Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 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: 0/0


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 166 of 342 (718315)
02-06-2014 1:52 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by Coyote
02-06-2014 12:05 AM


Re: The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution
You still have not responded to Post 5, which shows you are wrong.
Can we look forward to a response to that nice figure in Post 5 anytime soon?
Or are you just stuck in a rut with quote-mining?
Bs'd
In those citations high calibre evolutionists say loud and clear that the fossil record does NOT show any evolution, but stasis.
An anonymus nobody posting some pics and stories on a debate board is not carrying more weight than big scholars who give their viewpoint.
If anybody wants to overturn those evolutionistic scholars, he'll have to come up with at least the same grade experts. Not the ramblings of a nobody and some pictures.
"Species that were once thought to have turned into others have been found to overlap in time with these alleged descendants. In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another.."
Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin of Species, 1981, p. 95, speaking about the Bighorn basin in Wyoming USA.
S.M. Stanley is an American professor, paleontologist, and evolutionary biologist at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. For most of his career he taught geology at Johns Hopkins University (1969-2005) He is best known for his empirical research documenting the evolutionary process of punctuated equilibrium in the fossil record.
He wrote many articles, also together with Niles Eldredge, de co-inventor of the punctuated equilibrium theory.
For more info about prof Stanley look here: Earth & Planetary Sciences | Johns Hopkins University
Edited by Eliyahu, : No reason given.
Edited by Eliyahu, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Coyote, posted 02-06-2014 12:05 AM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by fizz57, posted 02-06-2014 2:37 AM Eliyahu has replied
 Message 173 by Percy, posted 02-06-2014 8:58 AM Eliyahu has not replied
 Message 180 by Coyote, posted 02-06-2014 11:20 AM Eliyahu has not replied

  
fizz57
Junior Member (Idle past 3663 days)
Posts: 2
Joined: 09-15-2009


Message 167 of 342 (718317)
02-06-2014 2:37 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by Eliyahu
02-06-2014 1:52 AM


Re: The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution
@Eliyahu
In that quote, was Prof. Stanley referring to the fossil record in general or to one particular site with its own peculiarities?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Eliyahu, posted 02-06-2014 1:52 AM Eliyahu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Eliyahu, posted 02-06-2014 6:26 AM fizz57 has not replied
 Message 176 by RAZD, posted 02-06-2014 9:38 AM fizz57 has not replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 168 of 342 (718326)
02-06-2014 5:51 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by Eliyahu
02-06-2014 1:39 AM


Re: The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution
Bs'd
What part of the following is it that you don't understand?
"we have proffered a collective tacit acceptance of the story of gradual adaptive change, a story that strengthened and became even more entrenched as the synthesis took hold. We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports that interpretation, all the while really knowing that it does not."
Are you a POE or dont you bother to read the whole quote that i gave you ?

Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand
What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Eliyahu, posted 02-06-2014 1:39 AM Eliyahu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Eliyahu, posted 02-06-2014 6:27 AM frako has replied

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


Message 169 of 342 (718327)
02-06-2014 6:26 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by fizz57
02-06-2014 2:37 AM


Re: The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution
@Eliyahu
In that quote, was Prof. Stanley referring to the fossil record in general or to one particular site with its own peculiarities?
Bs'd
That is written under the quote, it speaks about the Bighorn basin. But that is very big finding place for fossils, and it is representative for the fossil record in general, because there you see exactly the same thing.
Edited by Eliyahu, : No reason given.
Edited by Eliyahu, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by fizz57, posted 02-06-2014 2:37 AM fizz57 has not replied

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


Message 170 of 342 (718328)
02-06-2014 6:27 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by frako
02-06-2014 5:51 AM


Re: The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution
Bs'd
What is a POE?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by frako, posted 02-06-2014 5:51 AM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by frako, posted 02-06-2014 10:49 AM Eliyahu has not replied

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


Message 171 of 342 (718332)
02-06-2014 7:31 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by Modulous
02-05-2014 9:10 AM


Re: Nothing can ever disprove evolution
For the record, let it be noted that you cannot give any support for your notion that the context of the quotes alters the meaning of the quotes.
No - it just alters your interpretation of the quotes. The quotees disagree with the position you are trying to defend: That the fossil record COMPLETELY disproves evolution. That there is NO evolution.
The quotes don't say anything about this. They just talk about the history of evolution as being mostly morphological stasis.
Bs'd
And stasis is not "the history of evolution", it is the history of NON-evolution.
So they didn't dare to stand up and tell the truth, but instead they half heatedly vaguely mumbled something about evolution, because if they would not have, their careers and jobs would have been on the line.
Here you are admitting that they don't agree with your debate thesis. You say they are not telling the truth. So what is the truth? What evidence do you have that actually verifies this is true?
For the truth I have the professional opinion of many big shot paleontologists. They all agree that the fossil record shows the opposite of evolution.
So here we have Eldredge, who loudly and clearly admits that "science" has been lying to the public for more than hundred years.
Let's call it a lie. A lie about what?
A lie about the assumption that the fossil record supported Darwinian evolution.
Also this only strengthens my point, it goes into more detail about Darwin being troubled by the fossil record. Why was Darwin troubled by the fossil record? Because he realised that it shows the oppostite of evolution.
What is your evidence that Darwin was troubled because he realised it showed the opposite of evolution?
His book The Origin of Species. In there he warns the reader 8 times not to look at the fossil record, because it does not support his theory.
No less than eight times in his "Origen of Species" he tells us to ignore the fossil record, because it does not confirm to his theory.
Really?
Really.
Why do evo's react on citations of high calibre evolutionsts like a bull on a red rag?
Because we've been doing this for years, and the same quotes are used to imply people are saying things they are not.
We are no 170 posts into this debate, and NOBODY could show one quote where the meaning was different.
You are implying what they say is a problem for evolution. Yet it is not.
Of course it is. The fact that the fossil record shows the opposite of evolution is a BIG problem for evolution.
Why do they start foaming at the mouth and get a red haze in front of their eyes when they are confronted with the facts of life?
You haven't provided any facts of life, just quotes from people.
And you don't believe that what this big evolutionistic scientist say about the fossil record is a fact? You believe they are lying? Or just plain wrong? You know better??
You've studiously avoided talking about the actual physical facts of the universe -
It just happens to be so that this discussion is about the fossil record, not about the universe.
instead chosen to talk about your interpretation of authors and how they lie to keep their jobs whenever they say something that disagrees with your thesis.
I don't interprete them, I just show what they themselves say. Namely that there is NO evolution to be found in the fossil record.
Let's talk about the facts of life shall we?
Does the fossil record show that life on earth has changed as time as progressed?
Only if you believe in the time lines of the evolutionists.
Or does the fossil record show that the life in lowest and therefore oldest strata is identical in composition to extant modern life (with some allowances for 'change within a baramin')?
It shows that life didn't change since its creation, which is according to the evo's, about 500 million years ago:
"Modern multicellular animals make their first uncontested appearance in the fossil record some 570 million years ago - and with a bang, not a protracted crescendo. This ‘Cambrian explosion’ marks the advent (at least into direct evidence) of virtually all major groups of modern animals - and all within the minuscule span, geologically speaking, of a few million years."
Gould, Stephen J., Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History, 1989, p. 23-24
The above points to creation, and not evolution, and that too is a big embarrasment for evolution, something which is admitted by evolutionistic scholars who know what they are talking about:
"Paleontologists are traditionally famous (or infamous) for reconstructing whole animals from the debris of death. Mostly they cheat. .... If any event in life's history resembles man's creation myths, it is this sudden diversification of marine life when multicellular organisms took over as the dominant actors in ecology and evolution. Baffling (and embarrassing) to Darwin, this event still dazzles us and stands as a major biological revolution on a par with the invention of self-replication and the origin of the eukaryotic cell. The animal phyla emerged out of the Precambrian mists with most of the attributes of their modern descendants."
Bengtson, Stefan, "The Solution to a Jigsaw Puzzle," Nature, vol. 345 (June 28, 1990), p. 765-766
Stefan Bengtson is an evolutionist en head curator of the Swedish museum of natural history in Stockholm Zweden.
For more info about S. Bentson look here http://palaeo-electronica.org/staff/stefan.htm
You see, the facts fit creation like a glove, and are embarassing for evolution.
Everything popped up 500 million years ago, with a bang, and no new species, no change, in 500 milion years!
Ah - so there it is. We're the immoral animalistic primitives. Got it.
Well, you do think you're just an ape, right?
Actually I don't believe we can do whatever we feel like, without reckoning. If I murdered someone there is a decent chance that the Higher Authority would cause me to lose friends, family and my liberty.
That Higher Authority is society, the social contract, the justice system etc.
And an atheist who'll think he can have some illegal benefit with very little chance of getting caught, will do so.
Why should he not?
Think: "The Seflish Gene".
Can you demonstrate that the fossil record CONCLUSIVELY disproves evolution?
I have demonstrated that the fossil record shows the opposite of evolution, namely sudden appearance of species and stasis, non-change, non-evolution.
I have shown that the fossil record totally supports creations, and knocks out evolution.
"The paleontological data is consistent with the view that all of the currently recognized phyla had evolved by about 525 Ma. Despite half a billion years of evolutionary exploration generated in Cambrian time, no new phylum level designs have appeared since then."
"Developmental Evolution of Metazoan Body plans: The Fossil Evidence," Valentine, Erwin, and Jablonski, Developmental Biology 173, Article No. 0033, 1996, p. 376
Edited by Eliyahu, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Modulous, posted 02-05-2014 9:10 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by Modulous, posted 02-06-2014 8:49 AM Eliyahu has replied
 Message 174 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-06-2014 9:06 AM Eliyahu has not replied

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


(1)
Message 172 of 342 (718336)
02-06-2014 8:49 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by Eliyahu
02-06-2014 7:31 AM


Re: Nothing can ever disprove evolution
And stasis is not "the history of evolution", it is the history of NON-evolution.
Periods of morphological stasis is part of the history of life, just as much as the periods of change.
For the truth I have the professional opinion of many big shot paleontologists. They all agree that the fossil record shows the opposite of evolution.
No. You have them saying it shows the opposite of gradualism.
So here we have Eldredge, who loudly and clearly admits that "science" has been lying to the public for more than hundred years.
Let's call it a lie. A lie about what?
A lie about the assumption that the fossil record supported Darwinian evolution.
Nope. I told you the answer, the person you quoted gave you the answer. Try again.
What is your evidence that Darwin was troubled because he realised it showed the opposite of evolution?
His book The Origin of Species.
Where in his book? In there he warns the reader 8 times not to look at the fossil record, because it does not support his theory. You said this twice without supporting it. I've read it and I don't remember him saying that. It's freely available on line, why don't you find him doing this and quote it to me along with the edition and chapter number. Thanks.
We are no 170 posts into this debate, and NOBODY could show one quote where the meaning was different.
They were talking about gradualism being wrong not evolution. Many of us have shown this.
The fact that the fossil record shows the opposite of evolution is a BIG problem for evolution.
Except that isn't a fact.
And you don't believe that what this big evolutionistic scientist say about the fossil record is a fact? You believe they are lying? Or just plain wrong? You know better??
I believe THEM. I don't believe YOU when you say the fossil record completely disproves evolution.
It just happens to be so that this discussion is about the fossil record, not about the universe.
Fun fact: Fossils are in the universe. Thus facts about fossils, are facts about our universe.
I don't interprete them, I just show what they themselves say. Namely that there is NO evolution to be found in the fossil record.
You see that last sentence there? That's your interpretation. I see you weren't aware you doing it, so I thought I'd help you out.
It shows that life didn't change since its creation, which is according to the evo's, about 500 million years ago
Evos actually point to somewhere about 3.4 billion years ago, by the way.
But you cite the Cambrian era. Can you find any modern fish or cetaceans co-existing with Cambrian flora/fauna in the fossil record?
You see, the facts fit creation like a glove, and are embarassing for evolution.
Except the people you quote do not agree. Stefan said that the sudden diversificatin of marine life is the closest thing we have to creation stories. Not that the fossil record confirms creationism or disconfirms evolution.
Everything popped up 500 million years ago, with a bang, and no new species, no change, in 500 milion years!
This is a claim, which if true, would win you the debate.
So support it.
Well, you do think you're just an ape, right?
Just an ape? Yeah, I'm just one of the most complex and interesting things known in the universe.
And an atheist who'll think he can have some illegal benefit with very little chance of getting caught, will do so.
Why should he not?
Not completely true. ANY human has a tendency towards criminality if the benefits outweigh the risks, what they believe is the highest authority does not seem to make much of a difference.
The reason why he may not, though, is that he is a social animal and has evolved to mix strategies of cooperating with society and cheating society.
Think: "The Seflish Gene".
Ah yes, the book that explains cooperative behaviour with recourse to genes which have no regard for others.
I have demonstrated that the fossil record shows the opposite of evolution, namely sudden appearance of species and stasis, non-change, non-evolution.
I'm not sure how 'quote-wars' are supposed to work as I find them pointless. If I was to find quotes of people that said the fossil record shows evolution, would that make me win?
Because really you've shown us that finely graded change does not show in the fossil record. That's all. But we've known that for a long time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Eliyahu, posted 02-06-2014 7:31 AM Eliyahu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by Eliyahu, posted 02-07-2014 1:18 AM Modulous has replied

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


(1)
Message 173 of 342 (718339)
02-06-2014 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by Eliyahu
02-06-2014 1:52 AM


Re: The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution
Eliyahu writes:
In those citations high calibre evolutionists say loud and clear that the fossil record does NOT show any evolution, but stasis.
But they're talking about gradualism, not evolution. They're saying that the fossil record isn't a very good record of gradualism. None of them concluded the fossil record isn't a good record of evolution, or that evolution doesn't happen. Anyone can who can read can see that.
Have you already answered the question about why it makes sense to you that some of the foremost evolutionists in the world believe the evidence is against evolution?
You make more sense when you argue that punctuated equilibrium is wrong.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Eliyahu, posted 02-06-2014 1:52 AM Eliyahu has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 174 of 342 (718341)
02-06-2014 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by Eliyahu
02-06-2014 7:31 AM


Re: Nothing can ever disprove evolution
For the truth I have the professional opinion of many big shot paleontologists. They all agree that the fossil record shows the opposite of evolution.
Hello? We all know you're lying.
A lie about the assumption that the fossil record supported Darwinian evolution.
Hello? We all know you're lying.
His book The Origin of Species. In there he warns the reader 8 times not to look at the fossil record, because it does not support his theory.
Hello? We all know you're lying.
We are no 170 posts into this debate, and NOBODY could show one quote where the meaning was different.
Hello? We all know you're lying.
Of course it is. The fact that the fossil record shows the opposite of evolution is a BIG problem for evolution.
Hello? We all know you're lying.
I don't interprete them, I just show what they themselves say. Namely that there is NO evolution to be found in the fossil record.
Hello? We all know you're lying.
I have demonstrated that the fossil record shows the opposite of evolution, namely sudden appearance of species and stasis, non-change, non-evolution.
Hello? We all know you're lying.
---
So what's the point? If you want to prove that some creationists are disgusting degraded liars, that point has been so well made by luminaries such as Kent Hovind and Duane Gish as to render your efforts superfluous.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Eliyahu, posted 02-06-2014 7:31 AM Eliyahu has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 175 of 342 (718343)
02-06-2014 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by Coyote
02-06-2014 12:05 AM


Intellectually stunted delusions
You still have not responded to Post 5, which shows you are wrong.
Can we look forward to a response to that nice figure in Post 5 anytime soon?
When you are delusional you ignore the world around you and live in your delusional world.
His "response" to Message 5 was Message 31:
I think there are 2 possibilities for the post of Razd, one is: It is totally made up out of thin air, two: It is on the same level as the piltdown man and the Nebraska man, and it will be exposed as a hoax soon enough.
And he is intellectually incapable of considering a third possibility: that the evidence is real and valid evidence of actual evolution in the fossil record.
He is stuck in a pathetic delusional rut where selected quotes are real and evidence is false.
Pretty sad eh?

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Coyote, posted 02-06-2014 12:05 AM Coyote has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 176 of 342 (718345)
02-06-2014 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by fizz57
02-06-2014 2:37 AM


misrepresenting quotations prove nothing, using quotes properly proves nothing
Hi Fizz57 and welcome to the fray.
In that quote, was Prof. Stanley referring to the fossil record in general or to one particular site with its own peculiarities?
Does it matter? All Eliyahu has posted is a series of quotes taken out of context, followed by refusing to admit that the context when provided properly shows that evolution occurs by fits and starts rather than gradually. He claims Darwin only theorized gradual evolution, which is false, and he claims that stasis disproves evolution, which it of course doesn't. He appears to think that stasis occurs with no evolution at all (false) and that the rapid evolution of new species would have to be the "hopeful monster" ... not realizing that this occurs over many generations in reproductive isolation.
There is so much evidence for evolution in the fossil record, but he won't confront actual evidence that his thesis is false -- see Message 5 and Message 31 -- and he doesn't change his song and dance.
He says there is no evidence of evolution and then claims that evidence of evolution is either faked or a fraud.
All in all, a rather pathetic sad delusional behavior after a while. And this is what religious indoctrination can do to an otherwise useful mind when reality is denied.
One rather hopes that he is a Poe ...
... as you are new here, some posting tips:
type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy
or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote:
quotes are easy
also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window.
For other formatting tips see Posting Tips
For a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer
If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0
Edited by RAZD, : No reason given.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by fizz57, posted 02-06-2014 2:37 AM fizz57 has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 177 of 342 (718346)
02-06-2014 9:54 AM


Dawkins Quote of the Day ...
http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/114
quote:
Ignorance Is No Crime
"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)." ...
I don't withdraw a word of my initial statement. But I do now think it may have been incomplete. There is perhaps a fifth category, which may belong under 'insane' but which can be more sympathetically characterised by a word like tormented, bullied or brainwashed. Sincere people who are not ignorant, not stupid and not wicked, can be cruelly torn, almost in two, between the massive evidence of science on the one hand, and their understanding (or misunderstanding) of what their holy book tells them on the other. I think this is one of the truly bad things religion can do to a human mind. ...
To which I add deluded and confused.
Notice that he goes on to talk about how some people seem almost tortured by the conflict between their belief and the reality of evolution. This, of course, is Cognitive Dissonance in operation, and this also predicts the behavior of people to attempt resolution of their dissonance while maintaining their conflicted beliefs: attack the messenger bearing contrary evidence, claim the contrary evidence is fraudulent or a hoax, seek confirmation from other believers rather than from the world as a whole, etc etc etc.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

  
frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


(1)
Message 178 of 342 (718348)
02-06-2014 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by Eliyahu
02-06-2014 6:27 AM


Re: The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution
Bs'd
What is a POE?
Much like a satirist, did you read my whole quote yet? have you seen how you quote mined to the point of lying, or are you going to ignore the whole quote and just paste random sentences out of context and claim they support your position?

Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand
What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Eliyahu, posted 02-06-2014 6:27 AM Eliyahu has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 179 of 342 (718349)
02-06-2014 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by Eliyahu
02-05-2014 1:27 PM


Re: The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution
Eliyahu writes:
If Bigfoot should have left some proof that he had walked through you garden, for instance, you should have seen his footsteps in the snow, and there are no footsteps in the snow, then you know, then that is proof, that Bigfoot didn't walk through you garden.
Lack of evidence for Bigfoot in my garden does not prove that Bigfoot was not in my garden. And even if Bigfoot was never in my garden, it's possible that he exists somewhere else.
Eliyahu writes:
If evolution really happened, it should have left traces in the fossil record.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, fossils are snapshots. If there's a snapshot of me in New York and a snapshot of me on Los Angeles, you can infer that I travelled somehow from New York to Los Angeles. If you don't have a snapshot of me in St. Louis, you can not infer from that that I never travelled from New York to Los Angeles. You can't even safely infer that I didn't pass through St. Louis. You can only safely conclude that there is no evidence of that particular step in the trip.
Similarly, fossils only show individual steps in the process and most of the steps are missing from the record. You can not use missing steps to disprove that the overall process didn't happen. The very most you could conclude from the fossil record would be that it is insufficient evidence to conclusively prove evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Eliyahu, posted 02-05-2014 1:27 PM Eliyahu has not replied

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


(4)
Message 180 of 342 (718351)
02-06-2014 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by Eliyahu
02-06-2014 1:52 AM


Re: The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution--NOT
BfD
You are attempting to ignore evidence that shows you are wrong.
This is the figure from Message 5, and the text that accompanied it.
Pelycodus was a tree-dwelling primate that looked [picture omitted] much like a modern lemur. The skull shown is probably 7.5 centimeters long.
The numbers down the left hand side indicate the depth (in feet) at which each group of fossils was found. As is usual in geology, the diagram gives the data for the deepest (oldest) fossils at the bottom, and the upper (youngest) fossils at the top. The diagram covers about five million years.
The numbers across the bottom are a measure of body size. Each horizontal line shows the range of sizes that were found at that depth. The dark part of each line shows the average value, and the standard deviation around the average.
The dashed lines show the overall trend. The species at the bottom is Pelycodus ralstoni, but at the top we find two species, Notharctus nunienus and Notharctus venticolus. The two species later became even more distinct, and the descendants of nunienus are now labeled as genus Smilodectes instead of genus Notharctus.
As you look from bottom to top, you will see that each group has some overlap with what came before. There are no major breaks or sudden jumps. And the form of the creatures was changing steadily.
So, there you have it--evidence of evolution, including change from one species to another and change from one genus to another.
And this blows the whole idea of a young earth out of the water at the same time. A twoofer!

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 166 by Eliyahu, posted 02-06-2014 1:52 AM Eliyahu has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by petrophysics1, posted 02-06-2014 6:59 PM Coyote 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