive evolutionary change. The scientific case for common descent stands, regardless.
Furthermore, because it is not part of evolutionary theory, abiogenesis also is not considered in this discussion of macroevolution: abiogenesis is an independent hypothesis. In evolutionary theory it is taken as axiomatic that an original self-replicating life form existed in the distant past, regardless of its origin. All scientific theories have their respective, specific explanatory domains; no scientific theory proposes to explain everything. Quantum mechanics does not explain the ultimate origin of particles and energy, even though nothing in that theory could work without particles and energy. Neither Newton's theory of universal gravitation nor the general theory of relativity attempt to explain the origin of matter or gravity, even though both theories would be meaningless without the a priori existence of gravity and matter. Similarly, universal common descent is restricted to the biological patterns found in the Earth's biota; it does not attempt to explain the ultimate origin of life.
What is Meant by "Scientific Evidence" for Common Descent?
Scientific theories are validated by empirical testing against physical observations. Theories are not judged simply by their logical compatibility with the available data. Independent empirical testability is the hallmark of science—in science, an explanation must not only be compatible with the observed data, it must also be testable. By "testable" we mean that the hypothesis makes predictions about what observable evidence would be consistent and what would be incompatible with the hypothesis. Simple compatibility, in itself, is insufficient as scientific evidence, because all physical observations are consistent with an infinite number of unscientific conjectures. Furthermore, a scientific explanation must make risky predictions— the predictions should be necessary if the theory is correct, and few other theories should make the same necessary predictions.
As a clear example of an untestable, unscientific, hypothesis that is perfectly consistent with empirical observations, consider solipsism. The so-called hypothesis of solipsism holds that all of reality is the product of your mind. What experiments could be performed, what observations could be made, that could demonstrate that solipsism is wrong? Even though it is logically consistent with the data, solipsism cannot be tested by independent researchers. Any and all evidence is consistent with solipsism. Solipsism is unscientific precisely because no possible evidence could stand in contradiction to its predictions. For those interested, a brief explication of the scientific method and scientific philosophy has been included, such as what is meant by "scientific evidence", "falsification", and "testability".
In the following list of evidences, 30 major predictions of the hypothesis of common descent are enumerated and discussed. Under each point is a demonstration of how the prediction fares against actual biological testing. Each point lists a few examples of evolutionary confirmations followed by potential falsifications. Since one fundamental concept generates all of these predictions, most of them are interrelated. So that the logic will be easy to follow, related predictions are grouped into five separate subdivisions. Each subdivision has a paragraph or two introducing the main idea that unites the various predictions in that section. There are many in-text references given for each point. As will be seen, universal common descent makes many specific predictions about what should and what should not be observed in the biological world, and it has fared very well against empirically-obtained observations from the past 150+ years of intense scientific investigation.
It must be stressed that this approach to demonstrating the scientific support for macroevolution is not a circular argument: the truth of macroevolution is not assumed a priori in this discussion. Simply put, the theory of universal common descent, combined with modern biological knowledge, is used to deduce predictions. These predictions are then compared to the real world in order see how the theory fares in light of the observable evidence. In every example, it is quite possible that the predictions could be contradicted by the empirical evidence. In fact, if universal common descent were not accurrate, it is highly probable that these predictions would fail. These empirically validated predictions present such strong evidence for common descent for precisely this reason. The few examples given for each prediction are meant to represent general trends. By no means do I purport to state all predictions or potential falsifications; there are many more out there for the inquiring soul to uncover.
Are There Other Scientifically Valid Explanations?
The worldwide scientific research community from over the past 150 years has discovered that no known hypothesis other than universal common descent can account scientifically for the unity, diversity, and patterns of terrestrial life. This hypothesis has been verified and corroborated so extensively that it is currently accepted as fact by the overwhelming majority of professional researchers in the biological and geological sciences (AAAS 1990; AAAS 2006; GSA 2009; NAS 2005; NCSE 2012; Working Group 2001). No alternate explanations compete scientifically with common descent, primarily for four main reasons: (1) so many of the predictions of common descent have been confirmed from independent areas of science, (2) no significant contradictory evidence has yet been found, (3) competing possibilities have been contradicted by enormous amounts of scientific data, and (4) many other explanations are untestable, though they may be trivially consistent with biological data.
When evaluating the scientific evidence provided in the following pages, please consider alternate explanations. Most importantly, for each piece of evidence, critically consider what potential observations, if found, would be incompatible with a given alternate explanation. If none exist, that alternate explanation is not scientific. As explained above, a hypothesis that is simply compatible with certain empirical observations cannot use those observations as supporting scientific evidence.
The Scientific Case for Common Descent
Version 2.89
Copyright © 1999-2012 by Douglas Theobald, Ph.D.
What is Universal Common Descent?
Common Descent Can Be Tested Independently of Mechanistic Theories
In this essay, universal common descent alone is specifically considered and weighed against the scientific evidence. In general, separate "microevolutionary" theories are left unaddressed. Microevolutionary theories are gradualistic explanatory mechanisms that biologists use to account for the origin and evolution of macroevolutionary adaptations and variation. These mechanisms include such concepts as natural selection, genetic drift, sexual selection, neutral evolution, and theories of speciation. The fundamentals of genetics, developmental biology, molecular biology, biochemistry, and geology are assumed to be fundamentally correct—especially those that do not directly purport to explain adaptation. However, whether microevolutionary theories are sufficient to account for macroevolutionary adaptations is a question that is left open.
Therefore, the evidence for common descent discussed here is independent of specific gradualistic explanatory mechanisms. None of the dozens of predictions directly address how macroevolution has occurred, how fins were able to develop into limbs, how the leopard got its spots, or how the vertebrate eye evolved. None of the evidence recounted here assumes that natural selection is valid. None of the evidence assumes that natural selection is sufficient for generating adaptations or the differences between species and other taxa. Because of this evidentiary independence, the validity of the macroevolutionary conclusion does not depend on whether natural selection, or the inheritance of acquired characaters, or a force vitale, or something else is the true mechanism of adaptive evolutionary change. The scientific case for common descent stands, regardless.
Furthermore, because it is not part of evolutionary theory, abiogenesis also is not considered in this discussion of macroevolution: abiogenesis is an independent hypothesis. In evolutionary theory it is taken as axiomatic that an original self-replicating life form existed in the distant past, regardless of its origin. All scientific theories have their respective, specific explanatory domains; no scientific theory proposes to explain everything. Quantum mechanics does not explain the ultimate origin of particles and energy, even though nothing in that theory could work without particles and energy. Neither Newton's theory of universal gravitation nor the general theory of relativity attempt to explain the origin of matter or gravity, even though both theories would be meaningless without the a priori existence of gravity and matter. Similarly, universal common descent is restricted to the biological patterns found in the Earth's biota; it does not attempt to explain the ultimate origin of life.
What is Meant by "Scientific Evidence" for Common Descent?
Scientific theories are validated by empirical testing against physical observations. Theories are not judged simply by their logical compatibility with the available data. Independent empirical testability is the hallmark of science—in science, an explanation must not only be compatible with the observed data, it must also be testable. By "testable" we mean that the hypothesis makes predictions about what observable evidence would be consistent and what would be incompatible with the hypothesis. Simple compatibility, in itself, is insufficient as scientific evidence, because all physical observations are consistent with an infinite number of unscientific conjectures. Furthermore, a scientific explanation must make risky predictions— the predictions should be necessary if the theory is correct, and few other theories should make the same necessary predictions.
As a clear example of an untestable, unscientific, hypothesis that is perfectly consistent with empirical observations, consider solipsism. The so-called hypothesis of solipsism holds that all of reality is the product of your mind. What experiments could be performed, what observations could be made, that could demonstrate that solipsism is wrong? Even though it is logically consistent with the data, solipsism cannot be tested by independent researchers. Any and all evidence is consistent with solipsism. Solipsism is unscientific precisely because no possible evidence could stand in contradiction to its predictions. For those interested, a brief explication of the scientific method and scientific philosophy has been included, such as what is meant by "scientific evidence", "falsification", and "testability".
In the following list of evidences, 30 major predictions of the hypothesis of common descent are enumerated and discussed. Under each point is a demonstration of how the prediction fares against actual biological testing. Each point lists a few examples of evolutionary confirmations followed by potential falsifications. Since one fundamental concept generates all of these predictions, most of them are interrelated. So that the logic will be easy to follow, related predictions are grouped into five separate subdivisions. Each subdivision has a paragraph or two introducing the main idea that unites the various predictions in that section. There are many in-text references given for each point. As will be seen, universal common descent makes many specific predictions about what should and what should not be observed in the biological world, and it has fared very well against empirically-obtained observations from the past 150+ years of intense scientific investigation.
It must be stressed that this approach to demonstrating the scientific support for macroevolution is not a circular argument: the truth of macroevolution is not assumed a priori in this discussion. Simply put, the theory of universal common descent, combined with modern biological knowledge, is used to deduce predictions. These predictions are then compared to the real world in order see how the theory fares in light of the observable evidence. In every example, it is quite possible that the predictions could be contradicted by the empirical evidence. In fact, if universal common descent were not accurrate, it is highly probable that these predictions would fail. These empirically validated predictions present such strong evidence for common descent for precisely this reason. The few examples given for each prediction are meant to represent general trends. By no means do I purport to state all predictions or potential falsifications; there are many more out there for the inquiring soul to uncover.
Are There Other Scientifically Valid Explanations?
The worldwide scientific research community from over the past 150 years has discovered that no known hypothesis other than universal common descent can account scientifically for the unity, diversity, and patterns of terrestrial life. This hypothesis has been verified and corroborated so extensively that it is currently accepted as fact by the overwhelming majority of professional researchers in the biological and geological sciences (AAAS 1990; AAAS 2006; GSA 2009; NAS 2005; NCSE 2012; Working Group 2001). No alternate explanations compete scientifically with common descent, primarily for four main reasons: (1) so many of the predictions of common descent have been confirmed from independent areas of science, (2) no significant contradictory evidence has yet been found, (3) competing possibilities have been contradicted by enormous amounts of scientific data, and (4) many other explanations are untestable, though they may be trivially consistent with biological data.
When evaluating the scientific evidence provided in the following pages, please consider alternate explanations. Most importantly, for each piece of evidence, critically consider what potential observations, if found, would be incompatible with a given alternate explanation. If none exist, that alternate explanation is not scientific. As explained above, a hypothesis that is simply compatible with certain empirical observations cannot use those observations as supporting scientific evidence.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
The Scientific Case for Common Descent
Version 2.89
Copyright © 1999-2012 by Douglas Theobald, Ph.D.
What is meant by scientific evidence and scientific proof? In truth, science can never establish 'truth' or 'fact' in the sense that a scientific statement can be made that is formally beyond question. All scientific statements and concepts are open to re-evaluation as new data is acquired and novel technologies emerge. Proof, then, is solely the realm of logic and mathematics (and whiskey). That said, we often hear 'proof' mentioned in a scientific context, and there is a sense in which it denotes "strongly supported by scientific means". Even though one may hear 'proof' used like this, it is a careless and inaccurate handling of the term. Consequently, except in reference to mathematics, this is the last time you will read the terms 'proof' or 'prove' in this article.
Common Sense is Not Science
Though science formally cannot establish absolute truth, it can provide overwhelming evidence in favor of certain ideas. Usually these ideas are quite unobvious, and often they clash with common sense. Common sense tells us that the earth is flat, that the Sun truly rises and sets, that the surface of the Earth is not spinning at over 1000 miles per hour, that bowling balls fall faster than marbles, that particles don't curve around corners like waves around a floating dock, that the continents don't move, and that objects heavier-than-air can't have sustained flight unless they can flap wings. However, science has been used to demonstrate that all these common sense ideas are wrong.
Science Provides Evidence for the Unobservable via Inference
The primary function of science is to demonstrate the existence of phenomena that cannot be observed directly. Science is not needed to show us things we can see with our own eyes. Direct observation is not only unnecessary in science; direct observation is in fact usually impossible for the things that really matter. In fact, the most important discoveries of science have only be inferred via indirect observation. Familiar examples of unobservable scientific discoveries are atoms, electrons, viruses, bacteria, germs, radio-waves, X-rays, ultraviolet light, energy, entropy, enthalpy, solar fusion, genes, protein enzymes, and the DNA double-helix. The round earth was not observed directly by humans until 1961, yet this counterintuitive concept had been considered a scientific fact for over 2000 years. The Copernican hypothesis that the earth orbits the sun has been acknowledged virtually ever since the time of Galileo, even though no one has ever observed the process to this day. All of these "invisible" phenomena were elucidated using the scientific method of inference. When the term "evidence" is used in this article, it is used strictly with respect to this scientific method.
The Scientific Method: More than Mere Experimentation
What exactly is the scientific method? This is a complex and contentious question, and the field of inquiry known as the "philosophy of science" is committed to illuminating the nature of the scientific method. Probably the most influential philosopher of science of the 20th century was Sir Karl Popper. Other notables are Thomas Kuhn, Imre Lakatos, Paul Feyerabend, Paul Kitcher, A. F. Chalmers, Wesley Salmon and Bas C. van Fraassen. This is not the place to delve into an explication of the various philosophies represented by these scholars. For more information I refer you to their works and to the discussion presented by John Wilkins in his Evolution and Philosophy FAQ. Personally, I take a Bayesian view of the scientific method in principle (Jaynes 2003; Salmon 1990), and a Likelihoodist stance on evidence in practice (Burnham and Anderson 2002; Edwards 1972; Royall 1997), and these views will come through in how I present the evidence for common descent.
Now, to answer the question "What is the scientific method?" - very simply (and somewhat naively), the scientific method is a program for research which comprises four main steps. In practice these steps follow more of a logical order than a chronological one:
Examination of the scientific method reveals that science involves much more than naive empiricism. Research that only involves simple observation, repetition, and measurement is not sufficient to count as science. These three techniques are merely part of the process of making observations (#1 in the steps outlined above). Astrologers, wiccans, alchemists, and shamans all observe, repeat, and measure — but they do not practice science. Clearly, what distinguishes science is the way in which observations are interpreted, tested, and used.
The Testable Hypothesis
The defining characteristic of science is the concept of the testable hypothesis. A testable hypothesis must make predictions that can be validated by independent observers. By "testable", we mean the predictions must include examples of what is likely be observed if the hypothesis is true and of what is unlikely to be observed if the hypothesis is true. A hypothesis that can explain all possible data equally well is not testable, nor is it scientific. A good scientific hypothesis must rule out some conceivable possibilities, at least in principle. Furthermore, a scientific explanation must make risky predictions — the predictions should be necessary if the theory is correct, and few other theories should make the same necessary predictions. These scientific requirements are the essence of Popperian falsifiability and corroboration.
For instance, the solipsistic hypothesis that the entire universe is actually an elaborate figment of your imagination is not a scientific hypothesis. Solipsism makes no specific or risky predictions, it simply predicts that things will be "as they are". No possible observations could conflict with solipsism, since all observations always may be explained away as simply another detailed creation of your imagination. Many other extreme examples can be thought of, such as the hypothesis that the universe suddenly came into existence in toto five minutes ago, with even our memories of "earlier" events intact. In general, creationist and "intelligent design" conjectures fail scientifically for these same reasons. Both can easily explain all possible biological observations, and neither one makes risky, specific predictions.
In contrast, Newton's scientific theory of universal gravitation makes specific predictions about what should be observed. Newton's theory predicts that the force between two masses should be inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them (otherwise known as the "inverse square law"). In principle, we could take measurements which indicated that the force is actually inversely proportional to the cube of the distance. Such an observation would be inconsistent with the predictions of Newton's universal theory of gravitation, and thus this theory is testable. Many anti-evolutionists, such as the "scientific" creationists, are especially fond of Karl Popper and his falsifiability criterion. These cynics are well known for claiming that evolutionary theory is unscientific because it cannot be falsified. In this article, these accusations are met head on. Each of the evidences given for common descent contains a section providing examples of potential falsifications, i.e. examples of observations that would be highly unlikely if the theory is correct.
Degrees of Testability: Hypotheses, Theories, Facts
"Testability" is not an either-or concept; some hypotheses are more testable than others. Contrary to some anti-evolutionist claims, not all hypotheses are equally valid scientific "interpretations" of the evidence. Some hypotheses are more successful in terms of the scientific method. Based on the scientific method, valid and useful hypotheses explain the observed facts simply, predict many previously unobserved phenomena, and withstand many potential falsifications. From a Bayesian perspective (and according to Popper's corroboration measure), the best hypothesis available explains the most facts with the fewest assumptions, makes the most confirmed predictions, and is most open to testing.
In scientific practice, a superior and well-supported hypothesis will be regarded as a theory. A theory that has withstood the test of time and the collection of new data is about as close as we can get to a scientific fact. An example is the aforementioned notion of a heliocentric solar system. At one time it was a mere hypothesis. Although it is still formally just a well-supported theory, validated by many independent lines of evidence, it is now widely regarded as scientific "fact". Nobody has ever directly observed an electron, stellar fusion, radio-waves, entropy, or the earth circling the Sun, yet these are all scientific facts. As Stephen J. Gould has said, a scientific fact is not "absolute certainty", but simply a theory that has been "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent".
Testing Involves a Totality of Evidence and Statistics
"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."
Albert Einstein, addressing the Prussian Acadamy of Science, Berlin , Jan 27, 1921
The validity of a hypothesis does not stand or fall based on just a few confirmations or contradictions, but on the totality of the evidence. Often, data that initially may seem to be inconsistent with a theory will in fact lead to new important predictions. The history of Newtonian physics gives a clear example. The abnormal movement of Uranus was initially considered inconsistent with Newton's new theory. However, by claiming the existence of an unseen planet, the anomaly was explained within Newton's paradigm. In general, an explanation for anomalous behavior should be considered ad hoc unless it is independently verifiable. Positing a new, unseen planet might be considered hedging if there were no independent way to detect if a new planet actually existed. Nevertheless, when technology had advanced enough to reliably test the new prediction, the unseen planet was found to be Neptune.
The lesson to be learned is that alternate explanations for "anomalies" should be treated like any other hypotheses: they should be weighed, tested, and either ruled out or confirmed. But a hypothesis should not be considered invalidated until thorough testing has produced multiple lines of positive evidence indicating that the hypothesis is truly inconsistent with the empirical data.
A crucial related point is that modern scientific theories are probabilistic. This means that all testing of scientific predictions is carried out in a statistical framework. Probability and statistics pervade modern scientific theories, including thermodynamics (statistical mechanics), geology, quantum mechanics, genetics, and medicine. While the mathematics of probability can be daunting for some, a working knowledge of statistics is absolutely essential for judging the fit between observed data and the predictions of any theory.
The Scientific Case for Common Descent
Version 2.89
Copyright © 1999-2012 by Douglas Theobald, Ph.D.
What is meant by scientific evidence and scientific proof? In truth, science can never establish 'truth' or 'fact' in the sense that a scientific statement can be made that is formally beyond question. All scientific statements and concepts are open to re-evaluation as new data is acquired and novel technologies emerge. Proof, then, is solely the realm of logic and mathematics (and whiskey). That said, we often hear 'proof' mentioned in a scientific context, and there is a sense in which it denotes "strongly supported by scientific means". Even though one may hear 'proof' used like this, it is a careless and inaccurate handling of the term. Consequently, except in reference to mathematics, this is the last time you will read the terms 'proof' or 'prove' in this article.
Common Sense is Not Science
Though science formally cannot establish absolute truth, it can provide overwhelming evidence in favor of certain ideas. Usually these ideas are quite unobvious, and often they clash with common sense. Common sense tells us that the earth is flat, that the Sun truly rises and sets, that the surface of the Earth is not spinning at over 1000 miles per hour, that bowling balls fall faster than marbles, that particles don't curve around corners like waves around a floating dock, that the continents don't move, and that objects heavier-than-air can't have sustained flight unless they can flap wings. However, science has been used to demonstrate that all these common sense ideas are wrong.
Science Provides Evidence for the Unobservable via Inference
The primary function of science is to demonstrate the existence of phenomena that cannot be observed directly. Science is not needed to show us things we can see with our own eyes. Direct observation is not only unnecessary in science; direct observation is in fact usually impossible for the things that really matter. In fact, the most important discoveries of science have only be inferred via indirect observation. Familiar examples of unobservable scientific discoveries are atoms, electrons, viruses, bacteria, germs, radio-waves, X-rays, ultraviolet light, energy, entropy, enthalpy, solar fusion, genes, protein enzymes, and the DNA double-helix. The round earth was not observed directly by humans until 1961, yet this counterintuitive concept had been considered a scientific fact for over 2000 years. The Copernican hypothesis that the earth orbits the sun has been acknowledged virtually ever since the time of Galileo, even though no one has ever observed the process to this day. All of these "invisible" phenomena were elucidated using the scientific method of inference. When the term "evidence" is used in this article, it is used strictly with respect to this scientific method.
The Scientific Method: More than Mere Experimentation
What exactly is the scientific method? This is a complex and contentious question, and the field of inquiry known as the "philosophy of science" is committed to illuminating the nature of the scientific method. Probably the most influential philosopher of science of the 20th century was Sir Karl Popper. Other notables are Thomas Kuhn, Imre Lakatos, Paul Feyerabend, Paul Kitcher, A. F. Chalmers, Wesley Salmon and Bas C. van Fraassen. This is not the place to delve into an explication of the various philosophies represented by these scholars. For more information I refer you to their works and to the discussion presented by John Wilkins in his Evolution and Philosophy FAQ. Personally, I take a Bayesian view of the scientific method in principle (Jaynes 2003; Salmon 1990), and a Likelihoodist stance on evidence in practice (Burnham and Anderson 2002; Edwards 1972; Royall 1997), and these views will come through in how I present the evidence for common descent.
Now, to answer the question "What is the scientific method?" - very simply (and somewhat naively), the scientific method is a program for research which comprises four main steps. In practice these steps follow more of a logical order than a chronological one:
- Make observations.
- Form a testable, unifying hypothesis to explain these observations.
- Deduce predictions from the hypothesis.
- Search for confirmations of the predictions;
if the predictions are contradicted by empirical observation, go back to step (2).
Examination of the scientific method reveals that science involves much more than naive empiricism. Research that only involves simple observation, repetition, and measurement is not sufficient to count as science. These three techniques are merely part of the process of making observations (#1 in the steps outlined above). Astrologers, wiccans, alchemists, and shamans all observe, repeat, and measure — but they do not practice science. Clearly, what distinguishes science is the way in which observations are interpreted, tested, and used.
The Testable Hypothesis
The defining characteristic of science is the concept of the testable hypothesis. A testable hypothesis must make predictions that can be validated by independent observers. By "testable", we mean the predictions must include examples of what is likely be observed if the hypothesis is true and of what is unlikely to be observed if the hypothesis is true. A hypothesis that can explain all possible data equally well is not testable, nor is it scientific. A good scientific hypothesis must rule out some conceivable possibilities, at least in principle. Furthermore, a scientific explanation must make risky predictions — the predictions should be necessary if the theory is correct, and few other theories should make the same necessary predictions. These scientific requirements are the essence of Popperian falsifiability and corroboration.
For instance, the solipsistic hypothesis that the entire universe is actually an elaborate figment of your imagination is not a scientific hypothesis. Solipsism makes no specific or risky predictions, it simply predicts that things will be "as they are". No possible observations could conflict with solipsism, since all observations always may be explained away as simply another detailed creation of your imagination. Many other extreme examples can be thought of, such as the hypothesis that the universe suddenly came into existence in toto five minutes ago, with even our memories of "earlier" events intact. In general, creationist and "intelligent design" conjectures fail scientifically for these same reasons. Both can easily explain all possible biological observations, and neither one makes risky, specific predictions.
In contrast, Newton's scientific theory of universal gravitation makes specific predictions about what should be observed. Newton's theory predicts that the force between two masses should be inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them (otherwise known as the "inverse square law"). In principle, we could take measurements which indicated that the force is actually inversely proportional to the cube of the distance. Such an observation would be inconsistent with the predictions of Newton's universal theory of gravitation, and thus this theory is testable. Many anti-evolutionists, such as the "scientific" creationists, are especially fond of Karl Popper and his falsifiability criterion. These cynics are well known for claiming that evolutionary theory is unscientific because it cannot be falsified. In this article, these accusations are met head on. Each of the evidences given for common descent contains a section providing examples of potential falsifications, i.e. examples of observations that would be highly unlikely if the theory is correct.
Degrees of Testability: Hypotheses, Theories, Facts
"Testability" is not an either-or concept; some hypotheses are more testable than others. Contrary to some anti-evolutionist claims, not all hypotheses are equally valid scientific "interpretations" of the evidence. Some hypotheses are more successful in terms of the scientific method. Based on the scientific method, valid and useful hypotheses explain the observed facts simply, predict many previously unobserved phenomena, and withstand many potential falsifications. From a Bayesian perspective (and according to Popper's corroboration measure), the best hypothesis available explains the most facts with the fewest assumptions, makes the most confirmed predictions, and is most open to testing.
In scientific practice, a superior and well-supported hypothesis will be regarded as a theory. A theory that has withstood the test of time and the collection of new data is about as close as we can get to a scientific fact. An example is the aforementioned notion of a heliocentric solar system. At one time it was a mere hypothesis. Although it is still formally just a well-supported theory, validated by many independent lines of evidence, it is now widely regarded as scientific "fact". Nobody has ever directly observed an electron, stellar fusion, radio-waves, entropy, or the earth circling the Sun, yet these are all scientific facts. As Stephen J. Gould has said, a scientific fact is not "absolute certainty", but simply a theory that has been "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent".
Testing Involves a Totality of Evidence and Statistics
"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."
Albert Einstein, addressing the Prussian Acadamy of Science, Berlin , Jan 27, 1921
The validity of a hypothesis does not stand or fall based on just a few confirmations or contradictions, but on the totality of the evidence. Often, data that initially may seem to be inconsistent with a theory will in fact lead to new important predictions. The history of Newtonian physics gives a clear example. The abnormal movement of Uranus was initially considered inconsistent with Newton's new theory. However, by claiming the existence of an unseen planet, the anomaly was explained within Newton's paradigm. In general, an explanation for anomalous behavior should be considered ad hoc unless it is independently verifiable. Positing a new, unseen planet might be considered hedging if there were no independent way to detect if a new planet actually existed. Nevertheless, when technology had advanced enough to reliably test the new prediction, the unseen planet was found to be Neptune.
The lesson to be learned is that alternate explanations for "anomalies" should be treated like any other hypotheses: they should be weighed, tested, and either ruled out or confirmed. But a hypothesis should not be considered invalidated until thorough testing has produced multiple lines of positive evidence indicating that the hypothesis is truly inconsistent with the empirical data.
A crucial related point is that modern scientific theories are probabilistic. This means that all testing of scientific predictions is carried out in a statistical framework. Probability and statistics pervade modern scientific theories, including thermodynamics (statistical mechanics), geology, quantum mechanics, genetics, and medicine. While the mathematics of probability can be daunting for some, a working knowledge of statistics is absolutely essential for judging the fit between observed data and the predictions of any theory.
Prediction 1.4: Intermediate and transitional forms: the possible morphologies of predicted common ancestors
Every node shared between two branches in a phylogeny or cladogram represents a predicted common ancestor; thus there are ~29 common ancestors predicted from the tree shown in Figure 1. Our standard tree shows that the bird grouping is most closely related to the reptilian grouping, with a node linking the two (A in Figure 1); thus we predict the possibility of finding fossil intermediates between birds and reptiles. The same reasoning applies to mammals and reptiles (B in Figure 1). However, we predict that we should never find fossil intermediates between birds and mammals.
It should be pointed out that there is no requirement for intermediate organisms to go extinct. In fact, all living organisms can be thought of as intermediate between adjacent taxa in a phylogenetic tree. For instance, modern reptiles are intermediate between amphibians and mammals, and reptiles are also intermediate between amphibians and birds. As far as macroevolutionary predictions of morphology are concerned, this point is trivial, as it is essentially just a restatement of the concept of a nested hierarchy.
However, a phylogenetic tree does make significant predictions about the morphology of intermediates which no longer exist or which have yet to be discovered. Each predicted common ancestor has a set of explicitly specified morphological characteristics, based on each of the most common derived characters of its descendants and based upon the transitions that must have occurred to transform one taxa into another (Cunningham et al. 1998; Futuyma 1998, pp. 107-108). From the knowledge of avian and reptilian morphology, it is possible to predict some of the characteristics that a reptile-bird intermediate should have, if found. Therefore, we expect the possibility of finding reptile-like fossils with feathers, bird-like fossils with teeth, or bird-like fossils with long reptilian tails. However, we do not expect transitional fossils between birds and mammals, like mammalian fossils with feathers or bird-like fossils with mammalian-style middle ear bones.
- Example 1: reptile-birds
- Example 2: reptile-mammals
- Example 3: ape-humans
- Example 4: legged whales
- Example 5: legged seacows
Every node shared between two branches in a phylogeny or cladogram represents a predicted common ancestor; thus there are ~29 common ancestors predicted from the tree shown in Figure 1. Our standard tree shows that the bird grouping is most closely related to the reptilian grouping, with a node linking the two (A in Figure 1); thus we predict the possibility of finding fossil intermediates between birds and reptiles. The same reasoning applies to mammals and reptiles (B in Figure 1). However, we predict that we should never find fossil intermediates between birds and mammals.
It should be pointed out that there is no requirement for intermediate organisms to go extinct. In fact, all living organisms can be thought of as intermediate between adjacent taxa in a phylogenetic tree. For instance, modern reptiles are intermediate between amphibians and mammals, and reptiles are also intermediate between amphibians and birds. As far as macroevolutionary predictions of morphology are concerned, this point is trivial, as it is essentially just a restatement of the concept of a nested hierarchy.
However, a phylogenetic tree does make significant predictions about the morphology of intermediates which no longer exist or which have yet to be discovered. Each predicted common ancestor has a set of explicitly specified morphological characteristics, based on each of the most common derived characters of its descendants and based upon the transitions that must have occurred to transform one taxa into another (Cunningham et al. 1998; Futuyma 1998, pp. 107-108). From the knowledge of avian and reptilian morphology, it is possible to predict some of the characteristics that a reptile-bird intermediate should have, if found. Therefore, we expect the possibility of finding reptile-like fossils with feathers, bird-like fossils with teeth, or bird-like fossils with long reptilian tails. However, we do not expect transitional fossils between birds and mammals, like mammalian fossils with feathers or bird-like fossils with mammalian-style middle ear bones.
Confirmation:
Example 1: bird-reptiles
In the case just mentioned, we have found a quite complete set of dinosaur-to-bird transitional fossils with no morphological "gaps" (Sereno 1999), represented by Eoraptor, Herrerasaurus, Ceratosaurus, Allosaurus, Compsognathus, Sinosauropteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, Velociraptor, Sinovenator, Beipiaosaurus, Sinornithosaurus, Microraptor, Archaeopteryx, Rahonavis, Confuciusornis, Sinornis, Patagopteryx, Hesperornis, Apsaravis, Ichthyornis, and Columba, among many others (Carroll 1997, pp. 306-323; Norell and Clarke 2001; Sereno 1999; Xu et al. 1999; Xu et al. 2000; Xu et al. 2002). All have the expected possible morphologies (see Figure 3.1.1 from Prediction 3.1 for a few examples), including organisms such as Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, and the famous "BPM 1 3-13" (a dromaeosaur from China now named Cryptovolans pauli; Czerkas et al. 2002 ) which are flightless bipedal dinosaurs with modern-style feathers (Chen et al. 1998 ; Qiang et al. 1998; Norell et al. 2002). Additionally, several similar flightless dinosaurs have been found covered with nascent evolutionary precursors to modern feathers (branched feather-like integument indistinguishable from the contour feathers of true birds), including Sinornithosaurus ("Bambiraptor"), Sinosauropteryx, Beipiaosaurus, Microraptor, and an unnamed dromaeosaur specimen, NGMC 91, informally called "Dave" (Ji et al. 2001). The All About Archaeopteryx FAQ gives a detailed listing of the various characters of Archaeopteryx which are intermediate between reptiles and modern birds.
Example 2: reptile-mammals
We also have an exquisitely complete series of fossils for the reptile-mammal intermediates, ranging from the pelycosauria, therapsida, cynodonta, up to primitive mammalia (Carroll 1988, pp. 392-396; Futuyma 1998, pp. 146-151; Gould 1990; Kardong 2002, pp. 255-275). As mentioned above, the standard phylogenetic tree indicates that mammals gradually evolved from a reptile-like ancestor, and that transitional species must have existed which were morphologically intermediate between reptiles and mammals—even though none are found living today. However, there are significant morphological differences between modern reptiles and modern mammals. Bones, of course, are what fossilize most readily, and that is where we look for transitional species from the past. Osteologically, two major striking differences exist between reptiles and mammals: (1) reptiles have at least four bones in the lower jaw (e.g. the dentary, articular, angular, surangular, and coronoid), while mammals have only one (the dentary), and (2) reptiles have only one middle ear bone (the stapes), while mammals have three (the hammer, anvil, and stapes) (see Figure 1.4.1).
Early in the 20th century, developmental biologists discovered something that further complicates the picture. In the reptilian fetus, two developing bones from the head eventually form two bones in the reptilian lower jaw, the quadrate and the articular (see the Pelycosaur in Figure 1.4.1). Surprisingly, the corresponding developing bones in the mammalian fetus eventually form the anvil and hammer of the unique mammalian middle ear (also known more formally as the incus and malleus, respectively; see Figure 1.4.2) (Gilbert 1997, pp. 894-896). These facts strongly indicated that the hammer and anvil had evolved from these reptilian jawbones—that is, if common descent was in fact true. This result was so striking, and the required intermediates so outlandish, that many anatomists had extreme trouble imagining how transitional forms bridging these morphologies could have existed while retaining function. Young-earth creationist Duane Gish stated the problem this way:
Example 4: legged fossil whales
"Finally, and most glaringly obvious, if random evolution is true there must have been a large number of transitional forms between the mesonychid and the ancient whale: Where are they? It seems like quite a coincidence that of all the intermediate species that must have existed between the mesonychid and whale, only species that are very similar to the end species have been found. (Behe 1994)"
– Michael J. Behe
Anti-Darwinian, Intelligent Design conjecturist,
writing against the validity of evolution less than a year before three transitional species between whales and land-dwelling Eocene Mesonychids were found.
Another impressive example of incontrovertible transitional forms predicted to exist by evolutionary biologists is the collection of land mammal-to-whale fossil intermediates. Whales, of course, are sea animals with flippers, lacking external hindlimbs. Since they are also mammals, the consensus phylogeny indicates that whales and dolphins evolved from land mammals with legs. In recent years, we have found several transitional forms of whales with legs, both capable and incapable of terrestrial locomotion (Gingerich et al. 1983; Gingerich et al. 1990; Gingerich et al. 1994; Gingerich et al. 2001; Thewissen et al. 2001).
Example 1: bird-reptiles
In the case just mentioned, we have found a quite complete set of dinosaur-to-bird transitional fossils with no morphological "gaps" (Sereno 1999), represented by Eoraptor, Herrerasaurus, Ceratosaurus, Allosaurus, Compsognathus, Sinosauropteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, Velociraptor, Sinovenator, Beipiaosaurus, Sinornithosaurus, Microraptor, Archaeopteryx, Rahonavis, Confuciusornis, Sinornis, Patagopteryx, Hesperornis, Apsaravis, Ichthyornis, and Columba, among many others (Carroll 1997, pp. 306-323; Norell and Clarke 2001; Sereno 1999; Xu et al. 1999; Xu et al. 2000; Xu et al. 2002). All have the expected possible morphologies (see Figure 3.1.1 from Prediction 3.1 for a few examples), including organisms such as Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, and the famous "BPM 1 3-13" (a dromaeosaur from China now named Cryptovolans pauli; Czerkas et al. 2002 ) which are flightless bipedal dinosaurs with modern-style feathers (Chen et al. 1998 ; Qiang et al. 1998; Norell et al. 2002). Additionally, several similar flightless dinosaurs have been found covered with nascent evolutionary precursors to modern feathers (branched feather-like integument indistinguishable from the contour feathers of true birds), including Sinornithosaurus ("Bambiraptor"), Sinosauropteryx, Beipiaosaurus, Microraptor, and an unnamed dromaeosaur specimen, NGMC 91, informally called "Dave" (Ji et al. 2001). The All About Archaeopteryx FAQ gives a detailed listing of the various characters of Archaeopteryx which are intermediate between reptiles and modern birds.
Example 2: reptile-mammals
We also have an exquisitely complete series of fossils for the reptile-mammal intermediates, ranging from the pelycosauria, therapsida, cynodonta, up to primitive mammalia (Carroll 1988, pp. 392-396; Futuyma 1998, pp. 146-151; Gould 1990; Kardong 2002, pp. 255-275). As mentioned above, the standard phylogenetic tree indicates that mammals gradually evolved from a reptile-like ancestor, and that transitional species must have existed which were morphologically intermediate between reptiles and mammals—even though none are found living today. However, there are significant morphological differences between modern reptiles and modern mammals. Bones, of course, are what fossilize most readily, and that is where we look for transitional species from the past. Osteologically, two major striking differences exist between reptiles and mammals: (1) reptiles have at least four bones in the lower jaw (e.g. the dentary, articular, angular, surangular, and coronoid), while mammals have only one (the dentary), and (2) reptiles have only one middle ear bone (the stapes), while mammals have three (the hammer, anvil, and stapes) (see Figure 1.4.1).
Early in the 20th century, developmental biologists discovered something that further complicates the picture. In the reptilian fetus, two developing bones from the head eventually form two bones in the reptilian lower jaw, the quadrate and the articular (see the Pelycosaur in Figure 1.4.1). Surprisingly, the corresponding developing bones in the mammalian fetus eventually form the anvil and hammer of the unique mammalian middle ear (also known more formally as the incus and malleus, respectively; see Figure 1.4.2) (Gilbert 1997, pp. 894-896). These facts strongly indicated that the hammer and anvil had evolved from these reptilian jawbones—that is, if common descent was in fact true. This result was so striking, and the required intermediates so outlandish, that many anatomists had extreme trouble imagining how transitional forms bridging these morphologies could have existed while retaining function. Young-earth creationist Duane Gish stated the problem this way:
Example 4: legged fossil whales
"Finally, and most glaringly obvious, if random evolution is true there must have been a large number of transitional forms between the mesonychid and the ancient whale: Where are they? It seems like quite a coincidence that of all the intermediate species that must have existed between the mesonychid and whale, only species that are very similar to the end species have been found. (Behe 1994)"
– Michael J. Behe
Anti-Darwinian, Intelligent Design conjecturist,
writing against the validity of evolution less than a year before three transitional species between whales and land-dwelling Eocene Mesonychids were found.
Another impressive example of incontrovertible transitional forms predicted to exist by evolutionary biologists is the collection of land mammal-to-whale fossil intermediates. Whales, of course, are sea animals with flippers, lacking external hindlimbs. Since they are also mammals, the consensus phylogeny indicates that whales and dolphins evolved from land mammals with legs. In recent years, we have found several transitional forms of whales with legs, both capable and incapable of terrestrial locomotion (Gingerich et al. 1983; Gingerich et al. 1990; Gingerich et al. 1994; Gingerich et al. 2001; Thewissen et al. 2001).
ObligationLaunch
Senior Member
- Feb 10, 2016
- 566
- 10
- 53
- Thread starter
- #118
those 29+ nonsense...
Well, is'it a bit ONE-SIDED and non-critical?
It really is a cheap bit of garbage, isn't it?
Never have to read so much garbage in my life.
And besides,,,,,,it is extremely boring.
But then..untrue always is,
Well, is'it a bit ONE-SIDED and non-critical?
It really is a cheap bit of garbage, isn't it?
Never have to read so much garbage in my life.
And besides,,,,,,it is extremely boring.
But then..untrue always is,
Don't let your hurt feelings get in the way of gaining some knowledge.those 29+ nonsense...
Well, is'it a bit ONE-SIDED and non-critical?
It really is a cheap bit of garbage, isn't it?
Never have to read so much garbage in my life.
And besides,,,,,,it is extremely boring.
But then..untrue always is,
Similar threads
- Replies
- 39
- Views
- 723
- Replies
- 97
- Views
- 5K
- Replies
- 6
- Views
- 139
- Replies
- 92
- Views
- 2K
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 65
- Views
- 343
- Replies
- 428
- Views
- 3K
- Replies
- 12
- Views
- 32
- Replies
- 218
- Views
- 1K
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8435
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 478
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-