Veritas

But but but…irreducible complexity!
Sabio

I am not an evolutionary scientist, but I think this is a terrible illustration. Using the same photoshopping technology you could show any species morphing into another , heck, even a mountain into a scull or a pear into a duck. When arguing evolution, you want to put your best foot forward. IMHO, this post shows how easily people buy into false evidence as long as they hope it supports their view. We are all susceptible.
Please someone in Evolutionary science tell me if I am wrong. Thank you
iFaithless

you my find this one of interest..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2BxHuTQ8uU
MikeTheInfidel

I’m with Sabio. The real evidence is impressive enough without having to mock up something in an unreliable way.
Aj

The morphing is a speculative representation of the transition from one fossil to another. The creator of the video states a number of qualifications that are completely satisfactory to me. Clearly, the morphing isn’t scientific or evidence, but it isn’t trying to be either.

I think such representations are valuable to comunicate ideas not as a presentation of facts, the facts are the fossils, but of likely paths taken between two points. Two shows involving Dawkins I have recently seen had such representations, one on the giraffes neck including vagus nerve, and another on the human eye. Many geological phenomena are represented this way, including the formation of valleys, mountains, and volcanoes.
WCLPeter

While true that people could mock up anything, speaking as someone who has only a basic understanding of Evolutionary Theory, its nice to be able to get a visual “so that’s how it works” representation of a process that would otherwise take 8 years and a bio-science degree to understand.

While true that I could mock up a mountain evolving into a pear, only the truly deluded would look at that and think it was in any way correct.

I don’t look at videos like this as a tool to convert people from their willing lack of understanding, but more as a tool to help those who want to, or are open to, understanding but have difficulties understanding complex topics without visual aids to help them.
Matt D

I agree that this is interesting to watch and offers a nice visual for those who need it.

But it adds nothing to our understanding of how natural selection acts on the minute physical changes brought about by genetic mutation. The video looks to me more an illustration of genetic drift.

What would we say if a theist produced a similar video of god creating the universe and said, “see, this is how it happened”.

we’d laugh our asses off and shoot it down in seconds – i dont see how this video is any different in the eyes of those who dismiss evolution.
Jeff

The end of the video on this link has some animations depicting the creationist version of the origin on the species.
Todd Quam

What’s so funny to me is that this evolutionist points to the morphing of an ape to man as their idea of how they can bring together micro and macro evolution, even with their disclaimer. It’s easy to do because of the similarities in features. Nobody has ever shown the fossil record that moves from none living matter to mankind (true micro to macro evolution), simply because it does not exist. If evolution took millions, if not billions of years, then there would be plenty of fossil evidence to support the “theory”. What we find in the fossil record is creatures fully formed, millions of them, as the Bible declares by the way. And only a very very few creatures that some say are transitional. Seems like a huge leap to think that when fossils are formed, only the fully formed creatures would be preserved and all the transitional creatures just somehow evaded being turned into fossils.

The idea that life came from nothing, and then evolved to what we have today is pure fiction, and there is no evidence to support it. Talk about faith without evidence, evolutionists need to look in the mirror.
Aj

Todd Quam,

You are confusing terms, which makes it quite clear that you are confused about important concepts that you are rejecting through blind faith and lack of common sense.

Macro and micro evolution means evolutionary change at large and small scales. If you know what the terms “macro”, “micro”, and “evolution” mean (and you clearly don’t) this would be simple to understand. The origin of “life” i.e. non living matter to life, is called abiogenesis and is not covered by evolutionary theories. Evolution refers to the generational change of organisms.

There is plenty of fossil evidence, as well as genetic, physiological, and biochemical evidence of evolution. There are plenty of transitional fossils. I’d be interested on what you think you know about fossils, out of the species that have existed how many you think would be fossilized, and found by us in the short period we’ve been looking. Numbers would be great, percentage of organisms fossilized, number of species considered “transitional” to be fossilized, and out of those how many would likely to be found.

I’m glad you brought the Bible up, because the Bible says a lot of interesting things. For instance, that all land species were represented in breeding pairs on an ark. Out of the millions of fully formed creatures that you refer to, how many were represented on this ark? If this wasn’t absurd enough there’s more. Where are the fossils of giants and a sea creature that can swallow a person and sustain them inside itself for 72 hours?
Matt D

@Aj

a collective thanks from all of us for responding to Todd Quam (hope no-one minds me voicing gratitude on their behalf)

I like to think of this blog as a refuge from the deluded, but have seen a few comments from fruit-loops lately.

you hit this one out of the park – nice
mwchase

What’s even worse about his incomprehension of the terms is that microevolution and macroevolution are terms that originated with his ‘side’.

Then, there’s the fact that every living thing, and even borderline stuff like viruses, is, in effect, a transitional form. If it has descendants, then they’ll probably end up in a more specialized clade. Claiming that every fossil that we know of is ‘fully formed’ is nothing more than a schema for moving the goalposts on demand.

This is to say nothing of the defenses used against arguments about the number of animals on the ark. Some people posit that the ark carried the common ancestor of dogs and foxes. Combine this with the idea that ‘random mutations cannot add information, only destroy it’, and we have something with at least seventy chromosomes, some of the descendants of which have lost between thirty and forty of them, in the space of a few thousand years, but more likely a few centuries.

This debate is not “evolution vs creation” or “microevolution vs macroevolution”. It is “evolution vs hyperevolution”.
Autymn D. C.

It’s not nescient; you are. A person is not a they. A whale is not a it.

All fossils are transitional; when new ones are found, the timegaps between them shrink, not grow. Way to lige for Moshè. Nobody but creationist dolts say they came from nothing or non-life—or maghic poofs. The sun and lightning make sure the earth is always alive, elèctrically.
Zahada

This is great! Can’t wait to show it to my son! Thanks!
Todd Quam

You folks make the obvious point that evolutionists have to throw out ad hominem attacks instead of discussing the evidence, or lack thereof at hand. You have no idea where the terms even began and you accuse “my side” of inventing them. Shows your complete ignorance on the subject, in writing.

Do a little research instead of just throwing out your collective ignorance.

The terms macroevolution and microevolution were first coined by the Russian entomologist Iuri’i Filipchenko, an orthogeneticist. He had evolution leanings but believed evolution had a direction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuri_Filipchenko

You leave the facts untouched.

error: Content is protected !!