Why do people get so personal about defending evolution?

[King Flevance]

The main problem with evolution is that there are no "links". There is always a 'missing link' with evolution. One day a frog gave birth to a chicken, is an exaggerated view of how I see it. There is no gradual change among the species. It goes from one to the other. So really its one day all the frogs started giving birth to a fully more evolved frogs.

Man went straight from being a Neandertal(sp?) to Cro-Magnon (sp? again). There aren't people that just had a less sloped forheads, or anything. Just one day a Neandertal gave birth to a baby Cro-Magnon.

Believing this little coincidence needs no explanation seems as foolish to me as my believing in a creator may seem to you.

I think the answer to the OP is as has been stated before. They believe this to be fact, as a religious person believes God to be fact. Neither can let the other "unenlightened" person go on believing such "nonsense".

 

[BasketCase]

The main problem with evolution is that there are no "links". There is always a 'missing link' with evolution.

You claim that that there are no links.

Prove it.


The phrase "missing link" describes the problem very neatly. It's missing. It's there, we simply haven't found it yet.

You need to prove that the link is definitely not there.

 

[brennan]

& given how rarely fossilisation occurs, we expect there to be gaps.

 

[King Flevance]

You claim that that there are no links.

Prove it.


The phrase "missing link" describes the problem very neatly. It's missing. It's there, we simply haven't found it yet.

You need to prove that the link is definitely not there.

I could tell you the same thing about God. That's my point. How can you prove it is there if we haven't found it? You simply believe it exists out there somewhere.

& given how rarely fossilisation occurs, we expect there to be gaps.

The problem is every fossil holds missing links to every other fossil. There are no "connected links". Those are coincidentally the ones we haven't found yet.

 

[brennan]

Given that we do not expect to find anything like a complete fossil record what we find is pretty much exactly what we would expect to.

It is unrealistic in the extreme for you to expect us to find a completely unbroken, generation-by-generation fossil record. The fact that there is a fossil record in which our finds show slow cumulative change over large expanses of time is not made weaker by feeble protestations about the 'gaps'.

Why are there no Cro-magnon men, Australopithecines, Ramapithecines, Homo-Erectus etc etc etc walking around today?

 

[King Flevance]

Given that we do not expect to find anything like a complete fossil record what we find is pretty much exactly what we would expect to.

I can agree that's a plausible perspective.

It is unrealistic in the extreme for you to expect us to find a completely unbroken, generation-by-generation fossil record.

And it is unrealistic to the extreme for someone to expect me to give up my view of reality and claim this as a disproof of God without such evidence. (which is usually the "proof" supplied by this board that evolution discredits creationism. As if anyone here on this forum knows how to create an entire universe with living creatures. )

The fact that there is a fossil record in which our finds show slow cumulative change over large expanses of time is not made weaker by feeble protestations about the 'gaps'.

It's not made stronger neither. It just makes it a plausible perspective. Which I can respect if you choose to see it that way. I personally find evolution unimportant. Interesting, but unimportant. As it is possible for evolution and God to co-exists, even if that is true. If both are true, evolution doesn't really matter.

Why are there no Cro-magnon men, Australopithecines, Ramapithecines, Homo-Erectus etc etc etc walking around today?

Um, we are Cro-Magnon men. Hehe. Maybe my spelling threw you off. I don't know if I spelled it right. As for the other species. I will ask Jesus when I die why they weren't allowed to continue existing. He has enternity to explain it.

 

[brennan]

Um, we are Cro-Magnon men. Hehe. Maybe my spelling threw you off. I don't know if I spelled it right. As for the other species. I will ask Jesus when I die why they weren't allowed to continue existing. He has enternity to explain it.

Hehe oopsie. Don't you find it odd that so many creations were not permitted to continue?

 

[King Flevance]

Actually, yes. And it will be a question I imagine I would propose in heaven. Although, that is through the way I percieve heaven at this moment. I do find it strange that so many creations have 'naturally' dissappeared.But you have to understand, from my perspective - who am I to question the motives of the Creator of all? Perhaps it was for our benefit that they were created and ceased.

This is why I do find dinosaurs fascinating. But God decided they needed to go and I have more pressing concerns to occupy my time than wondering what was the purpose of these creatures that have been dead for millions of years.

 

[warpus]

I could tell you the same thing about God. That's my point. How can you prove it is there if we haven't found it? You simply believe it exists out there somewhere.

The missing links argument is no argument at all. Say we have fossils of species A and species F. You say: "But where is a fossil of a transitional species?". So one day we find it, species D. But you say "But where is a fossil of a transitional species between species A and species D?", and so on, and so forth.

The problem is every fossil holds missing links to every other fossil. There are no "connected links". Those are coincidentally the ones we haven't found yet.

See, there is no such thing. Once found, one of these "connected link fossils" would in your mind become "just a regular fossil", and you would ask "Why haven't we found any connected link fossils yet? How convenient".

And it is unrealistic to the extreme for someone to expect me to give up my view of reality and claim this as a disproof of God without such evidence.

The Theory of Evolution does not disprove God.

s if anyone here on this forum knows how to create an entire universe with living creatures. )

Does anyone on here know how to create the effects of gravity? No. Do we have what sort of effects to expect from gravity? Yes.

Just because we can't do it doesn't mean we don't understand it.

This is why I do find dinosaurs fascinating. But God decided they needed to go and I have more pressing concerns to occupy my time than wondering what was the purpose of these creatures that have been dead for millions of years.

But fortunately there are people who's job it is how the dinosaurs got there, how they lived, and so forth.

 

[King Flevance]

The missing links argument is no argument at all. Say we have fossils of species A and species F. You say: "But where is a fossil of a transitional species?". So one day we find it, species D. But you say "But where is a fossil of a transitional species between species A and species D?", and so on, and so forth.

The problem is species A cannot breed with species B because they are different species. All of the sudden species A gave birth to a bunch of species B. There are no mixture of the 2 species, they are just now a new species. 2 different species cannot breed by the biological definition. There are many A's and B's but no mixture of a little of A and a little of B. All the Neandertal skulls have the same characteristics. None of them look like they are half cro-magnon.

See, there is no such thing. Once found, one of these "connected link fossils" would in your mind become "just a regular fossil", and you would ask "Why haven't we found any connected link fossils yet? How convenient".

You seem to be missing my point I think. There are no half and half fossils. It skips to a new species entirely as far as I am aware. Using Neandertals and cro-magnons example, I am pretty sure the two couldn't breed yet they sit next to each other on the evolutionary chain.

The Theory of Evolution does not disprove God.

I know this. You know this. Alot of people in the world and even on this forum see things a different way.

Does anyone on here know how to create the effects of gravity? No. Do we have what sort of effects to expect from gravity? Yes.

Just because we can't do it doesn't mean we don't understand it.

I know how to create gravity. Take big dense object and put it in outer space.

But fortunately there are people who's job it is how the dinosaurs got there, how they lived, and so forth.

Yes, because they find it more interesting than people like I do.

 

[El_Machinae]

The point on the 'missing links' is that the ToE predicted they'd be there. If we have species A before species D (and have figured out they should be related), the Theory predicts that there will be missing link species in between. Guess what happens? We're finding more and more of those fossils! As predicted.

There are also so many ancestor fossils (during the transitional period) that there's now heated debate as to which of them are our actual ancestors and which are cousins.

You claim that that there are no links.

Prove it.


The phrase "missing link" describes the problem very neatly. It's missing. It's there, we simply haven't found it yet.

You need to prove that the link is definitely not there.

You can't prove a negative

 

[Smidlee]

The point on the 'missing links' is that the ToE predicted they'd be there. If we have species A before species D (and have figured out they should be related), the Theory predicts that there will be missing link species in between. Guess what happens? We're finding more and more of those fossils! As predicted.

But fossils doesn't interpret themselves. A believer will see a fossil connection when one is not there. This is why we see these fossils (evolving ) jump around all the time even with different scientist.
The fossil record is not going to convince a skeptic. This is why some evolutionist has dismiss the fossil record at together as evidence of evolution yet lean on different fields to support their view.

 

[warpus]

All of the sudden species A gave birth to a bunch of species B

That's not how it works at all. I can understand your confusion about the 'transitional fossils', given that you do not understand how new species form.

There are no mixture of the 2 species, they are just now a new species.

Species are reproductively isolated. If they could and did interbreed, they would be one species.

You seem to be missing my point I think. There are no half and half fossils. It skips to a new species entirely as far as I am aware. Using Neandertals and cro-magnons example, I am pretty sure the two couldn't breed yet they sit next to each other on the evolutionary chain.

A species is a human-made definition. There is no such thing as a half-species. Everything is just.. a species.

I know this. You know this. Alot of people in the world and even on this forum see things a different way.

but you said

And it is unrealistic to the extreme for someone to expect me to give up my view of reality and claim this as a disproof of God without such evidence.

So don't give it up. I don't understand the problem here.

 

[brennan]

The problem is species A cannot breed with species B because they are different species. All of the sudden species A gave birth to a bunch of species B. There are no mixture of the 2 species, they are just now a new species. 2 different species cannot breed by the biological definition.

I can give you a couple of well known real world examples of that being untrue...

Spoiler :

When Lions & Tigers mate they produce Ligers and Tigons

& Donkeys and Horses give you hinnys and mules

I would give both of these as evidence of recent speciation, the pairs of species in question cannot give rise to offspring that can breed themselves, but they can produce offspring. Evidence that they are extremely closely related genetically.

 

[King Flevance]

Ah, that is a good example with the horses and donkeys. Same with lions and tigers. I did not even know they could breed.

As warpus said, with species being a man made term it gets generalized alot. Even on dictionary.com it gives you the biological definition (how I normally use the term) as well as I guess a common term of just a group of species. Like the using it to refer to "dog species". Yet by the biological definition, I am used to - not all 'dogs' are of the same species.

Species are reproductively isolated. If they could and did interbreed, they would be one species.

^This is how I have been using the term species in every post.

There is no such thing as a half-species. Everything is just.. a species.

SO are there any 'links' in evolution that could breed. (like cro-magnon and neandertal - could they?) If not, how could they evolve into the other. How could a species jump species? So far there is little to no evidence that neandertal and cro magnon could breed. And even under the assumption that they could you would end up with a sterile offspring. However, that is speculation at best at this point as is saying they definatly couldn't breed.

So don't give it up. I don't understand the problem here.

I wasn't planning to. I was just cutting the conversation off at the pass in case it was headed down that road. I know how these threads can be.

 

[frob2900]

Same with lions and tigers. I did not even know they could breed.

The liger is pretty much my favorite animal. It's like a lion and a tiger mixed... bred for its skills in magic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liger
http://www.liger.org/images/liger-pic.jpg
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...ies/ligers_dynamite/images/primary/Liger4.jpg
http://www.britannica.com/ebc/art-7...lt-of-a-mating-between-a-male?articleTypeId=1

 

[brennan]

SO are there any 'links' in evolution that could breed. (like cro-magnon and neandertal - could they?) If not, how could they evolve into the other. How could a species jump species? So far there is little to no evidence that neandertal and cro magnon could breed. And even under the assumption that they could you would end up with a sterile offspring. However, that is speculation at best at this point as is saying they definatly couldn't breed.

Speciation occurs (most likely) when a single species is forced by its environment to occupy two separate ranges. Separated from each other the two populations experience subtly different pressures producing their 'natural selection'. This leads to them drifting apart genetically until at some point they are dissimilar enough that they can no longer breed. At that point you have two distinct species.

Given that the above process shows that speciation is a gradual event, rather than the non-evolutionary view that species are always exclusive, since they do not change, it seems logical to assume that the inter-species boundary becomes blurred around the point of speciation - I would say this was demonstrated by the examples I offered above.

Note that the forced isolation of populations makes it unlikely that cross-breeding will occur. In the Wild the ranges occupied by Lions and Tigers do not overlap, and the only place you are likely to find Ligers and Tigons is in zoos. Give it another few thousand years and you'll probably find Lions and Tigers are no longer able to produce hybrids.

 

[frob2900]

Note that the forced isolation of populations makes it unlikely that cross-breeding will occur. In the Wild the ranges occupied by Lions and Tigers do not overlap, and the only place you are likely to find Ligers and Tigons is in zoos.

Lions and tigers don't even breed when their ranges overlap. According to this article:
http://www.bigcatrescue.org/ligers.htm

The article says they don't breed "for the same reasons humans and chimpanzees don't breed".

 

[King Flevance]

The liger is pretty much my favorite animal. It's like a lion and a tiger mixed... bred for its skills in magic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liger
http://www.liger.org/images/liger-pic.jpg
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...ies/ligers_dynamite/images/primary/Liger4.jpg
http://www.britannica.com/ebc/art-7...lt-of-a-mating-between-a-male?articleTypeId=1

ROFL. I seriously thought about that when I first saw Brennan's comment. I actually had to go see if he was pulling my leg.

 

[brennan]

Their ranges do not overlap in the wild.

And yet stick them in an enclosure and they do breed.

Wiki has this to say on Tigons:
"The comparative rarity of tigons is attributed to male tigers' finding the courtship behaviour of a lioness too subtle and thus may miss behavioural cues that signal her willingness to mate."

Edit: I've double and triple checked the 'Gir national Forest' your source gives a place where lions and tigers overlap Frob and can find no mention of Tigers there.