|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
Yes I do. It says that evolution took place in far away places, small isolated places, and the evolution there went relatively fast. And that, according to the PE theory, is the reason that we cannot find any proof for evolution in the fossil record, because it happened in small far away places, very fast. It doesn't say that evolution took place in far away places. It says that changes happen over hundreds of thousands to millions of years in a small population, and then that small population spreads out and replaces other populations that did not evolve as quickly. That's it.
So the PE theory is an attempt to give an explanation for the total lack of evolution in the fossil record. "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."--Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory"Top Cash Earning Games in India 2022 | Best Online Games to earn real money "Some discoveries in science are exciting because they revise or reverse previous expectations, others because they affirm with elegance something well suspected, but previously undocumented. Our four-case story, culminating in Ambulocetus, falls into the second category. This sequential discovery of picture-perfect intermediacy in the evolution of whales stands as a triumph in the history of paleontology. I cannot imagine a better tale for popular presentation of science, or a more satisfying, and intellectually based, political victory over lingering creationist opposition. As such, I present the story in this series of essays with both delight and relish."--Stephen Jay Gould, "Hooking Leviathan by Its Past"Top Cash Earning Games in India 2022 | Best Online Games to earn real money
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
petrophysics1 Inactive Member |
So, there you have it--evidence of evolution, including change from one species to another and change from one genus to another. Hi Coyote, Maybe you can clear something up for me. My glossary of geology defines species as "a group of organisms, either plant or animal, which may interbred and produce viable offspring having similar structure, habits, and functions." In your quote above and the repost of message 5 you appear to be telling me that P. ralstoni and P. trigonodus ( as an example)are not capable of interbreeding and producing viable offspring. What exactly is your fossil evidence for taking this position? Edited by petrophysics1, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
In your quote above and the repost of message 5 you appear to be telling me that P. ralstoni and P. trigonodus ( as an example)are not capable of interbreeding and producing viable offspring. I am just reposting a graphic with text, that has been posted several times by RAZD, in an attempt to get some reaction. I am not the original author of the piece so any technical questions would have to go to them. But I would guess that, based on the graph, there is quite a temporal separation between those two species, prohibiting interbreeding much as you would not be able to interbreed with archaic Homo sapiens or Homo erectus. With this large temporal separation, the question of interfertility would seem moot. Maybe RAZD could also comment here.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eliyahu Member (Idle past 2260 days) Posts: 288 From: Judah Joined: |
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. Bs'd To prevent whining about "taking out of context", I give you the whole chapter of the master himself, our Charles, who devoted a whole chapter of his book to the imperfections of the fossil record. "Imperfections", because it didn't agree with his theory, therefore in his eyes it was imperfect. For those who don't feel like reading so much, the juicy parts are in yellow: CHAPTER X. ON THE IMPERFECTION OF THE GEOLOGICAL RECORD.
Read On the Origin of Species 6th Edition by Charles Darwin, Read free on ReadCentral.com
[ Remove exceedingly long cut-n-paste from the above link. Please see link. Eliyahu: In the future, please just excerpt the portions of interest. I've sent your cut-n-paste to you in a PM so that you can recover the portions you highlighted in yellow. --Admin ] As everybody can see, it is one long litany about how the fossil record goes against his theory. In the days of Darwin it was already known that the fossil record goes agains the evolution theory. Edited by Eliyahu, : No reason given. Edited by Eliyahu, : No reason given. Edited by Eliyahu, : No reason given. Edited by Eliyahu, : No reason given. Edited by Admin, : Remove long cut-n-paste.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Here's the first one:
This is a "warning not to use the fossil record"? "But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record." Charles Darwin, Origin of Species Please explain your logic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eliyahu Member (Idle past 2260 days) Posts: 288 From: Judah Joined: |
This is a "warning not to use the fossil record"? Bs'd OK, it is not literally a warning. Look above to the updated post, and see how Darwin time and again, has to say that the fossil record is imperfect, because it does not conform to his theory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
To prevent whining about "taking out of context", I give you the whole chapter of the master himself, our Charles, who devoted a whole chapter of his book to the imperfections of the fossil record. "Imperfections", because it didn't agree with his theory, therefore in his eyes it was imperfect.
Actually, no. Just because a record is incomplete does not mean that it does not support the theory. I have a feeling that there are multitudes of defense attorneys out there looking for you.
For those who don't feel like reading so much, the juicy parts are in yellow:
Actually, no, I don't see that. All I see is a statement that the fossil record is incomplete.
CHAPTER X. ON THE IMPERFECTION OF THE GEOLOGICAL RECORD. (extensive c&p text snipped) As everybody can see, it is one long litany about how the fossil record goes against his theory. In the days of Darwin it was already known that the fossil record goes agains the evolution theory.
Actually, no. Darwin did not reject his own theory. Why do you think that is? Perhaps he had an explanation for the imperfection of the fossil record? Nah, couldn't be! But, if you'd care to, you could also join us in the 21st century and discuss the modern evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
OK, it is not literally a warning.
Then why did you say so? Your language, like your logic, is imprecise.
Look above to the updated post, and see how Darwin time and again, has to say that the fossil record is imperfect, because it does not conform to his theory.
No, it only says that the reason for a perceived lack of transitionals is because the record is imperfect. That would be called an 'explanation'. YECs should follow suit and give us some explanations. I have a feeling that, if there is a way to read something wrong, you will find it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eliyahu Member (Idle past 2260 days) Posts: 288 From: Judah Joined: |
Bs'd
So Darwin already saw that the fossil record did NOT support his theory, put posed serious problems for it. He goes as far as to say that "Those who believe that the geological record is in any degree perfect, will undoubtedly at once reject my theory." And therefore Darwin says that the fossil record is not perfect. However, now, more than 150 years later, we have many more fossils, hundreds of millions are in musea all over the world, and see what experts now say about the fossil record: "Paleontologists just were not seeing the expected changes in their fossils as they pursued them up through the rock record. ... That individual kinds of fossils remain recognizably the same throughout the length of their occurrence in the fossil record had been known to paleontologists long before Darwin published his Origin. Darwin himself, .... prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search .... One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a miserly fossil record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong. The observation that species are amazingly conservative and static entities throughout long periods of time has all the qualities of the emperor's new clothes: everyone knew it but preferred to ignore it. Paleontologists, faced with a recalcitrant record obstinately refusing to yield Darwin's predicted pattern, simply looked the other way." Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p. 45-46Niles Eldredge is an evolutionist en co-inventor of the punctuated equilibrium theory So the fossil record is good, it is Darwin who is imperfect. "The record jumps, and all the evidence shows that the record is real: the gaps we see reflect real events in life’s history - not the artifact of a poor fossil record." Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p. 59 The fossil record is real, it is Darwins theory that is unreal. So Darwin was forced to say about ten times or more, that the fossil record is imperfect. However, it turned out there is nothing wrong with the fossil record, there is only a lot wrong wit the evolution theory. Edited by Eliyahu, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
CHAPTER X. ON THE IMPERFECTION OF THE GEOLOGICAL RECORD. You admit Darwin is not telling us to ignore the fossil record. So when I said 'Really?' you should have said 'No, not really' and instead you didn't tell the truth and said 'Really.' I see you didn't support your claim that all life appeared suddenly 500 million years ago and that there has been no change to life, no new species, since then. I guess that wasn't true, either.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eliyahu Member (Idle past 2260 days) Posts: 288 From: Judah Joined: |
Bs'd
Before 500 million years ago, there was no life to speak of. One cell life forms started according to the evo's 3.5 billion years ago, but it only really took of 500 million years ago. And then, suddenly, with a bang, there were all the major type of animals. Really new concepts did not pop up in 500 million years. Like Dawkins says; there can be two explanations for this phenomenon: One is a faulty fossile record, the second is divine creation. Other options don't exist. So the fact of the matter is: The fossil record disproves evolution. "The record jumps, and all the evidence shows that the record is real: the gaps we see reflect real events in life’s history - not the artifact of a poor fossil record." Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p. 59 .. . S. Bengtson on the Cambrian explosion: "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. 765-766Stefan 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 .. . "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 .. .
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
So Darwin already saw that the fossil record did NOT support his theory, put posed serious problems for it.
No, he presented the fact that the fossil record is incomplete. Wow, you really are hooked on religious myth aren't you?
He goes as far as to say that "Those who believe that the geological record is in any degree perfect, will undoubtedly at once reject my theory."
So, you believe that the fossil record is perfect? You did read that part of the statement and agree to it, correct? In that case, you are one of a very few select people.
And therefore Darwin says that the fossil record is not perfect.
You truly are confused. Darwin cannot say anything. And if he did say it was not perfect, so what? That's pretty common knowledge. Do you have a point?
"... One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions."(emphasis added) Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p. 45-46
Okay, did you read the bolded part above? Do you understand what it means? Do you need some remedial help in understanding the English language?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
Before 500 million years ago, there was no life to speak of.
Well, at least you are consistently wrong...
One cell life forms started according to the evo's 3.5 billion years ago, but it only really took of 500 million years ago.
Hunh? Please try this sentence again.
And then, suddenly, with a bang, there were all the major type of animals.
You mean like zebras and trout and dogs? Please reference.
Really new concepts did not pop up in 500 million years.
What do you mean 'really new'? Okay, find us a giraffe in Cambrian strata. Oh, your misquotes actually prove you are wrong. Do you realize that quote mining is a form of stealing as well as lying?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
In your quote above and the repost of message 5 you appear to be telling me that P. ralstoni and P. trigonodus ( as an example)are not capable of interbreeding and producing viable offspring. Mostly that they are in different age layers so they occurred at different times in the fossil record. Not very satisfactory I know, but this is the main problem with arbitrary speciation -- where do you take the differences from generation to generation and draw a line to say x is one species but y is another. I would in fact be rather surprised if a Pelycodus in one layer would be unable to breed with ones in either the layer above or the layer below if they were living at the same time. This is the basic problem with nomenclature and phyletic evolution. However at the top you have two species that show separation and the lack of intermediate forms between them at the same age level indicate failure to interbreed. In this case you have divergent speciation and very little question of where they are different. Now one could create a metric from the minimal differences for divergent speciation and apply that to phyletic speciation ... but it would still tend to be arbitrary concerning where you start.. Does that help? 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
And then, suddenly, with a bang, there were all the major type of animals. Really new concepts did not pop up in 500 million years. What do you mean 'really new concepts' didn't turn up? Are you saying there were mammals in the Cambrian? Dinosaurs? Birds? Primates? What turned up in the Cambrian were primitive chordates, in actuality. So what we have there is this. Do you think that since this form was around no 'really new concepts' have evolved?
Like Dawkins says; there can be two explanations for this phenomenon: One is a faulty fossile record, the second is divine creation. How about 'certain organisms don't fossilize nearly as well as others', which is Dawkins' position:
quote: --The Greatest Show on Earth All you need to do, is to show that life on earth has not changed since the Cambrian. That will completely disprove evolution. Even if God created the phyla, that still does not discredit the notion that they have changed since the creation. Is that what you want to say 'that the baramin were approximately at the phyla level'? Presumably humans aren't chordata and we're in our own unique phylum? Are there any human fossilized remains in Cambrian aged rocks?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024