Questions for biological macro-evolutionists

Serenity595

Serenity595

Active Member
Hello! I have some honest questions for biological macro-evolutionists that I'm curious to know the answers to. This has nothing to do with a "hidden agenda" or whatever. I'm just honestly curious, seeing as I'm not an expert in the theory of evolution itself. So without further ado, here we go:

  • If, according to evolutionary theory, modern humans date back about 500,000 years (Homo sapiens, not homo sapiens sapiens), why aren't there thousands upon thousands, if not millions upon millions of fossils that show this transition?
  • How is the "explosion" of life during the Cambrian era explained?


That's all I got for now...

Peace.
 
aliens-meme-picture.jpg
 
Goddammit, if I were at home on my good internet, and not in a tad bit of a rush, I'd have a full essay to write for you on each of your questions. As it is, I don't have time for this. AAAARRRGGGGHHH.
 
Ugh, wikipedia, why u no unbiased?

"Macroevolution is evolution on a scale of separated gene pools.[1] Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution,[2] which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population.[3] Contrary to claims by creationists, macro and microevolution describe fundamentally identical processes on different time scales.[4][1]"
Click to expand...

Incorrect! The process of a species changing within its kind is completely different from the process of a species becoming a different species.

It's like wikipedia is saying "A Red Delicious apple evolving into a Gala Apple is the same as an orange evolving into a watermelon."
 
Serenity595 said:
Ugh, wikipedia, why u no unbiased?



Incorrect! The process of a species changing within its kind is completely different from the process of a species becoming a different species.

It's like wikipedia is saying "A Red Delicious apple evolving into a Gala Apple is the same as an orange evolving into a watermelon."
Click to expand...
Through natural selection, isn't it possible that eventually the traits that derive a watermelon can sprout from that of an orange?
 
Serenity595 said:
Ugh, wikipedia, why u no unbiased?



Incorrect! The process of a species changing within its kind is completely different from the process of a species becoming a different species.

It's like wikipedia is saying "A Red Delicious apple evolving into a Gala Apple is the same as an orange evolving into a watermelon."
Click to expand...
Incorrect! What happens when microevolutions stack on top of each other until the present product is no longer recognizable as the original species? You get macroevolution. Fundamentally, macroevolution is just a lot of microevolution over a long period of time.
 
Serenity595 said:
Ugh, wikipedia, why u no unbiased?



Incorrect! The process of a species changing within its kind is completely different from the process of a species becoming a different species.

It's like wikipedia is saying "A Red Delicious apple evolving into a Gala Apple is the same as an orange evolving into a watermelon."
Click to expand...
Evolution doesn't just happen 'cause some fruit/animal/lemur/whatever wants to evolve. This isn't fucking pokemon or starcraft. It's a result of natural selection.
 
Serenity595 said:
Hello! I have some honest questions for biological macro-evolutionists that I'm curious to know the answers to. This has nothing to do with a "hidden agenda" or whatever. I'm just honestly curious, seeing as I'm not an expert in the theory of evolution itself. So without further ado, here we go:

  • If, according to evolutionary theory, modern humans date back about 500,000 years (Homo sapiens, not homo sapiens sapiens), why aren't there thousands upon thousands, if not millions upon millions of fossils that show this transition?
  • How is the "explosion" of life during the Cambrian era explained?


That's all I got for now...

Peace.
Click to expand...

What leads you to believe that there should be millions upon millions of human fossils from that point in time? How many pre-humans do you think there really were? I think you have a rather confused perception of the rise of the modern day human, and exactly what we were 500,000 years ago and how many humans there may have been as they evolved. Either that, or you simply wrote a very poor question in an effort to start a conversation or debate.

And in-fact, there actually are a very numerous number of fossils and skeletal remains that have been found documenting the progression of evolution. You can read about the specifics all over the internet, in thousands of places. Most of them are named, and have been carbon dated with complete records available.

On another note, how much do you really know about fossils to be able to make a statement like that in your question? Fossils are a much rarer occurrence than you seem to believe. Not everyone who dies becomes a fossil. A very rare set of events and environmental conditions has to be met before a fossil can form, and finding them is a whole other story. There probably are millions of different fossils buried beneath our feet, but we will never discover 99.9% of them.

TL;DR Move along. There is nothing to see here.
 
TheGurw said:
Incorrect! What happens when microevolutions stack on top of each other until the present product is no longer recognizable as the original species? You get macroevolution. Fundamentally, macroevolution is just a lot of microevolution over a long period of time.
Click to expand...

You only get macroevolution if you believe that said micro changes within a species gives said species the capability to become another species.

Stratadon said:
What leads you to believe that there should be millions upon millions of human fossils from that point in time? How many pre-humans do you think there really were? I think you have a rather confused perception of the rise of the modern day human, and exactly what we were 500,000 years ago and how many humans there may have been as they evolved. Either that, or you simply wrote a very poor question in an effort to start a conversation or debate.

And in-fact, there actually are a very numerous number of fossils and skeletal remains that have been found documenting the progression of evolution. You can read about the specifics all over the internet, in thousands of places. Most of them are named, and have been carbon dated with complete records available.

On another note, how much do you really know about fossils to be able to make a statement like that in your question? Fossils are a much rarer occurrence than you seem to believe. Not everyone who dies becomes a fossil. A very rare set of events and environmental conditions has to be met before a fossil can form, and finding them is a whole other story. There probably are millions of different fossils buried beneath our feet, but we will never discover 99.9% of them.

TL;DR Move along. There is nothing to see here.
Click to expand...

What leads me to believe that there wouldn't be millions upon millions of fossils of these pre-humans/humans, or any other animal for that matter? Why don't we have thousands of "transition" fossils?

Also, I don't see it as a good argument to appeal to the general essence of the "internet" as your source. It's too broad and vague. Give me a specific example that proves your point.

That last sentence was just rude. State your opinions and theories but don't be stuck-up about it please.

Stratadon said:
And let's get another thing straight. Fruits do not evolve into other fruits. Let us all remember that fruits come from different plants. The plants evolved to produce fruit through natural selection as a way to distribute their seeds. All plants you could say evolve from a similar micro-organism if you go back far enough in history, but they do not really evolve from each other.
Click to expand...

It was a bad analogy but I was trying to illustrate that say, a species of ape becoming another species of ape is different from an ape becoming a human. One is a change within a kind of animal, the other is change of kinds.
 
Dost thou not believe that these changes cannot build upon one another to cause one species to become another?

This is in essence what Gurw is saying, and it logically makes sense as change can and will build upon itself to create new species and therefore biodiversity within the world. In order for macroevolution to work, this requires time and is not noticeable within a human's lifetime because of the fact that humans do not live for thousands of years. It also requires any genetic mutation to be beneficial to the species as a whole for it to spread and become the prominent gene over the original.

In regard to fossils, Stratadon made it quite clear that fossils are not going to form /every time/ because fossils are formed from bones and bones degrade unless preserved in special conditions. Pompeii and its disaster has such perfect fossils because of the special conditions of the ash protecting the bones and other objects from oxygen and the bacteria that degrade bones and other tissues. Same goes for the pharaohs of long ago. They were preserved specially, but through direct human action. Now, tell me why there should be bones or fossils of a transitionary species, of which there are relatively many? Please do take into account that this entire world has not been scoured for fossils and that there may or may not be fossils relating to humans or not, hidden within that which has not been searched.
 
Serenity595 said:
You only get macroevolution if you believe that said micro changes within a species gives said species the capability to become another species.



What leads me to believe that there wouldn't be millions upon millions of fossils of these pre-humans/humans, or any other animal for that matter? Why don't we have thousands of "transition" fossils?

Also, I don't see it as a good argument to appeal to the general essence of the "internet" as your source. It's too broad and vague. Give me a specific example that proves your point.

That last sentence was just rude. State your opinions and theories but don't be stuck-up about it please.



It was a bad analogy but I was trying to illustrate that say, a species of ape becoming another species of ape is different from an ape becoming a human. One is a change within a kind of animal, the other is change of kinds.
Click to expand...

Thank you for responding to absolutely none of my valid concerns.

Perhaps you need me to spell out my concerns one by one for you.

Estimates put the number of hominids that have lived over the last 4 million years at 10 billion. A simple mathematical expression can estimate that approximately 1 billion 250 million of those 10 billion would have lived in the last 500,000, which is the timeframe you gave in your original question. How many of these 1 billion 250 million hominids that died would you expect to become fossils. Until you reach a logical conclusion about the number you would EXPECT, to make a statement regarding why there are or are not millions of fossils that we should be uncovering every day is contempt, and pure blasphemy. That alone should discredit the majority of your question unless you can refute or provide some evidence supporting your theory of the number of fossils.

I continue

As I said before, there are thousands of websites you can look at documenting the multitude of fossilized skeletons that have been discovered that can paint a picture, or help develop the current timeline of human evolution we have today based on scientific testing such are carbon dating. A few sources are listed below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-evolution-timeline-interactive
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html#tchadensis
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/denisova.html
http://australianmuseum.net.au/A-timeline-of-fossil-discoveries/
http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/life/human-origins/modern-human-evolution/early-beginnings/
http://darwiniana.org/hominid.htm
...

I don't expect you to read any of these. This is just a demonstration of why it is I can make a claim to the internet in support of one of my statements. There is such thing as common knowledge, where if something is repeated enough times in enough sources, you no longer need to point to a source when you relate to it or use it as evidence in an argument. This is exactly why I can "appeal to the general essence of the "internet" as [my] source"

Until you can actually say something about my post, don't bother replying. Every time you make a thread like this, your replies are insignificant and do not refute the other side. You just kind of dismiss things and attack the opposition. I enjoy attacking people. It is an effective part of debate, yet ultimately does nothing. If you can do both simultaneously, you become a devastating weapon in a debate, but the evidence and support has to be there 100% before you can attempt the latter.
 
Allimon said:
Dost thou not believe that these changes cannot build upon one another to cause one species to become another?

This is in essence what Gurw is saying, and it logically makes sense as change can and will build upon itself to create new species and therefore biodiversity within the world. In order for macroevolution to work, this requires time and is not noticeable within a human's lifetime because of the fact that humans do not live for thousands of years. It also requires any genetic mutation to be beneficial to the species as a whole for it to spread and become the prominent gene over the original.

In regard to fossils, Stratadon made it quite clear that fossils are not going to form /every time/ because fossils are formed from bones and bones degrade unless preserved in special conditions. Pompeii and its disaster has such perfect fossils because of the special conditions of the ash protecting the bones and other objects from oxygen and the bacteria that degrade bones and other tissues. Same goes for the pharaohs of long ago. They were preserved specially, but through direct human action. Now, tell me why there should be bones or fossils of a transitionary species, of which there are relatively many? Please do take into account that this entire world has not been scoured for fossils and that there may or may not be fossils relating to humans or not, hidden within that which has not been searched.
Click to expand...

^This post was a breath of fresh air.

No. I believe that there are limitations to evolution.

Well, I think there would be many bones/fossils of these transitionary species because we have so many fossils of species themselves. We have tons of dinosaur bones, and animal bones, and human bones all across our planet, but I don't see that same prominence with transitionary fossils. Let's specifically look at dinosaur fossils for a moment. They are believed to be really old, ranging the in the hundreds of millions of years I believe (correct me if I'm wrong). If that's so, then we can safely assume that all the fossils of transitionary species from that time frame to our modern day would be widely prevalent because very old fossils are prevalent. Did that make any sense?

Stratadon said:
Thank you for responding to absolutely none of my valid concerns.

Perhaps you need me to spell out my concerns one by one for you.

Estimates put the number of hominids that have lived over the last 4 million years at 10 billion. A simple mathematical expression can estimate that approximately 1 billion 250 million of those 10 billion would have lived in the last 500,000, which is the timeframe you gave in your original question. How many of these 1 billion 250 million hominids that died would you expect to become fossils. Until you reach a logical conclusion about the number you would EXPECT, to make a statement regarding why there are or are not millions of fossils that we should be uncovering every day is contempt, and pure blasphemy. That alone should discredit the majority of your question unless you can refute or provide some evidence supporting your theory of the number of fossils.

I continue

As I said before, there are thousands of websites you can look at documenting the multitude of fossilized skeletons that have been discovered that can paint a picture, or help develop the current timeline of human evolution we have today based on scientific testing such are carbon dating. A few sources are listed below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-evolution-timeline-interactive
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html#tchadensis
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/denisova.html
http://australianmuseum.net.au/A-timeline-of-fossil-discoveries/
http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/life/human-origins/modern-human-evolution/early-beginnings/
http://darwiniana.org/hominid.htm
...

I don't expect you to read any of these. This is just a demonstration of why it is I can make a claim to the internet in support of one of my statements. There is such thing as common knowledge, where if something is repeated enough times in enough sources, you no longer need to point to a source when you relate to it or use it as evidence in an argument. This is exactly why I can "appeal to the general essence of the "internet" as [my] source"

Until you can actually say something about my post, don't bother replying. Every time you make a thread like this, your replies are insignificant and do not refute the other side. You just kind of dismiss things and attack the opposition. I enjoy attacking people. It is an effective part of debate, yet ultimately does nothing. If you can do both simultaneously, you become a devastating weapon in a debate, but the evidence and support has to be there 100% before you can attempt the second part.
Click to expand...

I don't like the tone you have here. If you want to discuss, by all means. But try and do it more like Allimon if you want me to take you seriously.

I'm not very good at math so I don't know a good estimate, but as I said to Allimon, if we have tons of fossils from animals as old as dinosaurs, we could logically assume that species that are much more recent should also have many fossils as well that are easily found.

"Common knowledge" is a silly argument. Just because many people believe something doesn't make it automatically true. Again, if you won't give me a specific example, then I can't properly argue your points at all. Appealing to vagueness doesn't get you anywhere.

Your last paragraph was a bit ironic, because you are attacking me right now. Is that necessary? I'm not mad; I just don't understand the logic.

Also, if I recall correctly, I specifically said in my original post that I'm NOT an expert on evolution. I asked these questions to hear specific data that supports said answers to those questions.
 
I like to use language as an effective analogy for speciation. When two groups of people are separated long enough, their language use changes independently until neither group understands each other. The same is true with speciation and mating. Comparing humans to apes is sort of like comparing French to Spanish. French didn't come from Spanish, and Spanish didn't come from French - they both share a common, dead ancestor (Latin).

Look up something called "phylogenetics". With computers, we can quantify the similarities of different species' DNA (though the computation quickly becomes an enormously difficult problem if clever solutions aren't utilized). It is a fact that humans are more closely related to chimpanzees and bonobos than any other known species.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top