Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution
Eliyahu
Member (Idle past 2260 days)
Posts: 288
From: Judah
Joined: 07-23-2013


Message 106 of 342 (718046)
02-04-2014 12:12 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Percy
02-02-2014 8:43 AM


The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution
Aren't those quotes arguing against gradualism, not evolution?
Bs'd
Do you believe in very fast evolution?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Percy, posted 02-02-2014 8:43 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by shalamabobbi, posted 02-04-2014 12:45 AM Eliyahu has not replied
 Message 119 by Percy, posted 02-04-2014 6:53 AM Eliyahu has not replied

  
Eliyahu
Member (Idle past 2260 days)
Posts: 288
From: Judah
Joined: 07-23-2013


Message 107 of 342 (718047)
02-04-2014 12:26 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by New Cat's Eye
02-03-2014 6:48 PM


Re: Nothing can ever disprove evolution
The fact is that NOTHING can ever disprove evolution. It's made of Silly Putty.
This would: A rabbit in the precambrian.
Bs'd
No it would not, because then the precambrium suddenly isn't the precambrium anymore.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-03-2014 6:48 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by shalamabobbi, posted 02-04-2014 12:41 AM Eliyahu has replied
 Message 113 by edge, posted 02-04-2014 1:37 AM Eliyahu has replied
 Message 125 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-04-2014 10:05 AM Eliyahu has replied

  
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 2848 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 108 of 342 (718049)
02-04-2014 12:41 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by Eliyahu
02-04-2014 12:26 AM


Re: Nothing can ever disprove evolution
No it would not, because then the precambrium suddenly isn't the precambrium anymore.
But it would then be out of order with the other layers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Eliyahu, posted 02-04-2014 12:26 AM Eliyahu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Eliyahu, posted 02-04-2014 1:40 AM shalamabobbi has not replied

  
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 2848 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


(1)
Message 109 of 342 (718050)
02-04-2014 12:45 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by Eliyahu
02-04-2014 12:12 AM


Re: The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution
Do you believe in very fast evolution?
Like the rate required to generate the present level of diversity in human DNA from Adam and Eve a mere 6,000 years ago? That rate, several hundred times greater than the real (measured) rate is indeed impossible.
Also the rate of ERV insertions into our DNA over that time interval would be impossible.
Edited by shalamabobbi, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Eliyahu, posted 02-04-2014 12:12 AM Eliyahu has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Coyote, posted 02-04-2014 1:05 AM shalamabobbi has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 110 of 342 (718052)
02-04-2014 1:05 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by shalamabobbi
02-04-2014 12:45 AM


Re: The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution
Fast evolution?
You want fast evolution, try Woodmorappe, the creationist:
As pointed out by other creationists [e.g., Lubenow], Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, and Homo neanderthalensis can best be understood as racial variants of modern man—-all descended from Adam and Eve, and most likely arising after the separation of people groups after Babel.
This is pretty silly. This is claiming that the change from modern man, i.e., Adam and Eve, to these four species of fossil man took place since the Babel incident, which is usually placed after the global flood and in the range of 4,000 to 5,300 years ago. The change from modern man to Homo ergaster would require a rate of evolution on the order of several hundred times as rapid as scientists posit for the change from Homo ergaster to modern man!
Most creationists deny evolution occurs on this scale at all; now they have not only proposed such a change themselves, but see it happening several hundreds of times faster and in reverse!
What a joke! But then, that's creation "science" for you.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by shalamabobbi, posted 02-04-2014 12:45 AM shalamabobbi has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 111 of 342 (718055)
02-04-2014 1:32 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by Faith
02-03-2014 10:55 PM


Re: Nothing can ever disprove evolution
There's so much that disproves evolution, where to start? Well, start with the fact that you DON'T have the transitionals Darwin said you'd have to have. You have a few paltry wannabe transitionals, but nothing like the great number and variety Darwin knew were required.
Well, how many do you need?
Darwin said they were 'required'? I don't recall that notion.
The mere appearance of created things disproves it, so clearly the result of a Creative Intelligence, not mindless physical and chemical accidents. But you deny that too, pretend an Intelligence is not needed. Invent scenarios, Interpretations, call them Fact, say This happened, That happened, as if it really did. Silly Putty.
I hope you realize that you just wasted a paragraph.
Then there's the Flood, which so nicely accounts for the strata and the fossils but you can just assert it doesn't and make up Likely Stories out of bits and pieces of known fact but mostly sheer imagination, say you've disproved the Flood. Yes, just say it, that's all you have to do, name it and it's true. Silly Putty.
Well, then, just prove those theories wrong. Making unsupported assertions isn't going to cut it. All this is just complaining.
Darwin declared that what was known to have genetic causes, i.e. microevolution or the well known variation within Species, which is the ONLY known "descent with modification" was capable of producing new Species. Simply declared it, no evidence, no proof, just rename things and there you have it. And ever since that's all that's happened, the renaming of everything. Silly Putty. Mental transformation. Word Magic.
More whining. Please give us something other than assertions.
It's all a mass delusion. Fascinating. Amazing.
And your post is all assertion. But not fascinating or amazing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Faith, posted 02-03-2014 10:55 PM Faith has not replied

  
Eliyahu
Member (Idle past 2260 days)
Posts: 288
From: Judah
Joined: 07-23-2013


Message 112 of 342 (718056)
02-04-2014 1:37 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by Coyote
02-03-2014 11:15 PM


Re: The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution
I also know a lot more about the subject than you do. That was half of my study for several years preparing for my Ph.D. exams.
And since you like quotes, you can quote me on this:
"You are wrong."
Bs'd
So what you are saying is: Gould, Eldredge, and all other evolutionists cited in my quotes they are wrong when they say that the fossil record shows STASIS, and not evolution.
Sorry for having a hard time to accept that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Coyote, posted 02-03-2014 11:15 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by edge, posted 02-04-2014 1:43 AM Eliyahu has not replied
 Message 118 by Telesto, posted 02-04-2014 2:51 AM Eliyahu has not replied
 Message 122 by Modulous, posted 02-04-2014 7:07 AM Eliyahu has not replied
 Message 130 by RAZD, posted 02-04-2014 11:12 AM Eliyahu has not replied
 Message 133 by Coyote, posted 02-04-2014 1:23 PM Eliyahu has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 113 of 342 (718058)
02-04-2014 1:37 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by Eliyahu
02-04-2014 12:26 AM


Re: Nothing can ever disprove evolution
No it would not, because then the precambrium suddenly isn't the precambrium anymore.
Actually, it never was the precambrium. It was, and is, the 'Precambrian'.
Perhaps if we reword that notion, you will understand: "what if we found a Precambrian rabbit?"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Eliyahu, posted 02-04-2014 12:26 AM Eliyahu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Eliyahu, posted 02-04-2014 1:42 AM edge has replied

  
Eliyahu
Member (Idle past 2260 days)
Posts: 288
From: Judah
Joined: 07-23-2013


Message 114 of 342 (718059)
02-04-2014 1:40 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by shalamabobbi
02-04-2014 12:41 AM


Re: Nothing can ever disprove evolution
No it would not, because then the precambrium suddenly isn't the precambrium anymore.
But it would then be out of order with the other layers.
Bs'd
And that's a claim made all the time by evo's when the facts don't agree with the theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by shalamabobbi, posted 02-04-2014 12:41 AM shalamabobbi has not replied

  
Eliyahu
Member (Idle past 2260 days)
Posts: 288
From: Judah
Joined: 07-23-2013


Message 115 of 342 (718060)
02-04-2014 1:42 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by edge
02-04-2014 1:37 AM


Re: Nothing can ever disprove evolution
Actually, it never was the precambrium. It was, and is, the 'Precambrian'.
Perhaps if we reword that notion, you will understand: "what if we found a Precambrian rabbit?"
Bs'd
So for instance, if you found a dog with in its belly a dino, then ET is disproved?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by edge, posted 02-04-2014 1:37 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by edge, posted 02-04-2014 1:45 AM Eliyahu has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 116 of 342 (718061)
02-04-2014 1:43 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by Eliyahu
02-04-2014 1:37 AM


Re: The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution
So what you are saying is: Gould, Eldredge, and all other evolutionists cited in my quotes they are wrong when they say that the fossil record shows STASIS, and not evolution.
Actually, what CS is saying is that you are wrong when you think that this is all that Gould and Eldredge said. What they are saying is that the fossil record does not show gradualism alone.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Eliyahu, posted 02-04-2014 1:37 AM Eliyahu has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 117 of 342 (718062)
02-04-2014 1:45 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by Eliyahu
02-04-2014 1:42 AM


Re: Nothing can ever disprove evolution
So for instance, if you found a dog with in its belly a dino, then ET is disproved?
I cannot fathom what you are saying here.
Please try again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Eliyahu, posted 02-04-2014 1:42 AM Eliyahu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Eliyahu, posted 02-05-2014 2:04 AM edge has replied

  
Telesto
Junior Member (Idle past 3636 days)
Posts: 10
From: Zlín
Joined: 02-03-2014


(5)
Message 118 of 342 (718063)
02-04-2014 2:51 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by Eliyahu
02-04-2014 1:37 AM


Re: The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution
Helo everybody, I am new here and I would like to add some points here.
Gould, Eldredge, and all other evolutionists cited in my quotes they are wrong when they say that the fossil record shows STASIS, and not evolution.
I think the problem with your conclusion (no evolution in fossil record) is that you missinterpreted quotes. I will show you how.
Gould, Eldredge and others talk about species to species transitions. About exact speciation and fossil record which shows these events. Speciation on species level is called especially by creationist as microevolution. The macroevolution; however, is what creationist deny. Macroevolution is simply microevolution + time. In other words it is evolution among higher taxa - genera (this is still acceptable among creationist), family, orders, etc.
What is generally missing in fossil record is evidence for microevolution - speciation events. The evidence for macroevolution is on the other hand abundant in fossil record.
We don't need evidence for microevolution / speciation (it would be nice - and it is nice in many cases, but we don't need it to prove microevolution is real). Speciation on species level has been proven more than 100 years ago. There is a lot of evidence from nature and also from lab that speciation works. That is why microevolution is acceptable (they have no choice) among creationist.
You qouted Mr. Gould. Let me qoute him too:
Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationistswhether through design or stupidity, I do not knowas admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.
Top Cash Earning Games in India 2022 | Best Online Games to earn real money
In other words fossil record shows macroevolution but microevolution is generally lacking. Generally lacking doesn't mean is missing completely! And donesn't mean there is NO (micro)evolution but ONLY statis.
It shows statis of species but the evolution of genera, families, orders etc.
That is why your conclusion - fossils show no evolution - is wrong.
In fact I wouldn't throw away gradualism at all. Because as can be seen in fossil record (in my opinion). More complete fossil record more gradualism we see. Less complete fossil record we se (aparent ??) statis.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Eliyahu, posted 02-04-2014 1:37 AM Eliyahu has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 119 of 342 (718066)
02-04-2014 6:53 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by Eliyahu
02-04-2014 12:12 AM


Re: The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution
Eliyahu writes:
Aren't those quotes arguing against gradualism, not evolution?
Bs'd
Do you believe in very fast evolution?
I asked first. Aren't those quotes arguing against gradualism, not evolution?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Eliyahu, posted 02-04-2014 12:12 AM Eliyahu has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 120 of 342 (718067)
02-04-2014 6:59 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by Eliyahu
02-03-2014 11:27 PM


Re: The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution
So what you are trying to say is, all those big evolutionists like Gould, Eldredge, and all the others mentioned HERE, who say with one voice that the fossil record shows only STASIS, and not evolution, they are all wrong, and only you are right.
All those guys are talking about evolution of paleo-species and gradualism. As we've all been trying to tell you. Not evolution life as a whole.
We've tackled some of the quotes. Let's look at some key parts of the others
quote:
a collective tacit acceptance of the story of gradual adaptive change
quote:
The fossil record flatly fails to substantiate this expectation of finely graded change
quote:
Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion
quote:
In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another
quote:
The fossil record itself provided no documentation of continuity - of gradual transition
quote:
nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution
quote:
The known fossil record is not, and never has been, in accord with gradualism.
quote:
Darwin’s postulate of gradualism...and the actual findings of paleontology.
quote:
Gradualists usually extract themselves from this dilemma by invoking the extreme imperfection of the fossil record.
quote:
Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists of Darwin’s time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record
All these guys were talking about their case against gradualism and the like. So really, all we have is a debate about the rate of evolution. Is it constant and very slow, or is it comparatively fast with periods of morphological stability?
If the fossil record showed species turning into other species, who would need PE?
You mean, if the evidence was different we'd come to different conclusions? We're so awful.
But, like I said, the fossil record is totally in line with creation, and disproves evolution.
What do you mean? That no matter where we look in the fossil record, all we see are modern species?
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Eliyahu, posted 02-03-2014 11:27 PM Eliyahu has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024