Evolution vs Creation-Comparing each View

[jonesthecurl]

yay and verily it is written thou shall render up to jonesthecurl the tenth part of thy riches.
Yay, and then the other nine tenths, for he is a greedy fellow.

[Bavarian Raven]

lol this just keeps getting better and better ...

[Gregrios]

I bow to the superior wit of the trolls that have infected this thread.

[jonesthecurl]

If I were you I wouldn't bend over in front of a troll.

[Gregrios]

If I were you I wouldn't bend over in front of a troll.

Sure you would.

[Neoteny]

I bow to the superior wit of the trolls that have infected this thread.

From one troll to another... isn't it fun?

[jonesthecurl]

If I were you I wouldn't bend over in front of a troll.

Sure you would.

Maybe would if I were you.

[Gregrios]

Is the dog a descendent of horses since they both have 4 legs, 1 head, 2 ears, and make a noise when they fart?

[joecoolfrog]

Is the dog a descendent of horses since they both have 4 legs, 1 head, 2 ears, and make a noise when they fart?

Blimey even for a jail bird you are a prize thicko
Perfect fairy story material of course

[jonesthecurl]

Is the dog a descendent of horses since they both have 4 legs, 1 head, 2 ears, and make a noise when they fart?

No, but you are must be a descendant of an Amoeba since you have no brain, do not appear to be able to react to any but the most obvious of stimuli, and have no chance in all eternity of reproducing sexually.

[Gregrios]

Is the dog a descendent of horses since they both have 4 legs, 1 head, 2 ears, and make a noise when they fart?

No, but you are must be a descendant of an Amoeba since you have no brain, do not appear to be able to react to any but the most obvious of stimuli, and have no chance in all eternity of reproducing sexually.

If the Amoeba was descended from the great tribe of China then how could one exist?

[Neoteny]

Is the dog a descendent of horses since they both have 4 legs, 1 head, 2 ears, and make a noise when they fart?

No, but you are must be a descendant of an Amoeba since you have no brain, do not appear to be able to react to any but the most obvious of stimuli, and have no chance in all eternity of reproducing sexually.

If the Amoeba was descended from the great tribe of China then how could one exist?

Jesus magic.

[Gregrios]

Is the dog a descendent of horses since they both have 4 legs, 1 head, 2 ears, and make a noise when they fart?

No, but you are must be a descendant of an Amoeba since you have no brain, do not appear to be able to react to any but the most obvious of stimuli, and have no chance in all eternity of reproducing sexually.

If the Amoeba was descended from the great tribe of China then how could one exist?

Jesus magic.

What about the obvious time difference?

[Neoteny]

Is the dog a descendent of horses since they both have 4 legs, 1 head, 2 ears, and make a noise when they fart?

No, but you are must be a descendant of an Amoeba since you have no brain, do not appear to be able to react to any but the most obvious of stimuli, and have no chance in all eternity of reproducing sexually.

If the Amoeba was descended from the great tribe of China then how could one exist?

Jesus magic.

What about the obvious time difference?

God is outside of time.

[PLAYER57832]

Is the dog a descendent of horses since they both have 4 legs, 1 head, 2 ears, and make a noise when they fart?

I have not gone back and reread the last 15 or so pages since I last viewed and posted here, but I feel you deserved a real answer to this.


The real answer is no, not at all.

The short answer is that to determine ancestry, you have to find fossils that tie the species together... transition fossils. That is, you have to go back in the record and find a place where they both seem to have a common ancestor.

The longer answer:
First, you cannot simply pick out any random characteristics and automatically say "they are related". Some of the marsupial animals in Australia, for example look superficially, very much like mammals ... but they are from a completely differant evolutionary branch. This is one very big reason why there were so very many missteps and errors, particularly early on.

Dinosaurs were thought to be just big lizards because they looked like lizards. Now, based upon the fossil record, it looks like at least some of the dinosaurs were actually ancestors of the birds.

In fact, there is a whole branch called "Cladistics" that does just that. Charts were constructed that looked at the numbers of similarities. Those with the most similarities were considered more closely related to those with fewer characteristics. It is often true that more closely related species often are "more alike" than those less closely related. However, and this is a pretty big "however", that is not necessarily true.
Think of your family. Chances are that you look a lot more like any brothers and sisters than, say your cousins. BUT, sometimes it happens that a complete stranger will actually look more like you ... perhaps even be "almost" a "twin". Usually, that is just a superficial first impression. Usually, when you look closer, you find that bone structure and so forth actually differ, BUT, that is not necessarily the case. Humans are far, far more complicated than the lesser animals, but mutations can change things relatively quickly.

One prime example is whales and seals. Though mammals ... that is, part of the same group as us, animals that have mammary glands and give birth to live babies (not eggs), etc, they have superficial features of fish. In fact, dolphins and whales actually even have hair in the early stages of their lives. Initially, some scientists thought they might be related to us because of the milk production and the live birth issue, but others just considered them big fish. Then, fossils were found that showed transition species, that indicate that whales did descend from land animals. They have reverted in some ways to a "fish like" form because they live in the water.

Of course, we had to find those fossils and have the ability to extract and study them. Cladistics was a decent start, just not the final answer. Cladistics is still sometimes used to sort of give scientists a hint as to what might or might not be true. If you don't have fossils ... you use what you have and this is one tool. HOWEVER, they no longer just look at straight numbers of similarities. There is a sort of "hierarchy" based upon how "easy" it is for mutations and evolution to occur (small "e", the general process of change over time, not the big "E" full theory). This is not my field of expertise, but my understanding is that usually things involving procreation and birth tend to show closer ties, tend to be more "important" in proving evolutionary heredity. Superficial "looks", which tend to be modified much more by the environment, are given much less "weight". (example ... fur and feathers can vary "widely" even among very closely related species) That is, whether a species lays eggs or not is probably a better indication of evolutionary ties than fur, skin or scale color ..

HOWEVER, to final say is what is found in the fossil record. There have been quite a few surprises. That most dinosaurs are probably more closely related to birds is one. How was this determined? First, let me say that like most things in science, it is not considered 100% definite, just the most likely probability. As evidence mounts, the liklihood of another theory proving correct becomes slimmer and slimmer. Still possible, but harder to imagine.

Anyway, what is that evidence? Again, this is not my field, so I am just going to speak generally. The short answer is that someone looked at birds and dinosaurs and thought "hey, maybe...". Then they went out and looked at the existing fossils and re-examined some, particularly some that had been hard to explain before. One fact of evolution is that there are always a lot of "lost" branches. For example, marsupials once roamed everywhere. But, it was only in Australia that they survived to this day. Elsewhere, mammals took sway. How did this happen? Because Australia was separated from the other continents early on and threfore had a completely separate evolutionary track. (note how evolution and time lines and geology all work together). Why did mammals evolve to dominate elsewhere and not on Australia? There are many theories, but no one really knows.

Anyway, to get back to birds, when scientists went and actually looked specifically for fossils that seemed to have bird and dinosaur characteristics, that seemed to show some sort of transiton, some paleontologists found fossils they felt "fit". Initially, it was a pretty controversial idea. I mean, who wants to think they have been wrong for years? Still, more and more came to "believe". THEN they went out and tried to find more fossils that might show better transitions. It is impossible to know all the fossils in some of the bigger fields. Scientists cannot study them all, so they have to pick and choose. They concentrate on an area that interests them, one that they feel is most likely to yield new results or confirming information. Anyway, the discovery of vast fossil fields in China sped this along a great deal. In that area were found many of the clearest dinosaur/bird transition species. All of that is fairly recent (within the past 30 years or so, even sooner in some cases). So, it is pretty easy to find in the internet. I won't waste time going over it any more here. If you wish, you can find it for yourself.

But, that is the general process. Take any species, and you will find more or less the same thing happened. Now we can add genetics and other types of analysis. Scientists are even able to look inside fossil eggs now. Small differances in how minerals are deposited, how fossilization occurs in differant types of tissues mean that there are minor differances in the rock types within a fossil, so instruments that are able to look below the surfact and find those differances can make pictures or diagrams that scientists (anyone) can see. Really not much differant from how doctors can now look into our bodies. The exact techniques differ, but the concept is the same.

So, to find out how closely a dog and a horse are related, you can start by saying they have x,y, z in common. BUT, that is not very good evidence. It is enough to raise a question, but not enough to answer anything. For the answer, you have to look at the fossil record. You would look for ancestors of the horse and ancestors of the dog and see if you can find a point where they seem to have a common ancestor. That would usually be one species that seemed to have some fundamental characteristics that can be found in both dogs and horses. In this case, all mammals are thought to have descended from a small animal that had fur and gave birth to live animals. I do not know the entire path. But again, if you wish, it is pretty easily obtained information. In this case it might not be right on the internet. Because the information is older, you might have to go to a real library with books.

[jonesthecurl]

Is the dog a descendent of horses since they both have 4 legs, 1 head, 2 ears, and make a noise when they fart?

No, but you are must be a descendant of an Amoeba since you have no brain, do not appear to be able to react to any but the most obvious of stimuli, and have no chance in all eternity of reproducing sexually.

If the Amoeba was descended from the great tribe of China then how could one exist?

That makes even less sense than usual. "descended from the great tribe of China" ? What?

[PLAYER57832]

If the Amoeba was descended from the great tribe of China then how could one exist?

I am not sure what you mean by "the great tribe of China". I don't know if the amoeba itself actually is an early life form or a later descendant. But, Evolution says that we all originated from one-celled organisms. Actually first from proto proteins, then (eventually) into "slime mold" (a similar organism still persists), then into more and more complex creatures.

As to how we know this is true?

Again, few will say it is 100% sure. BUT, the chances that something else happened is getting harder and harder to imagine as evidence mounts. (one thing IS true ... Creationism, as put forward in the beginning of this thread and largely supported by the Creation Science Institute and a couple of other similar groups, HAS been DISPROVEN , but there is a chance of a completely differant theory proving correct.)

The evidence? The fossil record, genetics and species disbersal are the primary points of evidence.

First, let me backtrack a little into geology. A few years ago, someone put the outlines of the continents together and noticed that they fit together almost perfectly, like a puzzle. They also wondered, given what was known even then about differentiation of species, why it was that so many similar species were found both in Europe and North America. Some of it could be explained by chance events ... an animal somehow finds itself adrift at sea on a floating log and manages to survive to the next land mass. This IS how some islands have gotten new species and it is possible that some (mostly smaller and highly "durable" species) even made the journey across the oceans in "recent" times. But, it was pretty hard to imagine that being enough to populate the entire continents.

Verbal histories of Eskimos AND physical evidence pointed also to ice bridges joining Alaska with Siberia. Again, that accounted for a few, but not all the species similarities.

I will "fast forward" a bit, skip a few details (they exist, but I don't want to bog this down too too much) Before long, geologist began to realize that our earth's crust is not solid, that the continents actually move. (continental drift) very, very, very slowly, but they DO move. Eventually the theory of Plate Techtonics emerged. This says that the Earth's crust consists of several large "floating" "plates". (think sort of an egg -- the shell is the crust, the white part is the molten rock middle and the yolk is the center - again, this is a gross simplification of what I learned years ago and that information has even been refined by scientists a lot since I went to school, but it is close enough to understand the basics). These plates "slide" over one another. Those junctures are major fault lines. This is not a smooth transition. Try pushing one paper over another, or better yet, a stack of papers and see what happens. You get lumps, valleys and tears. Again, to be very, very, very rough about this, the "lumps" are mountains and the tears are "faults". Most of these tears or faults are near the edges of the plates. A big one is off the shore of California, which is why California has so many earthquakes. (by the way, you can actually SEE the slip faults all over California). However, the "cracks" or "faults" can also occur in the center of a plate, just not as frequently. This is why geologists will tell you that every state has the potential for earthquakes. In fact, it is thought that the largest quake in history hit in Kansas (long before humans existed). Earthquakes are much more common in the slip/slide regions at the edges of techtonic plates, BUT, when mid continent quakes (breaks) occur, they tend to be much more powerful than the edge quakes. Thankfully, they are far, far, far less frequent.

OK, so folks looked at similarities between some European species, like deer and wolves and those found in North America. They also looked at similarities between Africa and South America, etc. Then they looked at actual rock types and, broadly found some similarities. All of this was put together into the theory of continental drift as I explained above (or just look up the theory in your library). Although not absolutely 100% proveable, it has enough evidence for it that it is considered almost like fact. Some parts of the theory are fact (the continents do move, we do know how at least some earth quakes form, etc.) and more and more is proven all the time.

Anyway, so scientists look at fossils on both continents to find origins. And, they find them. Some species are very well known. (humans, relatively recent geologically speaking, have a pretty complete fossil record, though because it is "us", folks tend to want more evidence than they do for other species). Some less so.


At this point, you can look back to my previous posting and see how they track back each species, if you did not already do so.

Anyway, there is a general transition going all the way back to, eventually, "slime molds" (or something pretty similar). ARE there "missing pieces"? Of course! But, it is sort of like saying that I have a pictures of peas and of carrots at 2 weeks after soil emergence and pictures as mature plants ... and then saying that because you don't have any picutres in between, you cannot possibly know they are the same plant. Any gardener will tell you that peas and carrots don't look the same! Of course, it is not anywhere near as simple, but that is the basic process. Scientists will debate over exactly which early species ended up "becoming us" ... or a fox or even an amoeba , but they are pretty firm on the idea that basic organisms began life on earth ... and that this eventually led to us.

[Juan_Bottom]

Verbal histories of Eskimos AND physical evidence pointed also to ice bridges joining Alaska with Siberia. Again, that accounted for a few, but not all the species similarities.

I'll be honest with you, I fully supprt evolution, obviously, but I'm not convinced of this Ice bridge. In fact, I fear that my loyalties lie with the "it never existed" camp. And I'll tell you why.

The Bering Straight theory was originaly put forth due to the relativly short distance between Alaska and Siberia. Other land bridges were also thought up, the funniest one being between Brazil and Sierra Leon. After WII sonar quickly dismissed these other land bridges, and the theory of Plate Techtonics slowly begain to take its shape. Only the Bering Straight was never dismissed, and even gained a little physical evidence.

But it's the lack of evidence that did it in for me. During the period when this ice bridge was supposed to have existed, Nomadic hunters had already invented Bows/Arrows, and spears too. The exact theory is that these Nomadic Hunters followed their food source over this ice bridge, which melted beind them. But not a single arrowhead/spearhead/axehead/tool has been found in all Asia/Siberia that matches with any found in the Americas during the time period. There is no physical evidence that these people migrated this way.
I put this theory together in High School, and got an A+ for it.

The only thing I couldn't fully take into account, was the similarity of species. For instance Wolves are found in Europe, Asia, and North America. I can't figure on how they got there, but I can say that there isn't enough evidence that that is how human beings got here.
My hypothesis was that humans traveled by boat from either, Africa, Europe, or somewhere in the Pacific(Indonesia for example).

Anyone else feel me?

[Frigidus]

The only thing I couldn't fully take into account, was the similarity of species. For instance Wolves are found in Europe, Asia, and North America. I can't figure on how they got there, but I can say that there isn't enough evidence that that is how human beings got here.
My hypothesis was that humans traveled by boat from either, Africa, Europe, or somewhere in the Pacific(Indonesia for example).

Anyone else feel me?

The idea of someone getting there by boat is actually a relatively realistic one (surprisingly enough. I can't remember what the book was called, but there is a record of a man that sailed from (If I remember correctly) South America to Hawaii on boat made largely out of logs. It would have been possible at least, although I can't think what would motivate someone to try it.

[Snorri1234]

although I can't think what would motivate someone to try it.

I imagine it went something like this:

"man, I'm bored."
"lets check what's on the other side of this ocean!"
"allright."

[jonesthecurl]

You're thinking of Thor Heyerdahl and the Kon-Tiki.
He was trying to show that Polynesia could have been settled from South America.

[jonesthecurl]

He also crossed the Atlantic in a boat made of papyrus.

[Frigidus]

He also crossed the Atlantic in a boat made of papyrus.

Now that's impressive.

[Gregrios]

Is the dog a descendent of horses since they both have 4 legs, 1 head, 2 ears, and make a noise when they fart?

I have not gone back and reread the last 15 or so pages since I last viewed and posted here, but I feel you deserved a real answer to this.


The real answer is no, not at all.

The short answer is that to determine ancestry, you have to find fossils that tie the species together... transition fossils. That is, you have to go back in the record and find a place where they both seem to have a common ancestor.

The longer answer:
First, you cannot simply pick out any random characteristics and automatically say "they are related". Some of the marsupial animals in Australia, for example look superficially, very much like mammals ... but they are from a completely differant evolutionary branch. This is one very big reason why there were so very many missteps and errors, particularly early on.

Dinosaurs were thought to be just big lizards because they looked like lizards. Now, based upon the fossil record, it looks like at least some of the dinosaurs were actually ancestors of the birds.

In fact, there is a whole branch called "Cladistics" that does just that. Charts were constructed that looked at the numbers of similarities. Those with the most similarities were considered more closely related to those with fewer characteristics. It is often true that more closely related species often are "more alike" than those less closely related. However, and this is a pretty big "however", that is not necessarily true.
Think of your family. Chances are that you look a lot more like any brothers and sisters than, say your cousins. BUT, sometimes it happens that a complete stranger will actually look more like you ... perhaps even be "almost" a "twin". Usually, that is just a superficial first impression. Usually, when you look closer, you find that bone structure and so forth actually differ, BUT, that is not necessarily the case. Humans are far, far more complicated than the lesser animals, but mutations can change things relatively quickly.

One prime example is whales and seals. Though mammals ... that is, part of the same group as us, animals that have mammary glands and give birth to live babies (not eggs), etc, they have superficial features of fish. In fact, dolphins and whales actually even have hair in the early stages of their lives. Initially, some scientists thought they might be related to us because of the milk production and the live birth issue, but others just considered them big fish. Then, fossils were found that showed transition species, that indicate that whales did descend from land animals. They have reverted in some ways to a "fish like" form because they live in the water.

Of course, we had to find those fossils and have the ability to extract and study them. Cladistics was a decent start, just not the final answer. Cladistics is still sometimes used to sort of give scientists a hint as to what might or might not be true. If you don't have fossils ... you use what you have and this is one tool. HOWEVER, they no longer just look at straight numbers of similarities. There is a sort of "hierarchy" based upon how "easy" it is for mutations and evolution to occur (small "e", the general process of change over time, not the big "E" full theory). This is not my field of expertise, but my understanding is that usually things involving procreation and birth tend to show closer ties, tend to be more "important" in proving evolutionary heredity. Superficial "looks", which tend to be modified much more by the environment, are given much less "weight". (example ... fur and feathers can vary "widely" even among very closely related species) That is, whether a species lays eggs or not is probably a better indication of evolutionary ties than fur, skin or scale color ..

HOWEVER, to final say is what is found in the fossil record. There have been quite a few surprises. That most dinosaurs are probably more closely related to birds is one. How was this determined? First, let me say that like most things in science, it is not considered 100% definite, just the most likely probability. As evidence mounts, the liklihood of another theory proving correct becomes slimmer and slimmer. Still possible, but harder to imagine.

Anyway, what is that evidence? Again, this is not my field, so I am just going to speak generally. The short answer is that someone looked at birds and dinosaurs and thought "hey, maybe...". Then they went out and looked at the existing fossils and re-examined some, particularly some that had been hard to explain before. One fact of evolution is that there are always a lot of "lost" branches. For example, marsupials once roamed everywhere. But, it was only in Australia that they survived to this day. Elsewhere, mammals took sway. How did this happen? Because Australia was separated from the other continents early on and threfore had a completely separate evolutionary track. (note how evolution and time lines and geology all work together). Why did mammals evolve to dominate elsewhere and not on Australia? There are many theories, but no one really knows.

Anyway, to get back to birds, when scientists went and actually looked specifically for fossils that seemed to have bird and dinosaur characteristics, that seemed to show some sort of transiton, some paleontologists found fossils they felt "fit". Initially, it was a pretty controversial idea. I mean, who wants to think they have been wrong for years? Still, more and more came to "believe". THEN they went out and tried to find more fossils that might show better transitions. It is impossible to know all the fossils in some of the bigger fields. Scientists cannot study them all, so they have to pick and choose. They concentrate on an area that interests them, one that they feel is most likely to yield new results or confirming information. Anyway, the discovery of vast fossil fields in China sped this along a great deal. In that area were found many of the clearest dinosaur/bird transition species. All of that is fairly recent (within the past 30 years or so, even sooner in some cases). So, it is pretty easy to find in the internet. I won't waste time going over it any more here. If you wish, you can find it for yourself.

But, that is the general process. Take any species, and you will find more or less the same thing happened. Now we can add genetics and other types of analysis. Scientists are even able to look inside fossil eggs now. Small differances in how minerals are deposited, how fossilization occurs in differant types of tissues mean that there are minor differances in the rock types within a fossil, so instruments that are able to look below the surfact and find those differances can make pictures or diagrams that scientists (anyone) can see. Really not much differant from how doctors can now look into our bodies. The exact techniques differ, but the concept is the same.

So, to find out how closely a dog and a horse are related, you can start by saying they have x,y, z in common. BUT, that is not very good evidence. It is enough to raise a question, but not enough to answer anything. For the answer, you have to look at the fossil record. You would look for ancestors of the horse and ancestors of the dog and see if you can find a point where they seem to have a common ancestor. That would usually be one species that seemed to have some fundamental characteristics that can be found in both dogs and horses. In this case, all mammals are thought to have descended from a small animal that had fur and gave birth to live animals. I do not know the entire path. But again, if you wish, it is pretty easily obtained information. In this case it might not be right on the internet. Because the information is older, you might have to go to a real library with books.

The point that I'm making I guess is that evolution seems to be less about absolute proof and more about razor's edge. I know razor's edge is the wrong term but I'm referring to the term that means that the most probable answer is most likely the right answer. This "razor's edge" (if you'll except my mistaken term)seems to be the major basis for evolution. Is that fairly accurate?

[Juan_Bottom]

No buddy. But you keep asking questions, and I'll be glad to answer as best I can.

Evolution is plainly viewable in many different species. A favorite example has to be T-Rex. Over the course of a few million years, T-Rex changed in simple, yet big way. It's leg bones went from long and skinny, to short and fat. This is a change from being able to sprint or run short distances, to being able to walk much MUCH longer distances. Over this time the T-Rex's arms also became shorter and skinnier, usless if it were to fall during a run.
Recently it has also been proven that the T-Rex was a cousin of feathered dinosaurs, the amazing discovory that young adolescent T-Rex's had feathers was monumental(I won't even take this were it is going).
All of this is significant because through the fossil record we can literally watch this Terrible-Lizard-King change from preditor, to carrion-eater. (Yes, recently it has been proven that the T-Rex was actually the Vulture of it's time. Though originally, it was a preditor.)

Another great example is fish. At the time fish first appear on the geologic table, they had large, thic bones. Great for battle, but too heavy for swimming. Large bones also restric the fish's ability to move, and so they cannot travel very far, very fast.
(imagine a fish that can only move its tail within the confines of an inch. Now imagine that this same fish could move it's tail within the confines of four inches.)
Today, 99% of fish have mostly many thin bones in their body.

This is a very select portion of witnessable evolutions. Very small, and very select. The T-Rex is by no means the best example, but it gets peoples imagination going, I can tell you...

An example that you can witness today is dogs. All dogs have originally came from wolves. Yet through selective breeding, today we have hundreds of different purebread species. Although they all share similer features, some look totally knew. Compare a Pug, Dalmation, or Chuihaha with the common Grey Wolf. These domesticated cousins even have new personalities.

I hope that we are helping to satisfy your sense of curiosity. For the longest time I wanted to be a Palentologist. I find the Theory of Evolution to be fascinating, and fun. Is that boreing?