| DareDareCaro said: The % of retards slided from 91 to 85.
moderated kasz216 |
"slided"
LOL
| OooSnap said: Finally, it was expected to find transitional fossils. Apparently you didn't read the quotes from evolutionists. And since the fossil record didn't bear out their prediction they postulated PE to explain it away. |
Out of curiosity, assuming that everything you have said is true about the wholes in evolution, what would you prefer scientists postulate instead?
...
| OooSnap said: 1. No. That's your assumption and such an assumption doesn't hold up under rigorous science. Hey, don't take my word for it. Let's read what evolutionists have said themselves: "The changes within a population have been termed microevolution, and they can indeed be accepted as a consequence of shifting gene frequencies. Changes above the species level-involving the origin of new species and the establishment of higher taxonomic patterns- are known as macroevolution. The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No." (Lewin, Roger [biochemist, former editor of New Scientist and science writer], "Evolutionary-Theory Under Fire: An historic conference in Chicago challenges the four-decade long dominance of the Modern Synthesis," Science, Vol. 210, 21 November 1980, pp.883-887, p.883). 2. As posted earlier, scientists have admitted to lack of transitional fossils - there are huge gaps. The ones assumed to be are just that: assumed. It's very subjective and that's why there is no consensus. Do you even bother to read the quotes from evolutionists themselves? Seriously, using Wikipedia as a scientific reference? Finally, it was expected to find transitional fossils. Apparently you didn't read the quotes from evolutionists. And since the fossil record didn't bear out their prediction they postulated PE to explain it away. |
If you're going to respond to me directly, use the quote button. Otherwise I'm not going to address anymore of your utter nonsense.
1. Your source is from 1980. That's 30 years old now, which is older than I am just so explain how ridiculous it is to cite such an old document.
"Microevolution over time may lead to speciation or the appearance of novel structure, sometimes classified as macroevolution.[2] Contrary to claims by creationists however, macro and microevolution describe fundamentally identical processes on different time scales.[2][3]"
[2]Futuyma, Douglas (1998). Evolutionary Biology. Sinauer Associates.
[3]Scott, Eugenie C.; Branch, Glenn (2006). Not in our classrooms : why intelligent design is wrong for our schools (1st ed.). Boston: Beacon Press. p. 47. ISBN 0807032786.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microevolution
Berkeley
"Microevolution happens on a small scale (within a single population), while macroevolution happens on a scale that transcends the boundaries of a single species. Despite their differences, evolution at both of these levels relies on the same, established mechanisms of evolutionary change"
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evoscales_01
2. As I said already, gaps are expected due to the nature of fossilization. Start reading:
http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/why-fossil-record-incomplete
We have transitional fossils, you simply want a complete record. Some exist, some don't.
| OooSnap said: Another thing that totally destroys the evolution story (to me at least) are "living fossils" and amber fossils. Living and amber fossils doesn't give credence to the idea that all life evolved from a common ancestor. The story about humans rapidly evolved from some ape ancestor in just 5-7 million years (which requires drastic anatomical, biochemical, physiological etc. changes is ridiculous. The common answer I receive on this is something of the effect of "because they just so happen to be increased competition." I call this utter dog poo. That's really one weak cop-out to explain it away. There are thousands of organisms, some even supposedly 140+ million years, that are virtually the same. You would think all those supposed meteor impacts, ice ages, genetic mutations, volcanic eruptions etc. etc., they would have evolved as much as humans supposedly evolved in the last 7 million years or so. But nope according to the evolutionists. Some examples of organisms that supposedly said no to Evolution even after millions and millions and millions and millions of years: Peripatopsis: South Africa "endless-walk type of family Onychophora. This creature has remained unchanged since the beginning of the Cambrian period. With more than 500 million years of stability. Therefore, peripatopsis conveniently votes no for evolution. Lingula: Commonly called the lampshell because it's unusual shape, is a kind of Lingula brachiopods. No fossils or lead away the lingula. This creature has unchanged since the Silurian period, 435 million years. Lingula conveniently votes no to evolution. Neopilina and Nucula: Two kinds of marine animals both have retained the same manner as their ancestors had more than 400 million years. They also vote no for evolution. Pyenogonum: A kind of fifty marine species which resemble spiders. They have not changed since 350 million years. These troublemakers vote no for Devonian evolution. Hutchinsoniella: A bottom-dwelling marine genus of the family cephocardia remained constant at 340 million years. Another vote for no change. Liphistius spiders hatch. Their ancestors are unknown. The first fossil remains were found in the Permian period 275 million years ago. Trapdoor spiders then were very similar to spiders hatch now. A wolf spider preserved in amber from the Eocene, 55 million years, is identical to the species of modern times. Again, we find creatures that appear suddenly in great shape and stay the same at present. With bacteria, lampshells, and marine animals, spiders vote no to evolution. Nautilus: A kind of shellfish which has defied evolution 270 million years. One more vote for no change. Anaspids: a kind of sectoral water bugs and Limulus: The horseshoe crab fossils from both 250 million years. Neither has changed over the centuries. Again, two more vote against evolution. Latimeria chalumnae: A coelacanth, a species of ray-finned fishes glans remained unchanged for 200 million years. No fossils or lead away of Latimeria. This voice Triassic surviving prohibition period of evolution. Entemnotrochus: Another type of marine animals that have no ancestors known. It has a fossil record dating back 180 million years. They have not changed. Entemnotrochus votes no to evolution. Ornithorhynchus anatinus: duck-billed platypus has remained unchanged for 160 million years. They vote not to evolution. Sphenodon punctatus: Tuatara usually called in English. This reptile has no known ancestors and descendants do not know. And showed little change for 140 million years since the late Jurassic. He voted no to change too. Leiopelma: An archaic frog of the genus in New Zealand. They are considered living fossils from the Cretaceous period. For 135 million years these frogs have resisted change. Again, no evolution. Therefore, votes Leiopelma no to evolution. Apteryx Genre kiwi, a flightless bird. Their fossil date from the Cretaceous period 95 million years. The bird has not changed. Apteryx votes no to evolution. Lepisosteus: Garfish; Lanthanotus boorneenish: A family of lizards of moderate size, and Didelphis: Opossums are all represented in the fossil record 70 million years ago. They have not changed. Gar, lizards, possums and all vote no to evolution. Cheroptera: Bats. Again, we see creatures make a sudden appearancein the form we know them today. The oldest known bat, 50 million years.is indistinguishable from modern bats. We have a continuous fossil record of these animals since the beginning of the Eocene period. No sign of change and their ancestors are unknown. Bats vote no to evolution. Insects: Ants, mites and aphids have been captured a yellow ooze together in 35 million years. Their appearances have not changed. Insofar as evolution goes, all three insects have stalled since. Where are the effects of mutations and natural selection? For 35 million years these forces have somehow bypassed the ants, mites and aphids. instead of a gradual change, there are three compelling examples of long-term stability. Ants, aphids, mites and all vote no to evolution. Tupaia: Treeshrews; ferox Crytoprocta: Mongoose, and Dicerorhinus sumatrensis: Rhinoceros all fossil records of 30 million years. No significant changes occurred. All three did not vote for evolution. Tipirus: Tapirs look the same as their 25 million year old ancestors. Also vote no to evolution. Source: http://www.articlesbase.com/science-articles/fossils-vote-on-evolution-169225.html How convenient a lot of these organisms didn't evolve over 100+ million years. "They don't need to evolve" = a cheap cop-out that only dogmatic evolutionists would buy. Here is an interesting video on amber fossils. Enjoy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6rvCR5TmkA |
For the record macro evolution is BS. All evolution consists of changes in heritable traits (genetic information) within a population of individuals. These genetic changes will over time alter populations such that they become incompatible (infertile) with other populations. Phenotypic changes, the way things look, does not always change. Appearances and body forms that have survival advantage tend to be around an exceptionally long time. Other phenotypes, such as those that will help you get a mate are also strongly selected for. The rate of change in a population is governed by several things, the manner of reproduction (asexual, sexual, male/female preferences, and so on), the lifespan of individuals in the population, and exposure to mutagens along with the species genetic repair mechanisms. A fossil or a species is simply a snapshot of a population in time, they are constantly evolving.
While mutation is random, selection is not. Sharks are incredibly adept animals and have many features that have endured for a long time for example, this does not mean that they do not evolve, they do change (developing a very interesting adaptation to the increasing salinity of the oceans for example). Your other examples are all, well, just silly straw man arguments that don't hold up on close examination. Any resemblance of a 50 million year old fossil to a modern species is likely partial skeletal similarity (there are not a lot of complete 50 million year old skeletons) and artist renderings using modern examples to flesh out the massive amount of information we don't know about those species. There are 1240 or so bat species today for example, which points to the exact opposite of your claim, they have evolved and radiated into a magnificent array of populations that have common ancestry and some similar inherited traits.
I am sure you will take issue with me not addressing every single one of your straw men, but believe it or not time is limited. If you spent some time checking your arguments, I think you would find them all to be fallacious since they are based largely on the eronious arguments of macro evolution. The encyclopedia of life ( http://eol.org/) is a great starting place where you can see a tremendous number of different species and thier common ancestors, plus lots of fun nifty stuff about them. EOL tends to deal with current species but there are great credible paelentology sites out there too.
@dsgrue
Sorry, I can't use the quote button with the device I am using.
Well, here are more recent quotes:
"Evolutionary biologists have long sought to understand the relationship between microevolution (adaptation), which can be observed both in nature and in the laboratory, and macroevolution (speciation and the origin of the divisions of the taxonomic hierarchy above the species level, and the development of complex organs), which cannot be witnessed because it occurs over intervals that far exceed the human lifespan. . . . [from the abstract] "Macroevolution posed a problem to Darwin because his principle of descent with modification predicts gradual transitions between small-scale adaptive changes in populations and these larger-scale phenomena, yet there is little evidence for such transitions in nature. Instead, the natural world is often characterized by gaps, or discontinuities. One type of gap relates to the existence of 'organs of extreme perfection', such as the eye, or morphological innovations, such as wings, both of which are found fully formed in present-day organisms without leaving evidence of a transition between them. These discontinuities, plus the discontinuous appearance and disappearance of taxa in the fossil record, form the modern conceptual divide between microevolution and macroevolution. . . . "Most evolutionary biologists think that Darwin explained macroevolution simply as microevolution writ large. In fact, Darwin had rather more to say about the relationship between microevolution and macroevolution and invoked additional principles to define it. . . . "Darwin's proposal carries a more general message for contemporary discussions of macroevolution, namely that microevolution alone cannot explain macroevolution." (David N. Reznick and Robert E. Ricklefs, "Darwin's bridge between microevolution and macroevolution." Nature 457:837,838,841, Feb. 12, 2009)
"New concepts and information from molecular, developmental biology, systematics, geology and the fossil record of all groups of organisms, need to be integrated into an expanded evolutionary synthesis. These fields of study show that large-scale evolutionary phenomena cannot be understood solely on the basis of extrapolation from processes observed at the level of modern populations and species. Patterns and rates of evolution are much more varied than had been conceived by Darwin or the evolutionary synthesis, and physical factors of the earth's history have had a significant, but extremely varied, impact on the evolution of life." (Carroll, Robert L. [Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology, Redpath Museum, McGill University, Montreal, Canada], "Towards a new evolutionary synthesis," Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 2000, Vol. 15, pp.27-32, p.27)
For the Berkeley link who is the author?
So why do you still believe it when people in the evolutionist camp have doubts?
As I quoted earlier it was expected to find transitional fossils, hence the quotes. Why did Gould and Eldridge postulate PE?
You do know there are millions of fossils archived? You would think they would have clear cut transitional forms.
Seriously, I´m done !
You wont force some knowledge in this.......human beeing, It is literally pointless when someone closes his eyes so hard and grasps at every little straw and insane counter argument.
It is sad, absolutely sad that some people are unable to see the writing on the wall and just ignore ecerything our scientists have accomplished over the last 150 years because you can´turn a reptile in a bird in mere seconds.
schocking !
| orniletter said: Seriously, I´m done ! |
Scientists being the evolutionists, and not the creationist scientists, because they aren't using real science, right? And there is only one way to interpret evidence?
Got it.
Whitefire said:
Scientists being the evolutionists, and not the creationist scientists, because they aren't using real science, right? And there is only one way to interpret evidence? Got it. |
When literally everything points in the same direction, we can explain pretty much everything through our models/theories(and missing links only aren´t solved because we haven´t found the right fossils yet), we have countless and countless evidence that confirm the same thing and the only reason we can´t reproduce a certain facet of the evolution lies in it´s nature itself (turn a reptile in a bird overnight because it took the nature aeons)
Yes, you can only interpret the evidence in this way....logic dictates that it has to be so !
...or you could ignore everything, put your fingers in your ears and copy and taste some ambigous quotes and pretend that cavemen lived with dinosaurs !
| OooSnap said: @dsgrue Sorry, I can't use the quote button with the device I am using. Well, here are more recent quotes: "Evolutionary biologists have long sought to understand the relationship between microevolution (adaptation), which can be observed both in nature and in the laboratory, and macroevolution (speciation and the origin of the divisions of the taxonomic hierarchy above the species level, and the development of complex organs), which cannot be witnessed because it occurs over intervals that far exceed the human lifespan. . . . [from the abstract] "Macroevolution posed a problem to Darwin because his principle of descent with modification predicts gradual transitions between small-scale adaptive changes in populations and these larger-scale phenomena, yet there is little evidence for such transitions in nature. Instead, the natural world is often characterized by gaps, or discontinuities. One type of gap relates to the existence of 'organs of extreme perfection', such as the eye, or morphological innovations, such as wings, both of which are found fully formed in present-day organisms without leaving evidence of a transition between them. These discontinuities, plus the discontinuous appearance and disappearance of taxa in the fossil record, form the modern conceptual divide between microevolution and macroevolution. . . . "Most evolutionary biologists think that Darwin explained macroevolution simply as microevolution writ large. In fact, Darwin had rather more to say about the relationship between microevolution and macroevolution and invoked additional principles to define it. . . . "Darwin's proposal carries a more general message for contemporary discussions of macroevolution, namely that microevolution alone cannot explain macroevolution." (David N. Reznick and Robert E. Ricklefs, "Darwin's bridge between microevolution and macroevolution." Nature 457:837,838,841, Feb. 12, 2009) "New concepts and information from molecular, developmental biology, systematics, geology and the fossil record of all groups of organisms, need to be integrated into an expanded evolutionary synthesis. These fields of study show that large-scale evolutionary phenomena cannot be understood solely on the basis of extrapolation from processes observed at the level of modern populations and species. Patterns and rates of evolution are much more varied than had been conceived by Darwin or the evolutionary synthesis, and physical factors of the earth's history have had a significant, but extremely varied, impact on the evolution of life." (Carroll, Robert L. [Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology, Redpath Museum, McGill University, Montreal, Canada], "Towards a new evolutionary synthesis," Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 2000, Vol. 15, pp.27-32, p.27) For the Berkeley link who is the author? So why do you still believe it when people in the evolutionist camp have doubts? As I quoted earlier it was expected to find transitional fossils, hence the quotes. Why did Gould and Eldridge postulate PE? You do know there are millions of fossils archived? You would think they would have clear cut transitional forms. |
I'm sorry but how are those doubts?
Science is ever changing and none of those quotes do anything to disprove evolution. They only aim to improve the existing knowledge base. We're constantly discovering intricate little details about how evolution occurs, yet none of this has ever put doubt on the process actually occuring in any evolutionary biologists mind.
Out of interest, what's your competing theory? To disprove evolution it has to be good.
Whitefire said:
Scientists being the evolutionists, and not the creationist scientists, because they aren't using real science, right? And there is only one way to interpret evidence? Got it. |
No, there's not one way to interpret data, that's why scientists are constantly debating what data means and searching for more evidence/data to support or disprove their argument. The more data you have, the more confident you can be in your conclusions.
The theory of evolution has gotten to the point where the actual scientific community see it as fact. The intricate details of how evolution occurs at the biochemical level, the links between genes, gene expression, proteins and RNA, or why certain traits are kept are up for debate. All the actual evidence points evolution, and if actual evidence and data for a competing theory was brought forward, it would start a whole new branch of science. That's how science works.
Creationist science isn't science because of the lack of hard data and evidence. No amount of interpretation will help if the data gathering isn't robust enough.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
