ChatterBank13 mins ago
Evolution Of One Species To Another
On R&S threads, Theland often states that while evolution most definitely occurs *within* a species, (eg. Darwins finches) there is no evidence that one species has ever evolved into another. Im no scientist, (much less an evolutionary biologist) but I can see what he's saying.
Ive recently been viewing some You Tube vids from evolutionists debunking creationism....and for balance, creationists debunking evolution.... but nowhere can I find anything to suggest that there is any fossil record of one species turning into another.
Can anyone help me out here?
Thanks.
Ive recently been viewing some You Tube vids from evolutionists debunking creationism....and for balance, creationists debunking evolution.... but nowhere can I find anything to suggest that there is any fossil record of one species turning into another.
Can anyone help me out here?
Thanks.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by nailit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Transition and may occur in a partial population and is slow with gradual genetic change to the point at which the population that has changed is a genetically different species. This usually means interbreeding between the two branches is no longer possible. It's not one becoming another but somewhere back in time the common ancestors split and developed in different ways.
You would be hard-pressed to find such fossils because it's not clear that they can exist. Almost by definition of how evolution works, species are not so neatly defined as to be able to point to a fossil and say that it is, say, part-finch and part-"no-longer-that-finch-but-now-another-type-of finch".
In the meantime, one useful way to define a species night be "a type of animal only capable of reproducing when mating with itself"; but even this has some troubles, because lions and tigers, or donkeys and zebras, can produce living offspring, although the resulting animals are usually infertile themselves -- all of this makes the very definition of a species somewhat tricky.
Finally, the fossil record is surprisingly sparse anyway. Most dead bodies never fossilise, so it is a bit much to expect that the fossil record would ever be complete enough to truly track a given animal's evolution across the eons.
No wonder, then, that it's hard to find truly "transitional" species fossils.
In the meantime, one useful way to define a species night be "a type of animal only capable of reproducing when mating with itself"; but even this has some troubles, because lions and tigers, or donkeys and zebras, can produce living offspring, although the resulting animals are usually infertile themselves -- all of this makes the very definition of a species somewhat tricky.
Finally, the fossil record is surprisingly sparse anyway. Most dead bodies never fossilise, so it is a bit much to expect that the fossil record would ever be complete enough to truly track a given animal's evolution across the eons.
No wonder, then, that it's hard to find truly "transitional" species fossils.
trilobites and woodlice ?
ammonites and conch shells ( or those other things)
eo hippus and the gee-gee ( equus )
darwins finches
Darwin's finches are a classical example of an adaptive radiation. Their common ancestor arrived on the Galapagos about two million years ago. During the time that has passed the Darwin's finches have evolved into 15 recognized species differing in body size, beak shape, song and feeding behaviour.
so you are not going to get a finch (now) that changes into a Darwins finch now - at home
because that is not how evolution is meant to work
ammonites and conch shells ( or those other things)
eo hippus and the gee-gee ( equus )
darwins finches
Darwin's finches are a classical example of an adaptive radiation. Their common ancestor arrived on the Galapagos about two million years ago. During the time that has passed the Darwin's finches have evolved into 15 recognized species differing in body size, beak shape, song and feeding behaviour.
so you are not going to get a finch (now) that changes into a Darwins finch now - at home
because that is not how evolution is meant to work
lol @ Douglas, you twonk...you always make me laugh!
Jim...
//No wonder, then, that it's hard to find truly "transitional" species fossils//
Are there any at all?
If not, then is Theland right and there is NO evidence of one species turning into another?
I'm open to all possibilities but to be honest this is one thing about evolution that bothers me....how could a fish evolve into a human, No matter how many millions of years have passed? When did the first fish decide to take a breath of air?
Jim...
//No wonder, then, that it's hard to find truly "transitional" species fossils//
Are there any at all?
If not, then is Theland right and there is NO evidence of one species turning into another?
I'm open to all possibilities but to be honest this is one thing about evolution that bothers me....how could a fish evolve into a human, No matter how many millions of years have passed? When did the first fish decide to take a breath of air?
The idea that the world was not created in seven days and then was static for er 4004 years
was refuted 1800-50 and caused much more stir
https:/
This guy noticed a geological stratum that was T shaped
and basically everyone agreed that this was a change AFTER creation and the stratum had shifted.
and it was all done by protestant vicars at cambridge who were teaching geology ( whewell, lyell and sedgwick)
SO the Principle of Naturalism grew up - that change in the world should be explained by known physical principles. God was only involved as a last resort
Darwin came along and said - it applies to biology as well,
and as Huxley said; o god it is so obvious, I wish I had thought of that!
(these ideas are not too airy-fairy are they Nailit?)
was refuted 1800-50 and caused much more stir
https:/
This guy noticed a geological stratum that was T shaped
and basically everyone agreed that this was a change AFTER creation and the stratum had shifted.
and it was all done by protestant vicars at cambridge who were teaching geology ( whewell, lyell and sedgwick)
SO the Principle of Naturalism grew up - that change in the world should be explained by known physical principles. God was only involved as a last resort
Darwin came along and said - it applies to biology as well,
and as Huxley said; o god it is so obvious, I wish I had thought of that!
(these ideas are not too airy-fairy are they Nailit?)
Thank you Nailit for this thread
A fine example of an open mind.
The Bible never mentions, "species," but, "kinds," and this deserves some consideration.
Look up Stephen Meyer on Youtube of the Discovery Institute for interesting information.
Particularly, "Signature In Th Cell."
I wish more folk would be as open minded.
I am NOT saying that sharing my beliefs is imperative, just that everybody, INCLUDING ME, should always question their own position.
A fine example of an open mind.
The Bible never mentions, "species," but, "kinds," and this deserves some consideration.
Look up Stephen Meyer on Youtube of the Discovery Institute for interesting information.
Particularly, "Signature In Th Cell."
I wish more folk would be as open minded.
I am NOT saying that sharing my beliefs is imperative, just that everybody, INCLUDING ME, should always question their own position.
I think the point I was trying to make is that it's very difficult to find evidence of one species turning into another when you struggle to define what a species even is -- or, more precisely, it becomes difficult to determine when the transition has occurred.
Still, if I were pressed to give examples, then I'd suggest that the "bird-dinosaurs" are a fairly good one, as might the Ambulocetus, which is an early form of whale and notably has all its limbs.
Still, if I were pressed to give examples, then I'd suggest that the "bird-dinosaurs" are a fairly good one, as might the Ambulocetus, which is an early form of whale and notably has all its limbs.
The best argument ( not used by Darwin) against intelligent creation is:
if god created wasps and bees - why did he create (biological) mimicry - insects that look like wasps ?
easy one is: so they arent attacked because they look like wasps
and the christian bit is: o because god wanted to confuse man and put him off the scent !
yeah right and so he writes a book saying he did it all.....
if god created wasps and bees - why did he create (biological) mimicry - insects that look like wasps ?
easy one is: so they arent attacked because they look like wasps
and the christian bit is: o because god wanted to confuse man and put him off the scent !
yeah right and so he writes a book saying he did it all.....
Latest Posts
Film, Media & TV22 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles31 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles44 mins ago
Jobs & Education66 mins ago
Assisted Dying, Here's Where It...
News77 mins ago
