Are Fossils evidence of evolution ....or are the evidence of fossils

[Sparks]

2 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Not in the least. However, I think the evidence He gave us makes it pretty clear that He didn't.

You mean your interpretation of the evidence.  He told you what He did.

So, what is the greatest evidence for Darwinian Evolution, in your opinion?

[one.opinion]

7 minutes ago, Sparks said:

So, what is the greatest evidence for Darwinian Evolution, in your opinion?

Darwinian evolution was proposed about 150 years ago. The scientific community is well past "Darwinian" when it comes to evolution.

The most compelling evidence for evolution is the consilience of many different fields that all point to a single conclusion. The fields of paleontology, anatomy, biogeography, and genetics (and more) all support the theory that life currently on the planet is the result of hundreds of millions of years of evolution.

If you wanted me to pick one specific field, it would be Genetics. The genomic comparisons between human and chimps, particularly in non-coding genetic anomalies like transposable elements, clearly show a relationship of past shared history. This is a single example, but the biological world is full of examples of supporting evidence.

[The Barbarian]

Yes.   The orientation of the facet on that bone is diagnostic for flat feet.   That's how podiatrists can tell that Lucy had flat feet.

4 hours ago, kingdombrat said:

So, realistically, not theoretically speaking here, we are not ever discussing the Ankle Bone

We're speaking of the facet where the foot connects to the leg.  That is what tells a podiatrist that Lucy had flat feet, just as it would for a modern human.

 

[JohnR7]

4 hours ago, kingdombrat said:

Can she be observed?   

They made copies that the general public can observe. They have one currently on display at the National Museum of Natural History in NYC. They also have a cast of her skeleton on display at the Cleveland Museum of Natural History.

[JohnR7]

58 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

 

 

Not really. After 50 pages of this thread, there has been no serious challenge to the mainstream view of evolution (as described by scientists and not as a strawman argument), that could not be quickly, clearly, and thoroughly refuted.

I understand the attempt. However, in the fixation on Genesis 1 and 2 as a literal account, most YEC refuse to look seriously at the evidence that God has left for us.

Not at all. I'm saying God's story is not one of 144 hour creation that occurred 6000 years ago.

No challenge for evolution has stood up in a court of law. First the Bible is literal, then symbolic and third numeric. They say a day in genesis is a literal 24 hour day that represents all of time and all of natural history. For me a day represents 1,000 years because I can explain that they best using science and history. But I accept OEC and YES as being true also. Bishop Ussher for example is clearly YEC. Gerold Schroeder is clearly OEC. At one time I accepted Francis Collins Theistic Evolution even though he was very sloppy. Then when he lifted the ban on the coronavirus I lost all confidence in him. 

[Sparks]

24 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

The most compelling evidence for evolution is the consilience of many different fields that all point to a single conclusion. The fields of paleontology, anatomy, biogeography, and genetics (and more) all support the theory that life currently on the planet is the result of hundreds of millions of years of evolution.

I would agree, but this conclusion drawn by many was not based on evidence for what they believe.  It's more of a religion since there is no observation for any of it, it's just speculation, as I have said. 

24 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

If you wanted me to pick one specific field, it would be Genetics.

The DNA we see in humans, and the DNA we see in all living things is not a blue print for that living thing.  It's a parts list.  We have no idea where the blue print is for our design, but we can count up the parts in the list and know it's human, ape, etc.  The fact that apes have a similar parts list is that we have the same designer using the same parts, and every design has the same type of parts list within it's design.  It's the same vocabulary, too from the same 4 letters:  Adenine (A), Guanine (G), Cytosine (C) and Thymine (T)

If I gave you building supplies such as bricks, concrete, nails, wood, etc., you could build many things with those same supplies.  You could build a house, or a pit BBQ, or a mail box holder, or a bridge, and so on.  The supplies are the same for each, but the design is some place else.   In fact, if you found those supplies in a pile some place, you would probably conclude something was going to be built, but you would have to guess as to what without a blue print.

So you speculate that an ape is man's predecessor, because of a silly theory that the parts lists for both animals are comparable.  It's not that the same designer made both, it's your theory that one came from the other. 

That idea would not hold up in a court of law, where evidence is the key, not speculation.

[JohnR7]

1 hour ago, Sparks said:

He said he made everything in 6 days, and rested the 7th

The Bible talks about the perfect day: "But the path of the just is as the shining light, that shineth more and more unto the perfect day". (Proverbs 4:18) Clearly God's work of perfection in our lives is taking more than a literal 24 hour day. Yet the day will arrive when we are perfected. 

[one.opinion]

4 minutes ago, Sparks said:

I would agree, but this conclusion drawn by many was not based on evidence for what they believe.  It's more or a religion since there is no observation for any of it, it's just speculation, as I have said. 

That's a bold claim. How would you possibly know that conclusions are not based on evidence if you are unfamiliar with the evidence?

6 minutes ago, Sparks said:

The DNA we see in humans, and the DNA we see in all living things is not a blue print for that living thing.

Just to be forthright, I have a PhD in Molecular Virology and have been teaching Genetics at the University level for over 20 years. I don't know everything in the field, but I do have a pretty good grasp on large portions of it.

7 minutes ago, Sparks said:

The fact that apes have a similar parts list is that we have the same designer using the same parts, and every design has the same type of parts list. 

This argument could be meaningful if we were only comparing exomes, which comprise about 1.5% of the entire genome. However, the similarities go far past the exomes. Introns are parts of genes that are removed as the DNA code is used to make mRNA, so these are not used to make any parts. However, these also show a very high degree of similarity. The endogenous retrovirus sequences that make up a much larger portion of our genomes than our exomes also show a tremendous degree of similarity in both sequence and chromosomal position. There are MANY pieces of the genomes that do not make any functional parts for the body, yet show a very high degree of similarity. Basically, it is much more than just the "parts" that show this relationship.

13 minutes ago, Sparks said:

So you speculate that an ape is man's predecessor, because of a silly theory that the parts lists for both animals are comparable.  It's not that the same designer made both, it's your theory that one came from the other.

You are again displaying a seriously lack of familiarity with the scientific evidence and accepted scientific conclusions. Scientists do not claim that one came from the other, but that both had a shared ancestor. This is supported by anatomy, paleontology, and genetics. You can dismiss it if you don't like it, but you cannot dismiss it on anything resembling a scientific basis.

[Sparks]

33 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

That's a bold claim. How would you possibly know that conclusions are not based on evidence if you are unfamiliar with the evidence?

I see this type of thing all the time.  People are black balled if they don't play the evolution game.  But I have been looking into Darwinian Evolution for a long time, and so far, I just don't see ANY evidence for it, no matter the field.  I am still waiting.  Saying we are close to the same genetic makeup as an ape does not make us related.  Not in a long shot.  It's speculation.

33 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Just to be forthright, I have a PhD in Molecular Virology and have been teaching Genetics at the University level for over 20 years. I don't know everything in the field, but I do have a pretty good grasp on large portions of it.

I like to joke and say that I have 62 PhDs, and that one is in pizza-ology, because the claims of all my degrees cannot be proven out here, and so I don't fall for the Appeal to Authority fallacy. 

But if you are one, great! 

33 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Basically, it is much more than just the "parts" that show this relationship.

It's entirely about the parts, since you cannot prove we come from apes with any scientific method, or with any certainly.  It's a guess that people have chosen to accept, but guessing is not proof. 

Let me tell you what science does observe:  It sees that all animals come from their respective kinds, and never ever produce different kinds.  In plain English, 100% of the time, cats produce cats and only cats, at every birth.  Dogs produce dogs.   This is evidence for the Creationist's Orchard, not Darwin's Tree which has never been observed.  There is no evidence man came from ape, or whale, or a corn stalk.

So actual observation shows there is no LUCA, or universal common ancestor, despite theory.  Don't say we need more time to observe it either, unless you are willing to concede that you are dealing in theory because we have not seen what you say would take more time to see.

33 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

You are again displaying a seriously lack of familiarity with the scientific evidence and accepted scientific conclusions.

What is accepted as evidence by scientist would be laughed out of a court of law.  Courts are experts in evidence.  If you showed up with a bone and claimed it was 4 million years old, or some ape DNA and claimed we were produced from it, they would laugh you out of the room. 

[BeyondET]

 

53 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Darwinian evolution was proposed about 150 years ago. The scientific community is well past "Darwinian" when it comes to evolution.

The most compelling evidence for evolution is the consilience of many different fields that all point to a single conclusion. The fields of paleontology, anatomy, biogeography, and genetics (and more) all support the theory that life currently on the planet is the result of hundreds of millions of years of evolution.

If you wanted me to pick one specific field, it would be Genetics. The genomic comparisons between human and chimps, particularly in non-coding genetic anomalies like transposable elements, clearly show a relationship of past shared history. This is a single example, but the biological world is full of examples of supporting evidence.

I would agree, the old photos of man rising from apes etc isn’t what the theory is today, little humorous evolution has evolved over the years hehe. But yea homosapiens are a different species than apes, but that is about as far back as it goes linking a common ancestor per say. What is shared among all living things on earth is all of it came from the same stuff on earth atoms that cannot be seen with the naked eye. humans share similar things of a worm but certainly man didn’t rise from a worm nor an ape.

I mentioned in another post if metamorphosis had a broader role than mainly being of the insect world, tracking such things would be extremely difficult if not impossible if the stem cells was design to turn on or off through a larger transformation of species through stem cell design in timely increments seasons per say.

today we can see and know how a caterpillar transforms from one species to another through stem cells turning on and off at a certain time in its life cycles. But in my opinion it could be possible the process could of been larger,

like for just an example a larvae to butterfly, butterfly to a bird stem cell activated from then on the bird lay eggs and the developed bird hatches a baby bird and adapts mutates instead of a metamorphic process. Maybe things have a preset end determination a bird or what ever was being created.

creation has many different designs it’s amazing, one I find odd is the flat warm if it is cut into ten pieces there will be ten fully grown adult flat warms in a short matter of time once the pieces fully grow.