Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 196 of 342 (718527)
02-07-2014 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by petrophysics1
02-06-2014 6:59 PM


Re: The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution--NOT
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.
There are a number of different working definitions of species, depending on context. For example, if we strictly and exclusively follow your definition there are no species of asexual reproducers at all!
When examining ancient species, the idea of a paleospecies is formed. A paleospecies is defined basically as a group of organisms that vary within the norms of extant species. If they lived millions of years apart, that also helps define them as separate species, too.
There is no TRUE definition of species. It's an arbitrary label we use as a tool to understanding and discussing nature.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by petrophysics1, posted 02-06-2014 6:59 PM petrophysics1 has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(3)
Message 197 of 342 (718528)
02-07-2014 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by Eliyahu
02-07-2014 9:34 AM


Re: The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution
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.
Here's the evolutionary timeline from wiki:
quote:
In its 4.6 billion years circling the sun, the Earth has harbored an increasing diversity of life forms:
for the last 3.6 billion years, simple cells (prokaryotes);
for the last 3.4 billion years, cyanobacteria performing photosynthesis;
for the last 2 billion years, complex cells (eukaryotes);
for the last 1 billion years, multicellular life;
for the last 600 million years, simple animals;
for the last 550 million years, bilaterians, animals with a front and a back;
for the last 500 million years, fish and proto-amphibians;
for the last 475 million years, land plants;
for the last 400 million years, insects and seeds;
for the last 360 million years, amphibians;
for the last 300 million years, reptiles;
for the last 200 million years, mammals;
for the last 150 million years, birds;
for the last 130 million years, flowers;
for the last 60 million years, the primates,
for the last 20 million years, the family Hominidae (great apes);
for the last 2.5 million years, the genus Homo (human predecessors);
for the last 200,000 years, anatomically modern humans.
And then, suddenly, with a bang, there were all the major type of animals.
No, that took hundreds of millions of years. "With a bang" doesn't describe that at all.
So the fact of the matter is: The fossil record disproves evolution.
But this claim of yours has already been refuted. Now you're just repeating it.
We can't make any progress if you don't deal with the refutations. Simply repeating yourself doesn't do anything.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Eliyahu, posted 02-07-2014 9:34 AM Eliyahu has not replied

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


(2)
Message 198 of 342 (718535)
02-07-2014 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by Eliyahu
02-07-2014 9:34 AM


Re: The fossile record conclusively disproves 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
LOL so where is the quote mine list you are copy pasting your quotes from.
Im asking because of this
Those who are have an interest in the phylogeny of misquotes might note an error in the citation: "Body plans" should be "Bodyplans." Also in the quoted text: "phylum level" should be "phylum-level." Of course if these minor errors can be found in common with other creationist quote-mining lists, then we can conclude that the poster simply copied them from quote mines.
As to whats wrong with your quote:
After 525 Ma there should be a paragraph break followed by the section title "The Post-Explosion Record." The rest of the quote is the first sentence of the next paragraph. Quotes from different sections really should not be presented as being from the same paragraph though that really did not this time add any extra distortion per se. Of course quote mine did not bother to quote potential explanations. The authors mentioned two later on in the same paragraph. Both make a great deal of sense. And though some may argue for one or the other, both can be true:
The missing explenations:
...Two long-debated explanations for this trend are that (a) developmental mechanisms became canalized or at least constrained so as to preclude the specification of great novelty and (b) the filling of the environment by early Phanerozoic diversifications preempted the ecological opportunities that were once available to organisms with distinctive bodyplans [refs]. The relative significance of these respectively internal and external controls is difficult to determine at present; new paleontological and developmental evidence will be required to assess their relative strengths [refs].
all sourced from Quote Mine Project: "Lack of Identifiable Phylogeny"
before you paste a quote make sure your fellow creationist dint LIE when they provided you with it the easiest way is just to copy paste the quote you got in google then click on the link found that goes to talk origins, you can then click ctrl - f copy paste the quote in the find box and presto you find the quote and what's wrong with it.
Of course if you don't trust the talk origins sources then just try to find the original from where the quote was taken from google does wonders with this as well.
Most professors check your work that way in my country they just google the exact wording of what they think may not be your work or in other ways suspicious and they find the source.
ps. this is whats wrong with your other quotes:
Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould proposed punctuated equilibria in 1972. Punctuated equilibrium is a refinement to evolutionary theory. It describes patterns of descent taking place in "fits and starts" separated by long periods of stability.
Eldredge went on to develop a hierarchical vision of evolutionary and ecological systems. Around this time, he became focused on the rapid destruction of many of the world's habitats and species.
Throughout his career, he has used repeated patterns in the history of life to refine ideas on how the evolutionary process actually works. Eldredge is proponent of the importance of environment in explaining the patterns in evolution.
Eldredge is a critic of the gene-centric view of evolution. His most recent venture is the development of an alternative account to the gene-based notions of evolutionary psychology to explain human behavior.
He has published more than 160 scientific articles, books, and reviews, including Reinventing Darwin, an examination of current controversies in evolutionary biology, and Dominion, a consideration of the ecological and evolutionary past, present, and future of Homo sapiens.
This is a summary on eldreges stance on evolution wherever you got that quote from i cant find it but my guess is something is wrong with it as mr eldrige does not denounce evolution as fact, he just has some problems with the theory of evolution i hope you understand what i mean.
"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), pp. 765-766)
This is from an article that summarizes the finding of a peer-reviewed paper elsewhere in the issue, which reports on the discovery of complete specimens of halkieriids, a now extinct taxon from the Early Cambrian period:
Palaeontologists are traditionally famous (or infamous) for reconstructing whole animals from the debris of death. Mostly they cheat. Even extinct beasts such as dinosaur have scores of living relatives (birds, mammals, reptiles) that make reconstructions 'simply' a matter of competent comparative anatomy. But how do you go about the job when there seem to be no close living relatives on which to base the model? This is a problem particularly when dealing with organisms that derive from the 'Cambrian explosion'.
If any event in life's history resembles man's creation myths, it is this sudden diversification of marine life when multi-cellular 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. But nature is wasteful. Most species never give rise to anything, and present-day phyla derive from a lucky minority. Many of the not-so-lucky fossil species may also be comfortably classified in these same living phyla, but it is a feature of many Cambrian assemblages that they contain a large proportion of forms that cannot be so treated.
We can see from the context that "cheating" is just a case of making use of comparative anatomy. Since in most cases soft tissue isn't preserved, it's not unreasonable to make informed assumptions about the placement and size muscles and such. But how does one reconstruct a creature that has no living relatives?
It should also be emphasized that the writer states that "If any event in life's history resembles man's creation myths" (emphasis added). And obviously it's not that much of a resemblance. These new "organisms took over as the dominant actors in ecology and evolution" (emphasis added). This wasn't creation from nothing, otherwise there would be no organisms to take over from.
Explenation what happened to your second quote from talkorigins.
Quote Mine Project: "Sudden Appearance and Stasis"

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 191 by Eliyahu, posted 02-07-2014 9:34 AM Eliyahu has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 199 of 342 (718540)
02-07-2014 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by Eliyahu
02-07-2014 1:18 AM


Re: Nothing can ever disprove evolution
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.
I see that you didn't even read the title of the chapter correctly.
"On the Imperfection of the Geological Record"
Notice that it says GEOLOGIC record, not fossil record. There is a big difference between the two. Darwin spent an entire chapter showing that the geologic processes which produce fossils would not capture gradual evolutionary changes. Nowhere did Darwin ever say that the fossil record disagreed with his theory. Darwin argued that the combination of evolution and an erratic geologic column would produce gaps in an evolutionary progression as seen in the fossil record. He argued that the fossil record is consistent with evolution.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Eliyahu, posted 02-07-2014 1:18 AM Eliyahu has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 200 of 342 (718541)
02-07-2014 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by Eliyahu
02-06-2014 12:01 AM


Re: The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution
You don't even have the most basic and slightest clue as to what Punctuated Equilibrium is, do you?
Bs'd
Yes I do. It says that evolution took place in far away places, small isolated places, and the evolution there went relatively fast.
No, it doesn't say anything about the places where evolution took place as being far away.
And how does that even make sense, that it was far away? Far away from what?
Regarding isolation, that is referring to genetic isolation and that does not require it to be isolation by distance, they're just has to be some barrier to reproduction. Like, a river between the populations could be enough.
And the relatively fast, is based upon geological timescales. That is, multi-millions of years. As compared to the lifetimes of organisms, the speed isn't actually all that fast.
Anyways here's what it actually is:
quote:
Punctuated equilibrium (also called punctuated equilibria) is a theory in evolutionary biology which proposes that most species will exhibit little net evolutionary change for most of their geological history, remaining in an extended state called stasis. When significant evolutionary change occurs, the theory proposes that it is generally restricted to rare and rapid (on a geologic time scale) events of branching speciation called cladogenesis. Cladogenesis is the process by which a species splits into two distinct species, rather than one species gradually transforming into another.From wiki
As you see, it is still evolution. Its just a different way of going about it.
Here's some illustrations on how it can occur:
And your quote from an expert is from almost 40 years ago. We've come along way sense then.
You really need to find some more up-to-date experts.
So PE is the proof that there is no evolution to be seen in the fossil record,
No, its an explanation that evolution didn't happen extrememly gradually like we used to think it did.
But its still evolution happening nonetheless.
because if there was, there would be no need to come with forced explanations about why we cannot find any evolution in the fossil record.
But we can find evolution in the fossil record, its just not exactly like we originally thought it to be.
And that's a good thing, science doesn't progress when we stick with old outdated ideas instead of upgrading our theories as more evidence comes to light.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Eliyahu, posted 02-06-2014 12:01 AM Eliyahu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by Eliyahu, posted 02-09-2014 1:54 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

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


Message 201 of 342 (718822)
02-09-2014 12:09 AM
Reply to: Message 192 by edge
02-07-2014 9:53 AM


Re: The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution
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.
Bs'd
Meaning that the fossil record, as is, does NOT agree with Darwin.
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?
What I believe is irrelevant.
Here is what an expert says about that one:
"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. 45-46
.
"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
According to Eldredge, the fossil record is OK, it is the predictions of Darwin who are wrong.
Exit Darwin.
.
.
.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by edge, posted 02-07-2014 9:53 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by arachnophilia, posted 02-09-2014 12:56 AM Eliyahu has replied
 Message 203 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-09-2014 12:59 AM Eliyahu has not replied
 Message 208 by edge, posted 02-09-2014 3:33 AM Eliyahu has replied
 Message 212 by RAZD, posted 02-09-2014 8:08 AM Eliyahu has replied
 Message 250 by Taq, posted 02-10-2014 6:00 PM Eliyahu has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


(1)
Message 202 of 342 (718825)
02-09-2014 12:56 AM
Reply to: Message 201 by Eliyahu
02-09-2014 12:09 AM


Re: The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution
Eliyahu writes:
Meaning that the fossil record, as is, does NOT agree with Darwin.
don't be ridiculous. the specimens that are represented do in fact agree extremely strongly with darwin.
quote:
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.
again, this is silly. darwin's book, on the origin of species by means of natural selection was published in 1859. the first complete skeleton of this thing was found in 1863:
it was so damned convenient that creationists at the time argued it must be a forgery.
seriously, this argument is totally ignorant of 150 years of paleontology. i don't have to go more than four years from darwin to find probably the single most dramatic example of a transitional species in the public eye, nevermind 120 years.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by Eliyahu, posted 02-09-2014 12:09 AM Eliyahu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Eliyahu, posted 02-09-2014 2:13 AM arachnophilia has replied

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


Message 203 of 342 (718827)
02-09-2014 12:59 AM
Reply to: Message 201 by Eliyahu
02-09-2014 12:09 AM


Eldredge
According to Eldredge, the fossil record is OK, it is the predictions of Darwin who are wrong.
"My version of how the evolutionary process works lines up very well with Darwin’s. [...] this new picture is not un-Darwinian, let alone anti-Darwinian. [...] I confess that I am a true Darwinist." --- Nile Eldredge, Confessions of a Darwinist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by Eliyahu, posted 02-09-2014 12:09 AM Eliyahu has not replied

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


Message 204 of 342 (718830)
02-09-2014 1:54 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by New Cat's Eye
02-07-2014 12:30 PM


Re: The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution
Anyways here's what it actually is:
quoteunctuated equilibrium (also called punctuated equilibria) is a theory in evolutionary biology which proposes that most species will exhibit little net evolutionary change for most of their geological history, remaining in an extended state called stasis. When significant evolutionary change occurs, the theory proposes that it is generally restricted to rare and rapid (on a geologic time scale) events of branching speciation called cladogenesis. Cladogenesis is the process by which a species splits into two distinct species, rather than one species gradually transforming into another.From wiki
As you see, it is still evolution. Its just a different way of going about it.
Bs'd
The whole reason for that theory is the total lack of evidence in the fossil record for evolution.
What the fossil record shows is that species exhibit STASIS, non-change.
So the evo's came up with a theory that the supposed evolution happens only once in a while, and then relatively fast, in a small isolated area. And that is supposed to be the reason that no evolution can be found in the fossil record.
And your quote from an expert is from almost 40 years ago. We've come along way sense then.
Eldredge and Gould hold the fossil record is what it seems, it shows what happened. That is a break with Darwin, who held that the record is imperfect.
If now, 40 years after the onset of PE, things have changed according to you, then the only option is a regression to the viewpoints of Darwin, that the fossil record is imperfect.
Please give me some experts who disagree with the notion of Eldredge that the fossil record is exactly what it seems.
You really need to find some more up-to-date experts.
Do I need to find them or you?
I hold that the fossil record does not support evolution.
The now common held ET is PE, and that just gives an explanation for the fact that no evolution is to be seen in the fossil record. It confirms that the fossil record does not show evolution.
So PE is the proof that there is no evolution to be seen in the fossil record,
No, its an explanation that evolution didn't happen extrememly gradually like we used to think it did.
If there was evolution visibele in the fossil record, we would not need PE. Therefore PE is the proof that there is no evolution te be seen in the fossil record.
But its still evolution happening nonetheless.
Only in theory, not in the real world, and not in the fossil record.
But we can find evolution in the fossil record, its just not exactly like we originally thought it to be.
No we can not:
"The fossil record itself provided no documentation of continuity - of gradual transition from one animal or plant to another of quite different form."
Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes and the Origin of Species, 1981, p. 40
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: Steven M. Stanley - Wikipedia
As you can see: No evolution in the fossil record.
And that's a good thing, science doesn't progress when we stick with old outdated ideas instead of upgrading our theories as more evidence comes to light.
So science can change its viewpoint at any given time, so it would be foulish to present a present scientific viewpoint as an established fact, because tomorrow science might hold something completely different.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-07-2014 12:30 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-09-2014 1:59 AM Eliyahu has not replied
 Message 215 by Percy, posted 02-09-2014 8:31 AM Eliyahu has replied
 Message 223 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-09-2014 11:17 AM Eliyahu has not replied

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


Message 205 of 342 (718831)
02-09-2014 1:59 AM
Reply to: Message 204 by Eliyahu
02-09-2014 1:54 AM


If there was evolution visibele in the fossil record, we would not need PE. Therefore PE is the proof that there is no evolution te be seen in the fossil record.
"So it's not true to say that punctuated equilibrium is just an argument born of despair, because you don't see transitional forms." --- Stephen Jay Gould, testifying under oath in McLean v. Arkansas.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Eliyahu, posted 02-09-2014 1:54 AM Eliyahu has not replied

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


Message 206 of 342 (718832)
02-09-2014 2:13 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by arachnophilia
02-09-2014 12:56 AM


Re: The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution
don't be ridiculous. the specimens that are represented do in fact agree extremely strongly with darwin.
Bs'd
Then please explain why Darwin said ten or more times that the fossil record is incomplete.
If it agreed extremely strongly with him, then why keep on saying that it is imperfect??
Your fossil picture is from 1863, 4 years after the first ediion of The Origin of Species, however, the 6th and final edition came out in 1872, and in there he put a whole chapter about the imperfections of the fossil record.
I posted that whole chapter herre, and then this happened:
[ 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 ]
So you'll have to make do with the out of context quotes, here are some of 'm from that chapter ( Read On the Origin of Species 6th Edition by Charles Darwin, Read free on ReadCentral.com ):
In the sixth chapter I enumerated the chief objections which might be justly urged against the views maintained in this volume. Most of them have now been discussed. One, namely, the distinctness of specific forms and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty. I
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, 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.
On the poorness of palaeontological collections.
Now let us turn to our richest museums, and what a paltry display we behold! That our collections are imperfect is admitted by every one.
But the imperfection in the geological record largely results from another and more important cause than any of the foregoing;
On the absence of numerous intermediate varieties in any single formation.
From these several considerations it cannot be doubted that the geological record, viewed as a whole, is extremely imperfect; but if we confine our attention to any one formation, it becomes much more difficult to understand why we do not therein find closely graduated varieties between the allied species which lived at its commencement and at its close.
It may be worth while to sum up the foregoing remarks on the causes of the imperfection of the geological record under an imaginary illustration.
If then there be some degree of truth in these remarks, we have no right to expect to find, in our geological formations, an infinite number of those fine transitional forms, which, on our theory, have connected all the past and present species of the same group into one long and branching chain of life.
But I do not pretend that I should ever have suspected how poor was the record in the best preserved geological sections, had not the absence of innumerable transitional links between the species which lived at the commencement and close of each formation, pressed so hardly on my theory.
On the sudden appearance of whole groups of allied species.
The abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palaeontologists for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick, as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species.
On the sudden appearance of groups of allied species in the lowest known fossiliferous strata.
There is another and allied difficulty, which is much more serious. I allude to the manner in which species belonging to several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks.
So the fossil record does not "extremely strong agree" with Darwin, what it does is extremely strong DISagreeing with Darwin.
No evolution in the fossil record.
Edited by Admin, : Provide link to source of quotes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by arachnophilia, posted 02-09-2014 12:56 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-09-2014 2:48 AM Eliyahu has not replied
 Message 209 by edge, posted 02-09-2014 3:47 AM Eliyahu has replied
 Message 216 by Admin, posted 02-09-2014 8:37 AM Eliyahu has not replied
 Message 218 by arachnophilia, posted 02-09-2014 9:24 AM Eliyahu has not replied
 Message 221 by Coyote, posted 02-09-2014 10:45 AM Eliyahu has not replied

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


Message 207 of 342 (718837)
02-09-2014 2:48 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by Eliyahu
02-09-2014 2:13 AM


The fossil record
No evolution in the fossil record.
"Evolution is both a scientific fact and a scientific theory. Evolution is a fact in the sense that life has changed through time. In nature today, the characteristics of species are changing, and new species are arising. The fossil record is the primary factual evidence for evolution in times past, and evolution is well documented by further evidence from other scientific disciplines, including comparative anatomy, biogeography, genetics, molecular biology, and studies of viral and bacterial diseases." --- The Paleontological Society
"The fossil record of vertebrates unequivocally supports the hypothesis that vertebrates have evolved through time, from their first records in the early Paleozoic Era about 500 million years ago to the great diversity we see in the world today. The hypothesis has been strengthened by so many independent observations of fossil sequences that it has come to be regarded as a confirmed fact, as certain as the drift of continents through time or the lawful operation of gravity." --- Society of Vertebrate Paleontology
"The crowning achievement of paleontology has been the demonstration, from the history of life, of the validity of the evolutionary theory [...] The fossil record contains many well-documented examples of the transition from one species into another, as well as the origin of new physical features." --- American Geological Institute.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Eliyahu, posted 02-09-2014 2:13 AM Eliyahu has not replied

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


Message 208 of 342 (718839)
02-09-2014 3:33 AM
Reply to: Message 201 by Eliyahu
02-09-2014 12:09 AM


Re: The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution
Meaning that the fossil record, as is, does NOT agree with Darwin.
You do understand the difference between being incomplete and being in disagreement, don't you?
What I believe is irrelevant.
For once, we agree.
Thank you for admitting that you cannot answer my question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by Eliyahu, posted 02-09-2014 12:09 AM Eliyahu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by Eliyahu, posted 02-09-2014 6:36 AM edge has replied

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


Message 209 of 342 (718840)
02-09-2014 3:47 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by Eliyahu
02-09-2014 2:13 AM


Re: The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution
Then please explain why Darwin said ten or more times that the fossil record is incomplete.
If it agreed extremely strongly with him, then why keep on saying that it is imperfect??
You remain confused.
All that we know about the fossil record supports evolution.
The things we don't know, we don't know.
Okay, so you want to base your argument on what we don't know. I prefer to go with what we do know.
I know. It's difficult, isn't it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Eliyahu, posted 02-09-2014 2:13 AM Eliyahu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by Eliyahu, posted 02-09-2014 6:53 AM edge has replied

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


Message 210 of 342 (718848)
02-09-2014 6:36 AM
Reply to: Message 208 by edge
02-09-2014 3:33 AM


Re: The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution
You do understand the difference between being incomplete and being in disagreement, don't you?
Bs'd
What part of "Those who believe that the geological record is in any degree perfect, will undoubtedly at once reject my theory. " is it that you don't understand?
Edited by Eliyahu, : No reason given.


"Those who believe that the geological record is in any degree perfect, will undoubtedly at once reject my theory."

Darwin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by edge, posted 02-09-2014 3:33 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by edge, posted 02-09-2014 8:08 AM Eliyahu has not replied
 Message 227 by ringo, posted 02-09-2014 1:45 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