Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Haeckels' Drawings Part II
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6495 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 46 of 94 (229355)
08-03-2005 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by randman
08-03-2005 4:34 PM


Re: An Aside
Hey randman, how many steps does it take red to turn into yellow?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by randman, posted 08-03-2005 4:34 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by randman, posted 08-03-2005 6:51 PM Yaro has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 94 (229365)
08-03-2005 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by randman
08-03-2005 4:34 PM


Re: An Aside
quote:
How many different species do you think it would take to evolve a land mammal to whales, and how many mutations and differences is it reasonable to expect?
Every day, artificial flowers appear in my yard. I say that they were placed there by an Intelligent Litterbug (IL theory). Some claim that they blow into my yard from the cemetary across the street (those proposing the religion of atheist naturalism!).
For those atheists (and those lukewarm "Christians") I have a challenge: take this particular blue cloth flower I found in the side garden. Identify where in the cemetary it started, and tell me the exact path it took to get to my garden. Also, identify exactly how it got into the cemetary to begin with (do you think artificial flowers grow in cemetaries, haw haw).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by randman, posted 08-03-2005 4:34 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by randman, posted 08-03-2005 6:47 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 48 of 94 (229428)
08-03-2005 6:47 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Chiroptera
08-03-2005 4:54 PM


Re: An Aside
So you are saying you don't have evidence in the fossil record showing the actual transitions, not even a close percentage.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Chiroptera, posted 08-03-2005 4:54 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 49 of 94 (229429)
08-03-2005 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Yaro
08-03-2005 4:43 PM


Re: An Aside
Are you claiming the visible spectrum evolved?
If not, your question is not germane. All I am asking for is a reasonable assessment of how land mammals transitioned to whales. If you don't know, just admit it.
My understanding is that new mutations would need to develop into an entire population, perhaps via a group being separated from the rest of other means, and that this group would develop enough differences to effectively be a different species, and eventually different enough to rule out any sexual reproduction with the former population.
How many speciation events of this type do evolutionists posit to evolve land mammals to whales?
If they don't know, why not?
Are they really that much in the dark about the process?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Yaro, posted 08-03-2005 4:43 PM Yaro has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 50 of 94 (229438)
08-03-2005 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Chiroptera
08-03-2005 4:41 PM


Re: randman displays his ignorance...
So evolutionists via that thread present so-called "numerous transitional forms", eh?
But what they are really doing is saying a creature fits in-between land mammals and whales, and then despite perhaps thousands of missing steps between the so-called transitional forms, they then claim the fossil record shows evolution? And you call that real science?
Amazing.
Why not educate the public on the reality. Of the the actual thousands or hundreds or whatever evolutionists thing of speciation events that need to occur, evolutionists have at best found a few, and at worst are assuming the few they found are intermediates based on a fictional account not shown in the fossil record.
Clearly, there is not even a majority of the speciation events shown, and not even a good, few speciation events shown in succession that I can see.
A reasonable alternative explanation is the fossil record does not show such speciation events because they did not occur.
Can evolutionists, even in the handful of intermediaries they claim, well, even among those, can they show they actually evolved?
For example, can they show the species before and after each one of these handfuls to at least show the species evolved from a prior species into another?
In other words, can they even show demonstrably one single step of the hundreds or perhaps thousands needed?
And if they cannot do that, how can they claim the fossil record is supportive of evolution except in the most general sense.
ToE seems more a conjecture based on lack of evidence than real data.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Chiroptera, posted 08-03-2005 4:41 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by AdminNosy, posted 08-03-2005 7:03 PM randman has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 51 of 94 (229442)
08-03-2005 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by randman
08-03-2005 7:01 PM


Topic
To all, not just Randman, the topic here is NOT whale evolution.
It is an interesting one and there is room for lots of dicussion around the points that Rand is making but NOT HERE!
I suggest that someone propose a new topic on this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by randman, posted 08-03-2005 7:01 PM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 52 of 94 (229446)
08-03-2005 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Chiroptera
08-03-2005 4:41 PM


Re: randman displays his ignorance...
Just for more clarity, these are the steps theorized by the site you linked to [their claims not mine].
Sinonyx: 60 million years
Pakicetus: 52 million years
Now, let me stop right there, and say where's the beef here. How many intermediaries would it take to evolve Sinonyx to Pakicetus over an 8 million year period, and how many mutations to produce such a change.
I don't see anything close to that type of analysis. Keep in mind an estimated range would be acceptable.
Next so-called intermediary.
Ambulocetus: 50 million years ago
Same data is omitted. More fluff and no substance, just assertions.
Rodhocetus: 46-7 million years later
Ok, where's the beef? How come over 3-4 million years we don't see the steps in the fossil record.
Is there any actual evidence in the fossil record that shows any one of these so-called steps evolved from a prior species? If so, what were those species and can you show their fossils?
It looks to me like an amazing lack of documentation in the fossil record for evolution is being passed off as evidence for events we see no fossil documentation for whatsoever.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Chiroptera, posted 08-03-2005 4:41 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by robinrohan, posted 08-22-2005 7:50 AM randman has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 53 of 94 (229447)
08-03-2005 7:14 PM


closing for a bit until the topic moves somewhere else
to give everyone time to open a new thread on the whale topic this one is closed for a bit.

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by AdminNosy, posted 08-03-2005 8:24 PM AdminNosy has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 54 of 94 (229475)
08-03-2005 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by AdminNosy
08-03-2005 7:14 PM


opened
see Land Mammal to Whale transition: fossils to discuss whales toes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by AdminNosy, posted 08-03-2005 7:14 PM AdminNosy has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 94 (229479)
08-03-2005 8:33 PM


I apologize for off-topic discussion
Sorry that I introduced a topic that derailed the discussion.
But I still think that the point that I made is valid:
I presented the possibility of finding transitional fossils linking whales directly to fish as a way of falsifying the theory of evolution. That randman can seriously propose that scientists could easily ignore well over a century of paleontological and taxonomical research in order to claim that whales evolved directly from fish indicates how little randman understands the biological sciences.
Maybe that was off topic, too; I was replying to randman's repeated claims that evolution is unfalsifiable.

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by randman, posted 08-22-2005 2:00 AM Chiroptera has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 56 of 94 (235355)
08-22-2005 2:00 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Chiroptera
08-03-2005 8:33 PM


Re: I apologize for off-topic discussion
You know full well I never made any claims that whales evolved from fish. In typical evolutionist fashion, rather than debate and engage the facts with honesty, you choose to dissemble.
When will evolutionists ever learn?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Chiroptera, posted 08-03-2005 8:33 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Chiroptera, posted 08-22-2005 12:30 PM randman has replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 94 (235396)
08-22-2005 7:50 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by randman
08-03-2005 7:12 PM


Re: randman displays his ignorance...
There are no countable "steps," Randman. There is nothing but "microevolution," a continuous process. Every once in a while a snapshot is taken in the form of a fossil. This happens by chance. There are, one would assume, many extinct species that were not fossilized. Finding a fossil occurs by chance. There are, one would assume, many fossils that will never be found. But if you find a number of "transitional" forms, and you do so over and over for many evolutionary lines, and you combine that with the DNA evidence from living species, showing the close relationship between, for example, ape and man, the evidence is very convincing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by randman, posted 08-03-2005 7:12 PM randman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by robinrohan, posted 08-22-2005 8:17 AM robinrohan has not replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 94 (235404)
08-22-2005 8:17 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by robinrohan
08-22-2005 7:50 AM


Re: randman displays his ignorance...
Or another way to put it would be to say that every generation is a "step."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by robinrohan, posted 08-22-2005 7:50 AM robinrohan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by John, posted 08-22-2005 8:26 AM robinrohan has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 94 (235405)
08-22-2005 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by robinrohan
08-22-2005 8:17 AM


... as long as you picture that set of stairs as less like a stairway to heaven and more like a slightly less surreal Escher.

No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by robinrohan, posted 08-22-2005 8:17 AM robinrohan has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 94 (235510)
08-22-2005 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by randman
08-22-2005 2:00 AM


randman: reading problems or dishonesty?
I wish you would actually take the time to read the posts to which you are replying.
You have made the claim that evolution cannot be falsified.
I supplied one set of data that would falsify evolution: a set of transitional fossils linking whales directly to fish.
You then replied that evolutionists would then claim that whales evolved from fish and land animals from whales.
You did make this claim, and that is what my post is saying.
Edited to fix link and redo subtitle.
This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 22-Aug-2005 04:33 PM

"The cradle of every science is surrounded by dead theologians as that of Hercules was with strangled serpents" -- T. H. Huxley

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by randman, posted 08-22-2005 2:00 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by randman, posted 08-22-2005 12:53 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024