# Why I am an "Evolutionist"

#### Eightcrackers

##### Well-known member
I bet you can not prove your point?
What proof would you accept?

Any?

#### Eightcrackers

##### Well-known member
The giant panda and the red panda are similar enough to both be called pandas.
As idiotic as

"the spider monkey and the spider are similar enough to both be called spiders"
Homology isn't evidence for evolutionism.
You conflate homology of name, with homology of phenotype.

#### CrowCross

##### Super Member
As idiotic as

"the spider monkey and the spider are similar enough to both be called spiders"

You conflate homology of name, with homology of phenotype.
You think that's what i was talking about? A name?

I was talking abou homology... traits..such as their sesamoid thumbs. Do you know what sesamoid thumbs are?

#### Gus Bovona

##### Well-known member
What I am giving you a break as there actually should of been untold quadrillions of the missing link type fossils and you could find a quarter to half of them at the rate they find current fossils they have.
Why would you expect we would find anything close to a quarter or half of them?

You have any idea of how many fossils survive out of every million fossils?
The number of fossils that survive depends on the number of fossils that get made.

The number of fossils that survive is not equal to the number of fossils we find.

#### Nathan P

##### Well-known member
Why would you expect we would find anything close to a quarter or half of them?

The number of fossils that survive depends on the number of fossils that get made.

The number of fossils that survive is not equal to the number of fossils we find.
Exactly that is the point and even if we only find a quarter of them, then out of the quadrillions there would have been we should find so many trillions of them.

#### Gus Bovona

##### Well-known member
Exactly that is the point and even if we only find a quarter of them, then out of the quadrillions there would have been we should find so many trillions of them.
I'm asking you why there is a reason we should expect to find a quarter of them, or anything remotely close to a quarter?

#### Nathan P

##### Well-known member
It's your point. You are claiming that evolution is wrong because it cannot show individual organisms evolving. Evolution doesn't claim that individual organisms evolve. You will not find any scientists claim that individuals evolve. No teacher teaches that individuals evolve. It's a non- issue. Evolution doesn't require individuals to evolve. All it requires is that individuals are slightly different from their parents and that the environment in which they live changes slowly over time. Both these requirements are obviously true. Where on earth did you get the motion that individuals evolve? Go back to your source and explain that they are talking gibberish.
You just admitted that individuals evolve because you admit that they have to be different from their parents. Or as the individuals evolve they are different from their parents.

#### Nathan P

##### Well-known member
I'm asking you why there is a reason we should expect to find a quarter of them, or anything remotely close to a quarter?
Because they lived and died with the ones that are found and since they are about the same they would have died and fossilized at about the same rate. Meaning like Darwin said the earth should be scattered with a great number of them.

#### Nathan P

##### Well-known member
Evolution results from those similarities, which add together over time, as directed by natural selection. Each generation the average length of the neck gets a little bigger, and you end up with a giraffe. Each generation the nose gets a bit longer and you end up with an elephant's trunk.

A journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step. Evolution is the same; a lot of single steps adds up to a thousand miles.
And you are admitting those steps end up in similarities only.

#### Gus Bovona

##### Well-known member
Because they lived and died with the ones that are found and since they are about the same they would have died and fossilized at about the same rate. Meaning like Darwin said the earth should be scattered with a great number of them.
And, again, I'm asking you, why is that rate about a quarter, instead of and eighth, or 1-eight-millionth, or 1-eighth-billionth, etc? Show your work! Let's see some numbers - even estimates - that lead you to that quarter. Otherwise, you're just making it up.

#### rossum

##### Well-known member
And you are admitting those steps end up in similarities only.
There are both similarities and differences. Every part of a human occurs in a chimpanzee, though the proportions are different. Both have inherited those parts from a primate common ancestor. They have even inherited the same errors in their genomes, for instance the gulonase pseudogene, which makes most primates susceptible to vitamin-C deficiency. That broken gene means we cannot make our own, but have to eat it.

Different species can be similar, for instance Indian and African elephants, or horses, zebras and donkeys. Similar species are grouped into a wider clade, as with elephants and horses.

#### Nathan P

##### Well-known member
And, again, I'm asking you, why is that rate about a quarter, instead of and eighth, or 1-eight-millionth, or 1-eighth-billionth, etc? Show your work! Let's see some numbers - even estimates - that lead you to that quarter. Otherwise, you're just making it up.
I just told you why and because they were the same skeletal wise that they would have died and fossilized at about the same rate as the one's that are found. Since the transitional one's would have greatly outnumbered the other one's that are found you would say the evidence says a lot more of the transitional one's would be found.

#### Temujin

##### Well-known member
You just admitted that individuals evolve because you admit that they have to be different from their parents. Or as the individuals evolve they are different from their parents.
Evolution is the change of SPECIES over time as a result of imperfect replication and natural selection bringing about a build up of beneficial mutations in the gene pool. The genes of an individual do not change over time.

#### Gus Bovona

##### Well-known member
I just told you why and because they were the same skeletal wise that they would have died and fossilized at about the same rate as the one's that are found. Since the transitional one's would have greatly outnumbered the other one's that are found you would say the evidence says a lot more of the transitional one's would be found.
OK, so you have no numbers to calculate your quarter. Your quarter is numerical, but not the result of any calculation. So it's a meaningless number.

#### Nathan P

##### Well-known member
OK, so you have no numbers to calculate your quarter. Your quarter is numerical, but not the result of any calculation. So it's a meaningless number.
But you understand the transitional one's would have greatly outnumbered the one's they evolved from and the one's they would have evolved into?

#### Gus Bovona

##### Well-known member
But you understand the transitional one's would have greatly outnumbered the one's they evolved from and the one's they would have evolved into?
No, because one problem is that *every* species is a transitional species in evolution.

#### Gus Bovona

##### Well-known member
But you understand the transitional one's would have greatly outnumbered the one's they evolved from and the one's they would have evolved into?
So you have no comment - not even a rejoinder - about making up a meaningless number and passing that off as part of an intellectually honest conversation?

#### Unknown Soldier

##### Active member
Show me...
I'll need to know what you mean by "show." Do you want me to post a link to an article or a video? I've found a ton of good material on cell evolution online.
...how an assembly of organelle evolves via a process of evolutionism...
Cells must have evolved because geologists have found that early in earth history there were no cells and no life on our planet. Cells begin to appear later in the geologic record. They must have developed gradually from chemicals that included elements like carbon and oxygen. What proto-life survived this process became what we would recognize as cells and life.

By the way, a complicating factor in determining the emergence of life is that it's hard to define what life is. Does life necessarily reproduce, for example? These kind of questions make it hard to pinpoint the emergence of life.
....or kindly give up on this thread.
I started it. I'll stay as long as I reasonably can.

#### Nathan P

##### Well-known member
So you have no comment - not even a rejoinder - about making up a meaningless number and passing that off as part of an intellectually honest conversation?
No you have a meaningless number as my numbers would be correct that there would have been a lot more transitional one's who died and thus you should find a greater number of fossils from them than the one's that are found. I am being honest.

#### Nathan P

##### Well-known member
No, because one problem is that *every* species is a transitional species in evolution.
At some point even if the changes were small you would have had one's that were 50/50 or half one species and half the other species and all the other stages in evolution.