Why evolution is true

[Stranger]

Common sense tells me it is unlikely that some species changed their form and their habitat (sea to land, land to sea, land to air - inferred by evolutionists from similarities in body structure) while others have appeared suddenly in the fossil record and stayed basically the same over hundreds of millions of years (demonstrated through comparisons of fossils with living species)

The first isn't an inference form just one piece of evidence and the notion that it's unlikely that some lineages stay largely the same while others change is just more evidence that you don't understand the theory you're are attempting to criticise. Why do you think it unlikely?

If the evolution model predicts that some species would change form and habitat while others would stay the same, then I accept I am wrong. So does it?

Yes.

[Maeght]

If the evolution model predicts that some species would change form and habitat while others would stay the same, then I accept I am wrong. So does it?

The evolutionary model predicts different rates of evolutionary change. If a species is well adapted for its environment there will be little evolutionary change. So yes.

[Maeght]

The kind of erosion we see at the surface.

Which type of rocks are you referring to ?

[Spud]

The evolutionary model predicts different rates of evolutionary change. If a species is well adapted for its environment there will be little evolutionary change. So yes.

Show me one creature, living or fossilized, that isn't or wasn't well adapted to its environment.

[Spud]

The first isn't an inference form just one piece of evidence and the notion that it's unlikely that some lineages stay largely the same while others change is just more evidence that you don't understand the theory you're are attempting to criticise. Why do you think it unlikely?

It was just a hunch; however, Maeght is about to prove me wrong by showing that the lineages that changed were poorly adapted to their environments.

[Maeght]

Show me one creature, living or fossilized, that isn't or wasn't well adapted to its environment.

The fossil record and genetics show evolutionary change in response to changing environments, driven by individuals within a species not being as well adapted to the change in the environment as others. Gradual change as a result of changing and different environments. When the environment changes too rapidly then species become extinct. That is what the evidence shows.

[Spud]

Which type of rocks are you referring to ?

How about these:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/CoastalrockintheJurassi_Coast_DorsetEngland22263892945298045725812.jpg
Eroded upper surface; flat, uneroded layers beneath.

[Dicky Underpants]

There are two possible definitions:
- change within recognizable families of organisms, such as the evolution of ancient wolves into the breeds of dog we have today.
- the kind of change that would involve, for example, a common carnivorous ancestor giving rise to Canidae (wolves and foxes), Ursidae (bears), Otariidae (sea lions) and other so-called "Caniformia".

I was talking about the latter definition, which at the moment I do not see evidence for; whereas I suspect you were thinking more of the former, for which of course there is lots of evidence. Would you agree?

And the former you would, no doubt, consider to be accommodated under that wondrously informative definition "kinds", from the Book of Genesis.

Could you let us know what 'kinds' you think Tiktaalik and Archaeopterix belong to?

[Maeght]

How about these:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/CoastalrockintheJurassi_Coast_DorsetEngland22263892945298045725812.jpg
Eroded upper surface; flat, uneroded layers beneath.

What do you think the lower strata should have been eroded by?

[Spud]

The fossil record and genetics show evolutionary change in response to changing environments, driven by individuals within a species not being as well adapted to the change in the environment as others. Gradual change as a result of changing and different environments. When the environment changes too rapidly then species become extinct. That is what the evidence shows.

So what you initially meant was: if the environment changes then those species that are able to adapt to the change survive, and those that can't go extinct. So the dragonfly has been adapting to change for nearly 300 million years while remaining in the same form and habitat, whereas over the same time period reptiles evolved into dinosaurs, pterosaurs, plesiosaurs, mosasaurs, ichthyosaurs, birds and mammals

[Spud]

What do you think the lower strata should have been eroded by?

Wind and/or water.

[Maeght]

So what you initially meant was: if the environment changes then those species that are able to adapt to the change survive, and those that can't go extinct. So the dragonfly has been adapting to change for nearly 300 million years while remaining in the same form and habitat, whereas over the same time period reptiles evolved into dinosaurs, pterosaurs, plesiosaurs, mosasaurs, ichthyosaurs, birds and mammals

Yes (see my earlier post).

[Maeght]

Wind and/or water.

Which would need the surface of the lower strata to have been exposed to wind and flowing water after formation and before having other rock strata formed on top. Yes? Do you think this was the case in the rocks you referenced earlier?

[Spud]

Yes (see my earlier post).

So can the changes in environment which caused the evolution of reptiles into dinosaurs, pterosaurs, plesiosaurs, mosasaurs, ichthyosaurs, birds and mammals be identified?

[Spud]

Which would need the surface of the lower strata to have been exposed to wind and flowing water after formation and before having other rock strata formed on top. Yes? Do you think this was the case in the rocks you referenced earlier?

No. The problem is that there are in some other places flat contact points between strata that are thought to have been laid down millions of years apart, over which time one would expect the lower one to have been exposed to erosion at some point. The classic answer is that they were covered over for almost all of that time, by layers which were then eroded and disappeared.

[Maeght]

No. The problem is that there are in some other places flat contact points between strata that are thought to have been laid down millions of years apart, over which time one would expect the lower one to have been exposed to erosion at some point. The classic answer is that they were covered over for almost all of that time, by layers which were then eroded and disappeared.

No to what? The rocks you referenced were laid down over very long periods under the sea, then were lifted up later such that the upper starata could then be eroded by wind, rain etc. The classic answer you refer to seems reasonable but I am sure is not the only explaination. I'm not a geologist - but then nor are you.

[Maeght]

So can the changes in environment which caused the evolution of reptiles into dinosaurs, pterosaurs, plesiosaurs, mosasaurs, ichthyosaurs, birds and mammals be identified?

You seem to have this picture of sudden evolutionary changes with clear, sudden, changes in environment, rather than gradual changes due to changes in the gene pool of a species as habitats and conditions varied gradually.

[jeremyp]

I can prove the earth is not flat just by watching the way a ship disappears over the horizon. How is that not proof?

It could be explained by the hypothesis that all ships a certain distance away from you are sinking.

[jeremyp]

Show me one creature, living or fossilized, that isn't or wasn't well adapted to its environment.

The rhinoceros is on the brink of extinction because it is not well adapted to its environment.

[Stranger]

So what you initially meant was: if the environment changes then those species that are able to adapt to the change survive, and those that can't go extinct. So the dragonfly has been adapting to change for nearly 300 million years while remaining in the same form and habitat, whereas over the same time period reptiles evolved into dinosaurs, pterosaurs, plesiosaurs, mosasaurs, ichthyosaurs, birds and mammals

I think one of your misunderstandings is that, in the context of evolution, there isn't such a thing as the (singular) environment. Each population has its own environment (apart from anything else, its environment includes the other species in its physical location, in particular what it eats and what eats it). Whether a particular lineage changes depends on a number of factors, including changes in its environment. A population may be at a "local maxima" of adaptation, in other words any changes small enough to be at all probable may reduce its fitness (suitability to its environment). Its environment may change enough to change that situation or not, or it may change too fast anyway, so the population goes extinct. It may change but not in a way that changes the local maxima. So called "living fossils" are comparatively rare, as one would expect, but they in no way contradict evolution.

[Sebastian Toe]

Show me one creature, living or fossilized, that isn't or wasn't well adapted to its environment.

The Wooly Mammoth was well adapted to its environment.
Then that environment changed at the end of the last ice age.
Then it wasn't well adapted.
Then it became extinct.

[Harrowby Hall]

Show me one creature, living or fossilized, that isn't or wasn't well adapted to its environment.

The dodo lived on the island of Mauritius. It was very well adapted to its environment. Its adaptation was so secure that its breeding rate was very low.

Then its environment changed: a new predatory species was introduced - homo sapiens.

Homo sapiens sought food and found the dodo an easy prey. The dodo's environment had experienced a major change to which the dodo was no longer well adapted. It became extinct.

[Spud]

It could be explained by the hypothesis that all ships a certain distance away from you are sinking.

Until the ship you were watching comes back...

[Spud]

The dodo lived on the island of Mauritius. It was very well adapted to its environment. Its adaptation was so secure that its breeding rate was very low.

Then its environment changed: a new predatory species was introduced - homo sapiens.

Homo sapiens sought food and found the dodo an easy prey. The dodo's environment had experienced a major change to which the dodo was no longer well adapted. It became extinct.

It didn't evolve, then. Neither did the wooly mammoth, nor does the rhino.

[Maeght]

It didn't evolve, then. Neither did the wooly mammoth, nor does the rhino.

Because the environmental changes were too rapid - evolution is a slow gradual change. That is pretty basic when it comes to an understanding of evolutionary theory.