Question about the evolutionary tree

[nebula]

It is the best available explanation for the biodiversity we currently observe on our planet.

And design isn't?

This is kind of off topic, but it has been brought up a lot; Evolution does not account for the emergence of life. It takes over only after life had been created.

But this question is not dealing with the emergence of life. It IS dealing with the after.

[DC10]

Evolutionary theory predicts that there was one, but I doubt anyone would ever pretend they'd found it.

So we agree then that this is not fact?

What is not a fact??

I certainly agree that I can find no example of an evolutionary tree that shows a picture of the common ancestor you said you were after.

And I stand by my comment that an evolutionist is highly unlikely to point at a fossil and say "this is a common ancestor".

But I also stand by my comment that evolutionary theory predicts - in fact requires - that there were common ancestors.

[DC10]

It is the best available explanation for the biodiversity we currently observe on our planet. This is kind of off topic, but it has been brought up a lot; Evolution does not account for the emergence of life. It takes over only after life had been created.

Perfectly true, but every "emergence" hypothesis I have seen has involved some sort of Darwinian-type selection.

I think it's also worth emphasising - since you've raised it! - that there's no current consensus on the emergence bit, and also that it's pretty embarrassing (imo) it hasn't yet been simulated in a test tube.

[DC10]

It is the best available explanation for the biodiversity we currently observe on our planet.

And design isn't?

This is kind of off topic, but it has been brought up a lot; Evolution does not account for the emergence of life. It takes over only after life had been created.

But this question is not dealing with the emergence of life. It IS dealing with the after.

So we agree that design isn't the best available explanation for the biodiversity we currently observe on our planet?

(Sorry, just joshing with you!)

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

... he does discuss what several common ancestors (or concestors, as he calls them) might have looked like, ....

...- "rather like a salamander but [it] probably had 5 digits on both front and back legs."

So in other words, there is no common ancestor fossil found?

Well, as I said previously, it's not something that interests me, so I don't know what specimens are known from that period. But however would one know if one had found it?

Evolutionary theory predicts that there was one, but I doubt anyone would ever pretend they'd found it.

(Except maybe a journalist trying to sell a story, or a marketing guy trying to sell a book, or a conman trying to sell a fossil).

Hey DC10, is this the one that National Geographic did a big spread on a couple years back... I think it would have been late 2008 or early 2009?

If so, I was amazed at how they sketched out the whole organism and focused on it's digits, and after looking and looking and looking I finally found the actual fossil discovered and it was nothing more than a shoulder blade.

[nebula]

Evolutionary theory predicts that there was one, but I doubt anyone would ever pretend they'd found it.

So we agree then that this is not fact?

What is not a fact??

There is no confirmed fossil.

I certainly agree that I can find no example of an evolutionary tree that shows a picture of the common ancestor you said you were after.

And I stand by my comment that an evolutionist is highly unlikely to point at a fossil and say "this is a common ancestor".

So there is no confirmed common ancestor. It's all assumption.

But I also stand by my comment that evolutionary theory predicts - in fact requires - that there were common ancestors.

Of course. But you can't prove one existed!

[LLC]

We are lucky to have so many fossils as it is! Fossils only form under rare conditions indeed.

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

Example of the Tree

As I'm looking at the different representations of the evolutionary tree, there is one thing I continually see missing:

The infamous "common ancestor"(s).

You see two branches, but you don't see what "ancestor" they actually branched off of.

How does this make sense? If we can see ancient creatures in the fossil record, how come we cannot see the "common ancestor"?

The idea is that the common ancestors are lost in history. As the fossil record turns up newly discovered organisms they're frequently hailed as newly discovered common ancestors, though I don't see what supports the interpretation since we all agree that both Tea-cup Poodles and Great Danes fairly recently came from the same genome - clearly physical diversity is something the genome is capable of producing.

It brings me to a point I'd like to make.

If, say, 2000 years ago there was a valley that was surrounded by hills and some culture used it as a dog park, and they had dogs of all descriptions in there, and suddenly a flood covered over the whole valley with sediment in about a hour, the larger dogs might have been faster at fleeing the water and reached higher ground before being immersed, while those with progressively shorter legs would be further and further down into the valley.

If, as the dogs started their retreat a groundhog thought it was clear to pop out of its hole because it heard the dogs leaving and, not realizing the impending doom, it was covered, what you'd have if someone dug up the remains is what I'm totally convinced naturalists would interpret to be a gradual progression of different species starting with a groundhog into something like a pug, into something like a bulldog, and so forth, with explanations of niches and survival advantages accompanying the array of different characteristics which in fact didn

[PeterH]

Simple fact is that every evolutionist will talk till everyone is blue about theories they can't prove. Theories that take more faith to believe what is stated in the bible. Evolution is not a fact pure and simple, its a theory that elitist like to portrait as fact. The word Evolution has become even so misguided that it has different "meaning" depending the context or implied meaning of the person talking. Talk about circular reasoning .

This is a fact though and it is in recorded history. Job a book in the bible, some say the oldest book, in its 40th and 41st chapter record that humans lived along side a huge creature that by its description could be a dinosaur. Now you might say oh the bible doesn't record history but I beg you to really consider that argument. There has never been an archaeological discovery that disproves what the bible states as history but there are hundreds even thousands of discoveries that prove what the bible states was and is accurate.

I don't mean to be just argumentative here but I hope to just spark a little digging out side your comfort zones that you might find the truth.