Why Are People So Idiotic??? Evolution?

Question

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071022120754AADIWo4&r=w

The question I asked.

Now I have questions for the people that answered...

Do you know how to read?
Comprehend words?

Half evolved fossil! I know were fossils are. I have been to research facilities and seen them. As I am sure many people have.

I said HALF EVOLVED FOSSILS! Do you need me to type that again?
Have you ever seen a fossil of a fish...becoming a bird?
With distorted bones and unspeakable changes to show it was actually changing from one animal to another?

THAT is what I was asking.

I have read Darwins theory and I am just wondering why people are treating some old mans thoughts and opinions like a fact.

I do not treat the bible as fact, so dont try and throw that at me.

Answer 1

Just to let you know... IF any of them have actually read Darwin. At the end of his theory he said Although I believe all creatures evolved over time. Something had to make it happen.
Darwin believes in Devine creation. Or to be more exact he believes that GOD was the designer of all that is.
The Evolutionist just choose to ignore that part of his theory.
Sorry guys but thems the facts. Look it up!

Answer 2

A lot of people have given you some very sound advice and information. Listen to them. And now, let me add a few things.

First of all, if you understood evolution, you'd know that it is a CONTINUOUS process. There is no "finished state" or "starting state" of a species. There are only specific characteristics and traits of any given species at a given time.

Definition of a species: A group of individuals capable of breeding and producing viable offspring.
A "new species" is formed when two (or more) groups become genetically isolated, and based on the pressures of that environment, some traits are favoured in one group, and some traits are favoured in the other group(s). Eventually, the groups become so different that that can't or won't interbreed.
If you understand that, you'll be a step closer to understanding what we're actually talking about.

Next, I have to point out that your example of a "half-bird, half-fish" shows a complete misunderstanding of the phylogenic tree. You'll want to look at reptiles. There are amphibians that resemble fish-like creatures at various stages of their development. There are amphibians that resemble reptiles at other stages of development. Most important, however, are the connections between reptiles, dinosaurs, and birds.

Take a look at some of the raptors (dinosaurs). Their bone structure is very similar to many birds. Then, there is a series of fossils that show specimens with more and more bird-like features. Progressively larger feathers. Thinner, lighter bones. The species Archaeopteryx is a prime example. You wanted an "in-between" fossil? Well, there it is. And you want a living fossil that shows remnants of the ancestral traits? Have you ever looked at a bird's legs? The bird has SCALES. In fact, feathers are nothing but modified scales, made of almost the exact same materials as reptilian scales.

So, my dear, those are the "in-between" fossils. What you need to understand is that evolution is a slow, gradual process, but it's not a planned process with a "start point" and an "end point". The "in-between" was not a "non-species", waiting to become a real species. It was its own species in its own time. You also need to read a few real science books, and take a few classes. Genetics would be a good start. A class in phylogeny and vertebrate morphology would be good, too.

People tried to explain to you that your question, asking about something as ridiculous as "half-evolved fossils" was in itself faulty, but you refused to listen to what they were trying to tell you. The nature of your question makes it obvious that you're speaking from an utter lack of education in the biological sciences. When you can ask the question in an intelligent manner, in which the question itself actually makes sense, then try again.

Answer 3

Good, did God poof all of those adapted finches on to Galapagos 6,000 years ago? Did he wiggle his nose like Samantha Stevens and create the all the species in our world? Is that what you want us to believe?

Compare the reproductive strategies of ferns and conifers.
Take a look at how a bat's wing has the same bones as a primate hand. Take a look a a lamprey and compare it to more evolved fishes. Take a look at cell from every fungus, plant, protist, and animal in the world. Note that they have bacteria like organelles for respiration, and that these organelles have bacterial DNA. Then come back to us with your argument against evolution.

"I have read Darwins theory and I am just wondering why people are treating some old mans thoughts and opinions like a fact."

This statement shows that you know nothing about evolution. It has many more contributers than Darwin. Why should we listen to you? You don't know biology. You are just attacking a person that you never even met, and a theory that you don't understand. Pray for a while. Don't trouble your head with this stuff. Believe whatever you want to believe.

Answer 4

Let's see if I can help. I have read both your questions, and I suggest that you try thinking of evolution as though it were an accumulated series of birth defects caused by mutation. Each mutation is caused by some outside force, for example, a cosmic ray, or nuclear particle from decaying natural radioactivity striking an unfertilized egg, a sperm, or a fertilized egg. There are other causes, but that will do for over simplification. Each individual animal or plant born, hatched, grown from seed, spore, or from budding has a chance for the genetic material to be mis-copied or "mutated". Most mutations are irrelevant to survival or reproduction, and are passed on through the reproductive process. Some few are helpful for survival or reproduction and will be passed on in greater numbers because, due to the mutational advantage, they have more descendants. Many are detrimental and kill the mutated young before they have the chance to reproduce.

Now we come to the direct answer to your question. There will never be a fossil of an organism which died while changing, because, just as a child born with a cleft palate doesn't change before your eyes because it grows that way in the womb, the mutated organism is what it is from the cause of the mutation forward, and is born as what it is, even though it is not what its parents were.

This is enormously over simplified, but should be enough to help you re-direct your research.

Answer 5

Nixity is correct; I assume Aviator is just joking. "Half-evolved" is about as accurate a term as "partially pregnant". I think you might want to read more about your contentions, with special emphasis on what constitutes a 'fact', what 'evolution' is, and what 'fossils' are. Most people get interested in paleontology because of dinosaurs; perhaps you could start there, or maybe you might be more interested in marine life going back to the Cambrian or so. We're all of us pretty clueless when we're just starting out, but there's no need to jump up and down and show off how little you understand. Be patient and read and think - you'll get there! Who knows, you may get to be an old person yourself one day, and if you're very lucky, people will be arguing about your ideas for a long time..

Answer 6

Please, there's no need to rant here.
This is a forum for intelligent inquiry.

Anyways, the quick answer to your question is nowhere in the model of evolution is there anything that is "half-evolved." Everything is evolved in current evolutionary theory (well you might call abiogenesis something else). What is "half-evolution" anyway? Somewhere in between creation and evolution? It's one or the other, or both, but not in between. There's no call to find anything half-evolved. Transitional fossils support current theory, particularly gradualism, and you can debate whether or not there are enough of those.

By the way, people keep pointing to Darwin, but he's just the man who kickstarted everything. Modern evolutionary theory has advanced well past Darwin. I dare say intelligent design in some ways is even more advanced than Darwin.

Answer 7

It's a common misconception that evolution consists of an animal changing into another animal (and one of the most common arguments against evolution). Changes occur within populations over extremely long periods of time.

It's like a plant. If you look from hour to hour, you're not going to see a noticeable change, but if you take a measurement and come back a day or two later, then you'll notice a change (note that this is just a rate analogy, I'm not talking about plant evolution).

Answer 8

Fossils are not proof of evolution, only circumstantial evidence. Molecular genetics is the best we have of absolute forensic proof of evolution.

As far as fossils showing a half fish/half bird, of course that is ridiculous since fish were not the immediate ancestors of birds. But we do have a nice dinosaur-bird sequence, starting from Maniraptorans (feathered dinosaurs) to Enantiornithians (half bird/half dino) to Ornithurians (primitive proto birds) to Neornithians (modern birds).

And for fish to amphibian we have another good set of transitional fossils starting with
Eusthenopteron 385mya
Had strong bones in the upper fins; adaptive for locomotion in shallow water.

Gogonasus 380mya
Same skeleton as Eusthenopteron, but fin bones are stronger, denser, a little lower into the fin.

Elpistostege, Livonia, Panderichthys 378 mya
Fin bones are now very low into fin. Still a useful adaptation for manuevering in a shallow sea.

Tiktaalik 375 mya
Now has tiny beginnings of fingers at the end of the fins, and the beginning of a crude joint in the fin.
Would have been adaptive for clawing its way through an inlet choked with vegetation.

Elginerpeton, Obruchevichthys 370 mya
Proto-fingers are now a little longer

Sinostega, Metaxygnathus, Ventastega.Tulerpeton, Jakubsonia, Hynerpeton, Densignathus, etc. 365 mya
Finger bones even longer, some species have as many as 8 proto fingers; still not sturdy enough to come onto land, but very useful in manuevering through water choked with vegetation.

Acanthostega 360mya
Same as before but stronger bones yet, with longer ribs; would have been capable of moving on land like a mud-skipper, going from tidal pool to tidal pool

Icthyostega 358mya
2 of the 8 fingers fusing into one finger, which will give its descendants 5 fingers, stronger forelims and enclosed ribs. This is the first fish that would have been capable of spending some time on land and feeding on land.

Pederpes 355 mya
Very similar to above, but with enough small modifications that it may be called either proto amphibian or perhaps first true amphibian

Casineria, Lethicus 350 mya
Silvanerpeton 340 mya
Definitely amphibians that can easily walk on land. Still has a very fish-like body shape, but with many skeletal features of modern amphibians.

Answer 9

I didn't answer the first question because I tend to stay out of debates.. but technically, "Half-Evolved" is false premise at the start. There's no way to even define that; because there's no such thing. I am no more "half-evolved" than my dog is. If you wanted to get technical, every living species is possibly.. *possibly* within a stage of evolution into something different than its present form. But none of us will be alive to see what it develops into; and it could be something very simple at the molecular level, that, say, makes us less predisposed to cancer, for instance.. or cell mutations that result in cancer or cancer mastesticizing (sp?).
If you mean to say, "where are the transitional fossils", then I would show you something like Thrinaxodon. But that's not what you asked.
Stupid questions beget stupid answers, I'm sorry - if you want answers to validate your opinion you should try asking in R&S instead of the Bio section.

Because saying something is half-evolved just has a very juvenile/creationistic view of evoluntion to it.

You obviously do not understand the core concepts of evolution or your brain wouldn't try to conceptualize a fossil of a half fish, half bird - and therefore you wouldn't find it necessary to ask such an asinine question to people who DO understand evolution.

Answer 10

yes, if I see your question I really wonder why some people are so idiotic!

Actually there are plenty of examples of species which have some intermediate characteristics. The most famous being Archaeopterix. You have been given enough examples and links, so I don't have to put here more you are not going to read or comprehend. You have also repeatedly been told that half-evolved is a nonsense term.

Maybe you should try to go to a better school?

Sorry, but you did ask.