Are there any fossils which prove the evolution theory? Because i hear so much about man evolving from a 'common ancestor' - yet i can't seem to find any pics of the fossils which other animals 'evolved' from. Any pics with sources?
And what are your views on the trilobite? Which is a product of the Cambrian explosion?
Re: Just need a little bit of info from evolutionists.
Are there any fossils which prove the evolution theory?
There is no PROOF. That is why it is called a THEORY. You can not prove a not repeatable event. But hundreds of thousands of pieces of information all pointing in the same general direction is good enough for me.
Re: Just need a little bit of info from evolutionists.
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
There is no PROOF. That is why it is called a THEORY. You can not prove a not repeatable event. But hundreds of thousands of pieces of information all pointing in the same general direction is good enough for me.
Do you know what a "theory" is on scientific terms?? A theory (in the proper definition) is a hypothesis that has been experimentally tested many times and is widely accepted as being true. So evolution is a theory, but that's a very robust and positive statement. It doesn't mean that evolution is just a guess.. A fact is better defined as an observed situation that has reality in an objective sense. So we observe that species adapt to their environment. This has been observed and so could be taken as a fact. The explanation for why species might do this is evolution (or more properly 'natural selection'). Another example might be that the Yankees have won the World Series 26 times -- that's a fact. However the explanation that the Yankees pay off the umpires is a hypothesis (and not a theory).
For the OP, for summary of major proofs on evolution, please visit the following documentary by Arizona State University (click on the orange box that says "Launch Documentary"):
Re: Just need a little bit of info from evolutionists.
Knowing next to nothing about trilobites, I'll stick with people.
THIS is fun; sorry, I couldn't manage to get the table to appear, so go check it out.
"As this table shows, although creationists are adamant that none of these are transitional and all are either apes or humans, they are not able to tell which are which. In fact, there are a number of creationists who have changed their opinion on some fossils. They do not even appear to be converging towards a consistent opinion. Gish and Taylor both used to consider Peking Man an ape and 1470 a human, but now Gish says they are both apes, and Taylor says they were both humans. Interestingly, widely differing views are held by two of the most prominent creationist researchers on human origins, Gish and Lubenow. Bowden, who has also written a book on human evolution, agrees with neither of them, and Mehlert, who has written a number of articles on human evolution in creationist journals, has yet another opinion, as does Cuozzo in his 1998 book on Neandertals. Cuozzo has taken the most extreme stance yet for a young-earth creationist, saying that even H. erectus fossils (in which he includes the Turkana Boy) should not be considered human. (Old-earth creationist Hugh Ross takes an even more extreme stance, claiming that not even Neandertals should be classified as human.)
It could be pointed out that evolutionists also disagree on how fossils should be classified, which species they belong to, etc. True enough. But according to evolutionary thinking, these fossils come from a number of closely related species intermediate between apes and humans. If this is so, we would expect to find that some of them are hard to classify, and we do.
Creationists, on the other hand, assert that apes and humans are separated by a wide gap. If this is true, deciding on which side of that gap individual fossils lie should be trivially easy. Clearly, that is not the case. "
Also, purely as an example, Skull D2700 . The article is well worth reading, if only to ram home the point that just because creationists keep desperately repeating the "no transitional fossils" mantra that still doesn't actually make it true. Transitional fossils.
Re: Just need a little bit of info from evolutionists.
format_quote Originally Posted by - Qatada -
Are there any fossils which prove the evolution theory? Because i hear so much about man evolving from a 'common ancestor' - yet i can't seem to find any pics of the fossils which other animals 'evolved' from. Any pics with sources?
The idea is that humans and animals (and bacteria, fungi, protists and plants) all evolved from the same common ancestor.
We just branched away from them a little later on.
Re: Just need a little bit of info from evolutionists.
So I geuss nobody dears to tackle teh cambium explosion here. It's a really though nut to crack. And so far it's still in it's shell blocking evolution theory.
And to those telling us to check out this and this and this, I reply, check out Harun Yahya's evolutionary deceit. He talks about cambrium explosion to
Re: Just need a little bit of info from evolutionists.
format_quote Originally Posted by Abdul Fattah
So I geuss nobody dears to tackle teh cambium explosion here. It's a really though nut to crack. And so far it's still in it's shell blocking evolution theory.
And to those telling us to check out this and this and this, I reply, check out Harun Yahya's evolutionary deceit. He talks about cambrium explosion to
well apart from you refusing to read something about science what are your questions about the cambrian explosion? There is nothing wrong about it. It does not in anyway contradict evolution.
If it helps , at the point of the "explosion" was when creatures started to develope harder body parts that were more easily fossilized.
I might also suggest reading up on the process of fossilization.
Re: Just need a little bit of info from evolutionists.
format_quote Originally Posted by Abdul Fattah
So I geuss nobody dears to tackle teh cambium explosion here. It's a really though nut to crack. And so far it's still in it's shell blocking evolution theory.
Unless we have have a resident paleontologist hiding in the woodwork, I doubt anyone could sensibly add to the Wiki article ranma1/2 linked to. There is no point in just playing the cut n' paste game. That article seems to present are careful, balanced view including suggested explanations which, as usual, is more than can be said for Harun Yahya.
Re: Just need a little bit of info from evolutionists.
I agree partially Trumble. The link is indeed balanced and shows suggested explenations. The problem is, suggested explenations = speculation
And speculation does not equal theory. so in that sense the suggested explenations are no different from Harun Yahya's work.
Re: Just need a little bit of info from evolutionists.
Are there any fossils which prove the evolution theory? Because i hear so much about man evolving from a 'common ancestor' - yet i can't seem to find any pics of the fossils which other animals 'evolved' from.
They aways find some fossil.... but in a month or 2 they find out it's bogus
Re: Just need a little bit of info from evolutionists.
Thanks everyone for the responses
Obviously, depending on what side you're starting from (i.e. the creationist, or the evolutionist) - our perceptions will be biased.
I've already checked out that Cambrian Explosion link previously, and an outcome of that was the trilobite, which is such an advanced creature* that i did some research on it, and i found some people stating that it depended on faith also.
In the absence of physical evidence for the evolution of complex systems and in the absence of evidence for any increase in the information content of existing complex systems, a belief in the theory of organic evolution remains a matter of pure faith.
* The Trilobites - Holochroal eyes Holochroal eyes had a great number of (tiny) lenses (sometimes over 15,000), and are found in all orders of trilobite. These lenses were packed closely together (hexagonally) and touch each other. A single corneal membrane covered all lenses.
When i used to hear about the big bang explosion, i wondered how the first living cell came into existence (i heard some arguments, but i don't want to discuss that issue in this thread.)
But when i heard about the Cambrian Explosion, it totally gave me an emaan boost (faith boost) because we know that Allaah/God placed the creatures on the earth within certain time periods. So that Cambrian Explosion could have been a scientific explanation and proof for that.
Also, Trumble - you said;
format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble
"As this table shows, although creationists are adamant that none of these are transitional and all are either apes or humans, they are not able to tell which are which. In fact, there are a number of creationists who have changed their opinion on some fossils.
[...]
It could be pointed out that evolutionists also disagree on how fossils should be classified, which species they belong to, etc.
So this makes me wonder whether both sides depend on faith, and therefore according to my understanding - both parties are in a similar position - both using the issue of faith, or depending on the future to see if our positions can be clarified using science or other means?
It's not just directed at you, but at any evolutionist.
Re: Just need a little bit of info from evolutionists.
format_quote Originally Posted by Abdul Fattah
And speculation does not equal theory. so in that sense the suggested explenations are no different from Harun Yahya's work.
The difference is that that Yahya assumes there is no explanation other than the one he prefers, and claims the absence of same somehow 'disproves' evolution. Advocates of all the explanations, being scientists, would quite happily change their minds should additional evidence suggest that one of the alternatives is, in fact, correct.
The Yahya approach is a fairly 'classic' one. If a perceived gap in scientific understanding exists you assume it can never be filled with a definitive explanation, and so it is legitimate to insert God to plug the gap. What that ignores is that the whole history and purpose of science is to fill those gaps; that is what science is for. Without such puzzles it would not exist, and could never have existed.
format_quote Originally Posted by - Qatada -
So this makes me wonder whether both sides depend on faith, and therefore according to my understanding - both parties are in a similar position - both using the issue of faith, or depending on the future to see if our positions can be clarified using science or other means?
No, it isn't a matter of 'faith' from the evolutionist/scientific point of view. The evolutionary theory is accepted because it is the best scientific theory we have. There is nothing else that even comes close. It is important to realise that that does not make it right, and nor does it eliminate the possibility of a partial or even complete alternative. Should such come along and 'disprove' evolution, or even just provide a more convincing explanation of the empirical facts, it will replace evolutionary theory as the accepted theory.
I think it is frequently misunderstood what scientists hold most dear, particularly in regard to such things as the evolution and intelligent design debate. It is not that they have a fear that some theory may be proved to be wrong (unless maybe they wrote the paper that suggested it!), and their 'faith' in it will be overturned. It is that the scientific method itself is abandoned and corrupted. Creationism and ID are perfectly good theories, but they are not scientific theories. Their claim for admittance to 'science' is solely a negative one; that they can fill gaps science has has not yet managed to fill with a rational, material explanation. But without any positive element, theories why that gap should be filled by God (you would first need to prove there is a God, for starters), supported by empirical evidence, it cannot be science. Those "other means" are necessary.
Re: Just need a little bit of info from evolutionists.
Thanks trumble, just one more point though - does this Cambrian Explosion, and the issue of the fossils being 'debatable' or controversial mean that the scientists aren't certain for sure either? And that they can only find this out if there is further research (in the future) which proves what they state?
Re: Just need a little bit of info from evolutionists.
format_quote Originally Posted by - Qatada -
Thanks trumble, just one more point though - does this Cambrian Explosion, and the issue of the fossils being 'debatable' or controversial mean that the scientists aren't certain for sure either? And that they can only find this out if there is further research (in the future) which proves what they state?
Exactly, apart from the "proves" bit. The situation is much the same with regard to any branch of scientific research. You encounter a puzzle (which the Cambrian explosion is), and seek possible solutions. Initially those will be speculative, but the better ones are used to form tentative hypotheses which are then tested as far as possible to see if they stand up; if they do a theory would be built on that.
The trouble with this particular area is that you can't just summon up the evidence or create an experiment, as you might be able to do in physics or chemistry. You have to rely on what happens to crop up, and then see how that fits into the picture and with the hypotheses you have. Nobody is ever "certain for sure" even in much more 'certain' areas; scientific theories can never be proven, only disproven. Nobody has ever 'proven' the theory of gravity, the best you can say is no experiment has ever disproved it!
Re: Just need a little bit of info from evolutionists.
format_quote Originally Posted by - Qatada -
Hey.
Need some more info.
What are the views of evolutionists on, i.e. the same 'common ancestor' - when it evolved, how did it have offspring? Is there any reference for that?
Also, the Electric Fish - what did that evolve from? Any views or fossils etc?
Thanks in advance.
Im not sure i understand your question but ill try.
Evolution involves small gradual change "in general" as well as populations.
If say one creature developes a benefitial mutation and that mutation gets put into the population then the population is evolving. After many many mutations the population maybe substantially different from what it once was. Of course this does not mean that the ancestor does dies out. populations can split if there are niches available.
Re: Just need a little bit of info from evolutionists.
Thanks ^ i meant that if for example, i think it's said that the fish was the first thing which evolved (from a sea animal to a land animal) and then grew legs etc. and then turned into a land animal right?
Now if this fish turned into a land animal, how did it reproduce? i.e. did it reproduce asexually? Or some other alternative?
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks