quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

We don't, but we do know that a species needs a basic minimum population to survive without serious inbreeding problems. There is no indication that the human population was reduced significantly within this time-frame.

I am not sure such a minimum is necessary. Studies show every lemur on Madagascar came from a single pair.

quote:

Nor, as far as I know, has the consensus adopted the idea.

quote:

See, this drives me crazy. No one knows at all what processes are responsible for the origin of life, yet they speak with authority about time-frames and requirements. This is simply an illogical assertion.

quote:

And similar studies show that the human population has not dropped anywhere near that low. Check out "genetic bottleneck" Also "founder effect" which is often a factor in island populations.

quote:

We may not know the processes necessary to the origin of life. We do know conditions under which life cannot exist. Life as we know it cannot exist without water, so the earth had to have water. And that also means it had to be cool enough not to be constantly turning any water on its surface into steam.

quote:

We also know that most hypotheses of abiogenesis require chemistry that cannot occur in the presence of large quantities of oxygen. And that the early earth did not have an atmosphere rich in oxygen. Yet it did have life.

quote:

Well, again, we don’t actually know the ‘chemistry’ for life because we have never chemically produced life; this is assumption.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

And similar studies show that the human population has not dropped anywhere near that low. Check out "genetic bottleneck" Also "founder effect" which is often a factor in island populations.

I am wholly familiar with such studies; just opointing out that contrary to what you claimed, a very small number of individuals do not neccesarily lead to inbreeding.

Which is why it is a 'hypothesis'.

Of course, because the consensus rules.

quote:

We may not know the processes necessary to the origin of life. We do know conditions under which life cannot exist. Life as we know it cannot exist without water, so the earth had to have water. And that also means it had to be cool enough not to be constantly turning any water on its surface into steam.

Sure; but obviously that period passed pretty early in earth’s history.

quote:

We also know that most hypotheses of abiogenesis require chemistry that cannot occur in the presence of large quantities of oxygen. And that the early earth did not have an atmosphere rich in oxygen. Yet it did have life.

Well, again, we don’t actually know the ‘chemistry’ for life because we have never chemically produced life; this is assumption.

quote:

ORIGINAL: unclemonkey

ORIGINAL:Jhud

quote:

Well, again, we don’t actually know the ‘chemistry’ for life because we have never chemically produced life; this is assumption.

Well Jack, aren’t assumptions as good as empirical evidence? The OP of this thread is a request for empirical evidence, but prior to the assumptions gluadys has supplied all that has been presented is fraud, bait and switch con games and blind faith. None of which quite qualify as “empirical evidence”.
Are you saying we STILL haven’t seen ANY empirical support for goo to you evolution?

quote:

Well, no, obviously the 'chemistry we find now' isn't necessarily the chemistry that was responsible for life; chemical reactions frequently employ various compounds as catalysts that have little to do with the final product.

quote:

Did pre-life start with protein first, or with RNA first? How did they join forces? How did DNA come into the picture? What sort of substrates and catalysts were involved? Were the first proto-bionts formed on the earth's surface--in warm shallow waters? or near thermal vents, protected from the impact of ultraviolet light?

Such questions could not be asked without knowing the chemistry of life.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Well, no, obviously the 'chemistry we find now' isn't necessarily the chemistry that was responsible for life; chemical reactions frequently employ various compounds as catalysts that have little to do with the final product.

Indeed, frequently abiogenesis theorist employ substrates (clays, porous crystals, meteorites, etc.) that have little to do with extant biology.

quote:

Did pre-life start with protein first, or with RNA first? How did they join forces? How did DNA come into the picture? What sort of substrates and catalysts were involved? Were the first proto-bionts formed on the earth's surface--in warm shallow waters? or near thermal vents, protected from the impact of ultraviolet light?

Such questions could not be asked without knowing the chemistry of life.

I think the ultimate question has less to do with what life is from a chemical perspective, and more about what life does from functional perspective. Those exploring life’s origin should be asking themselves – can any process produce information system driven nano-machinery absent guidance of some sort?

quote:

The opening post asked for empirical evidence of evolution. That is readily available.

quote:

The phrase "goo to you" does not describe evolution, so no, you will not get empirical evidence for a false slogan.

quote:

You will get empirical evidence of a changing distribution of alleles in a gene pool (the current basic definition of evolution),

quote:

for the ubiquity of mutations,

quote:

for natural selection, for speciation,

quote:

for the past existence of key transitional forms, and for particular common ancestry theses such as the common ancestry of humans and chimpanzees.

quote:

Do you not consder these to be empirical evidence for evolution?

quote:

If not, why not?

quote:

ORIGINAL: unclemonkey

ORIGINAL: gluadys

quote:

The opening post asked for empirical evidence of evolution. That is readily available.

If it is so readily available then why haven’t you, or anyone else, presented any?

quote:

Observations of the fossil record show many obvious cases of change over time. The flora & fauna of the Precambrian is different from the flora & fauna of later periods. Many transitional fossils are known between related species. This empirically observed change-over-time is what we mean by evolution. Modern evolutionary theory is our best explanation for how this evolution occurred.

quote:

ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
If it is so readily available then why haven’t you, or anyone else, presented any?

quote:

Can a changing distribution of alleles in a gene pool change a reptile into a mammal given enough generations?

quote:

Evolutionists CLAIM mutations provide the information needed to change a reptile into a mammal, but the observations (empirical evidence) from fruit fly experiments contradict that claim.

quote:

A finch “evolving” into a finch is NOT evidence that a reptile can “evolve” into a mammal.

quote:

Like the Chad skull?

quote:

Sorry, but I don’t consider overzealous evolutionary biased interpretations “empirical evidence”. I’m just not that gullible.

quote:

quote:

If it is so readily available then why haven’t you, or anyone else, presented any?

Plenty has been presented.

quote:

I'll elaborate, borrowing from TO, demonstrating the kinds of fossils found in the different geological periods of history:

quote:


In a separate paper, a team including Brunet and Christoph Zollikofer of the University of Zürich in Switzerland, presents a 3D computer reconstruction of the skull, which had been badly distorted in the ground.

quote:


"We performed a virtual reconstruction because the skull is heavily mineralised and distorted. It is impossible to do one by physical means,"

quote:


Now Brunet and colleagues report discovering two new jaw fragments and the crown of a tooth in the same geographical area as the earlier fossils.

quote:


But at least one anthropologist argued that the fossil could belong to a female forerunner of the gorilla.
...
Martin Pickford, of the National Museum of Natural History in Paris, is one of those scientists unconvinced by arguments that Toumaï is a hominid.
"What we're saying is that it is an ape-like animal. It may well have given rise to bipedal hominids, but it's not yet a bipedal hominid," Dr Pickford told the BBC.
Professor Zollikofer commented: "I would say most of the disagreement over the fossil came from the fact that it is distorted, so it is quite difficult to recognise the diagnostic hominid features."

quote:

ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
It doesn’t matter how impressive sounding an interpretation is, interpretation is NOT “empirical evidence”.

quote:

the empirical evidence clearly shows the fossil record was catastrophically constructed. I.e. The fossil record is NOT a record of new life but rather a record of catastrophic death.

quote:

ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
If it is so readily available then why haven’t you, or anyone else, presented any? After all, don’t you think it appropriate to address the OP?

quote:

quote:

Can a changing distribution of alleles in a gene pool change a reptile into a mammal given enough generations?

Yes, and it did so about 200 million years ago.

quote:

A finch “evolving” into a finch is NOT evidence that a reptile can “evolve” into a mammal.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
If it is so readily available then why haven’t you, or anyone else, presented any?

You'll never see it as long as you keep your eyes closed.

quote:

Check the article. Then tell me what errors they made in describing the dentition, the placement of the foramen magnum, the jaw, the brow ridge.

quote:

You want empirical evidence, take the time to really look at the empirical evidence before hand-waving it away.

quote:

ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
Cambrian 590-505 Ma First jawless fishes.
Ordovician 505-438 Ma More jawless fishes.
Silurian 438-408 Ma First ray-finned & lobe-finned fish.
Devonian 408-360 Ma Fish dominant. First amphibians.
Mississippian 360-320 Ma Big terrestrial amphibians, fishes.
Pennsylvanian 320-286 Ma Amphibians dominant. First reptiles.
Permian 286-248 Ma Amphibians dominant. First mammal-like reptiles.
Triassic 248-213 Ma Mammalian reptiles dominant. First dinosaurs.
Jurassic 213-144 Ma Dinosaurs dominant. First mammals, then first birds.
Cretaceous 144-65 Ma Dinosaurs dominant. Small mammals, birds.
65-0 Ma Mammals & birds & teleost fish dominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
Yet the fossils often appear and disappear suddenly (as Gould points out). This makes sense because it shows that the reason why there isn't a gradual progression of fossils from alleged early forms to later forms isn't because of the incomplete nature of the fossil record (it makes it difficult for evolutionists to argue that the fossil record doesn't go back far enough to show gradualism as Darwin would have predicted, because it does go back far enough) but because the evidence simply doesn't support evolution. This is why evolutionists are forced to make up hypothesis such as punctuated equilibrium (in opposed to gradualism), because of the simple fact that the evidence isn't what it should be if evolution were true (and evolutionists can't argue that the reason for this is because the fossil record doesn't go back far enough). Whoever designed the evidence to be what it is is a genius, the designer did an excellent job at resisting naturalistic explanations (in ways that are far beyond how I would have thought to do it).

quote:

ORIGINAL: drj11
Punctuated Equilibrium and gradualism are not mutually exclusive.

quote:


Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism championed by Charles Darwin was virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species.

quote:


This gradual increase in number of the species of a group is strictly conformable with the theory; for the species of the same genus, and the genera of the same family, can increase only slowly and progressively; the process of modification and the production of a number of allied forms necessarily being a slow and gradual process, one species first giving rise to two or three varieties, these being slowly converted into species, which in their turn produce by equally slow steps other varieties and species, and so on, like the branching of a great tree from a single stem, till the group becomes large.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize

quote:

ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
Cambrian 590-505 Ma First jawless fishes.
Ordovician 505-438 Ma More jawless fishes.
Silurian 438-408 Ma First ray-finned & lobe-finned fish.
Devonian 408-360 Ma Fish dominant. First amphibians.
Mississippian 360-320 Ma Big terrestrial amphibians, fishes.
Pennsylvanian 320-286 Ma Amphibians dominant. First reptiles.
Permian 286-248 Ma Amphibians dominant. First mammal-like reptiles.
Triassic 248-213 Ma Mammalian reptiles dominant. First dinosaurs.
Jurassic 213-144 Ma Dinosaurs dominant. First mammals, then first birds.
Cretaceous 144-65 Ma Dinosaurs dominant. Small mammals, birds.
65-0 Ma Mammals & birds & teleost fish dominant

Yet the fossils often appear and disappear suddenly

quote:

ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
Irrelevant to my argument. Whether birds arose 'abruptly' or not, they still appear in certain layers and not in others. Whether dinosaurs disappeared abruptly or not, they still appear in certain layers and not in others. The same is true of amphibians, reptiles, mammals, and mankind. Also, each of these groups was strangely (strange, that is, if one rejects evolution) foreshadowed in the fossil record, as Tiktaalik foreshadows the amphibia.

quote:

ORIGINAL: unclemonkey

ORIGINAL: gluadys

quote:

quote:

Can a changing distribution of alleles in a gene pool change a reptile into a mammal given enough generations?

Yes, and it did so about 200 million years ago.

That is nothing more than a statement of faith, which contradicts the observational evidence provided by fruit fly experiments.

quote:


ROFLOL! Critical evaluation constitutes keeping my eyes closed. ROFLOL!

quote:

The Chad skull was originally claimed to be a human/ape ancestor because while it is clearly a gorilla skull

quote:

Ok, put up or shut up. Precisely how do the fruit fly experiments which produced new species of fruit flies in less than a decade contradict the observed evidence of intermediate fossils spread over a period of 70 million years in a pattern consistent with the new production of synapsid species?

quote:

Ok, here is your chance again. What features show that it is clearly a gorilla skull?

quote:

How do you explain the position of the foramen magnum in a skull that is clearly that of a gorilla?