|
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 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 349 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined:
|
Eliyahu writes:
I agree with you... I'm not going to be swayed by... a fairy tale book. So therefore,... I...believe that ... The fossil record supports .... evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
You seem to know something I don't. Please enlighten me and tell me through which mechanism new species which completely new organs and limbs can be made. Let's start simple: Do you know how babies are made?
Isn't it more reasonable to say that Eldredge is saying that evolution occurs at variable rates? Maybe he says so, but not in the above quote. That's because the quote was modified to remove the parts that show what he was really saying so he it would look like he was saying something that he didn't. You have been lied to, you believed it, and now you are spreading the lie further. Stop it. ABE: Ha, this is perfect:
Eliyahu writes: I agree with you... I'm not going to be swayed by... a fairy tale book. So therefore,... I...believe that ... The fossil record supports .... evolution. Look, as we can see in the above quote, you agree that the fossil record supports evolution. Welcome to the club. Edited by Catholic Scientist, : see ABE
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
So, I'm convinced that Eliyahu is ... not interested in understanding anything, he's just trying to rile us up. That's a conclusion I've reached as well -- there isn't enough other argument to support his interpretation, and his refusal to review evidence but to dismiss it as fake is just more of same old same old. But it just makes the case for evolution stronger. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
You seem to know something I don't.
Probably true.
Please enlighten me and tell me through which mechanism new species which completely new organs and limbs can be made.
That wasn't my point. My point is that your argument relies on what we don't know rather than what we do know. It is basically an argument from ignorance. But in answer to your question, you are confused. There is no mechanism for a 'completely new organ or limb' can be formed. That is not how evolution works. So your question is not relevant.
Gradualism is not the rate of evolution, it is slow evolution.
Fine, so now you have rate as part of your definition. I say that PE is rapid evolution. Now what?
He doesn't say "evolution is wrong", he says that the fossil record does not show any evolution, and he says that Darwin was wrong when he prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search.
In that case Darwin was correct. As is Eldredge. We have filled in gaps and evolution can occur at variable rates. Not sure what your problem is then.
Maybe he says so, but not in the above quote.
I didn't say that he did, however, it does fill in the dots for you without trying to make Eldredge say that evolution is unsupported by the fossil record, when that is where his evidence comes from.
It is imperfect according to all the evo's, who cannot prove evolution with it.
Once again, you show your confusion. Science is not about proof, but the weight of evidence. You still argue from ignorance. To you an imperfect record refutes evolution. To most of us, the evidence available in the fossil record supports evolution.
With the difference that the punctuation, the gaps, are all over the fossil record, ...
This is a problem?
... and the gradual evolution is nowhere to be found. It is only assumed.
Actually, gradual evolution is evidenced by some of the examples given to you and also by stasis.
It's more like they interpreted non-evidence, the stasis, in order to come up with PE.
Actually, a lack of evidence can be evidence. They just look at it as knowledge, whereas you prefer to emphasize ignorance.
Their "evidence" was in their brainwashing.
Remember, these are the guys you present as experts. Now you are saying they were brainwashed. And yet you quote them. So, what's the story?
They were convinced evolution had happened, yet they couldn't find any proof for it.
Wrong again. No one is looking for 'proof', just evidence.
Ergo: It must have happened in nooks and crannies and therefore the evidence cannot be found; behold: PE is born!
Which just happens to be ... evolution! By the way, there was already ample evidence that evolution has happened. The real question is, what is the fossil record telling us about it.
The fossil record of course NEVER supported evolution, but we are here not talking about the fossil record changing, but about science changing its opinion about the fossil record.
Yes, what have we learned about the fossil record and what does it tell us about the way evolution occurred. And I've got news for you. Evolution is the only explanation for the fossil record. If not, please explain why there are no humans in the Cambrian record and no dinosaurs in the Precambrian.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
Eliyahu writes: It is imperfect according to all the evo's, who cannot prove evolution with it.... With the difference that the punctuation, the gaps, are all over the fossil record, and the gradual evolution is nowhere to be found. It is only assumed. What country is this? Omigod, the data is imperfect and incomplete, whatever shall we do? How will we ever figure this out? What a mystery! --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
What country is this? Omigod, the data is imperfect and incomplete, whatever shall we do? How will we ever figure this out? What a mystery! Or that we can't figure out what picture this represents:
... or make an educated guess on where the hands belong ... so I guess creationists can't do jigsaw puzzles ... because they don't know where to start. Edited by RAZD, : ...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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Fuck that obnoxious subtitle.
That is all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Fuck that obnoxious subtitle. At least the spelling is now corrected in half of them ... 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
Creationist critics often charge that evolution cannot be tested, and therefore cannot be viewed as a properly scientific subject at all. This claim is rhetorical nonsense.
The fundamentalists, by 'knowing' the answers before they start (examining evolution), and then forcing nature into the straitjacket of their discredited preconceptions, lie outside the domain of science-or of any honest intellectual inquiry. "The anatomical transition from reptiles to mammals is particularly well documented in the key anatomical change of jaw articulation to hearing bones. Only one bone, called the dentary, builds the mammalian jaw, while reptiles retain several small bones in the rear portion of the jaw. We can trace, through a lovely sequence of intermediates, the reduction of these small reptilian bones, and their eventual disappearance or exclusion from the jaw, including the remarkable passage of the reptilian articulation bones into the mammalian middle ear (where they became our malleus and incus, or hammer and anvil). We have even found the transitional form that creationists often proclaim inconceivable in theory for how can jawbones become ear bones if intermediaries must live with an unhinged jaw before the new joint forms? The transitional species maintains a double jaw joint, with both the old articulation of reptiles (quadrate to articular bones) and the new connection of mammals (squamosal to dentary) already in place! Thus, one joint could be lost, with passage of its bones into the ear, while the other articulation continued to guarantee a properly hinged jaw. Still, our creationist incubi, who would never let facts spoil a favorite argument, refuse to yield, and continue to assert the absence of all transitional forms by ignoring those that have been found, and continuing to taunt us with admittedly frequent examples of absence. Stephen Jay Gould ========== "Of course in science there are things that are open to doubt and things need to be discussed. But among the things that science does know, evolution is about as certain as anything we know." "The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity." "If every fossil were magicked away, the comparative study of modern organisms, of how their patterns of resemblances, especially of their genetic sequences, are distributed among species, and of how species are distributed among continents and islands, would still demonstrate, beyond all sane doubt, that our history is evolutionary, and that all living creatures are cousins. Fossils are a bonus. A welcome bonus, to be sure, but not an essential one. It is worth remembering this when creationists go on (as they tediously do) about "gaps" in the fossil record. The fossil record could be one big gap, and the evidence for evolution would still be overwhelmingly strong. At the same time, if we had only fossils and no other evidence, the fact of evolution would again be overwhelmingly supported. As things stand, we are blessed with both." Richard Dawkins ========== "Today, the theory of evolution is an accepted fact for everyone but a fundamentalist minority, whose objections are based not on reasoning but on doctrinaire adherence to religious principles." Dr. James D. Watson ========== And to sum it all up: "A lie repeated often enough convinces the liar, and many creationists may now have forgotten that they are lying at all." Frederick Turner, Professor of Arts and Humanities, University of DallasReligious 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 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
quote: The problem for you is that Darwin predicted the same thing that Gould and Eldredge would later predict: "Only a small portion of the world has been geologically explored. Only organic beings of certain classes can be preserved in a fossil condition, at least in any great number. Widely ranging species vary most, and varieties are often at first local, -- both causes rendering the discovery of intermediate links less likely. Local varieties will not spread into other and distant regions until they are considerably modified and improved; and when they do spread, if discovered in a geological formation, they will appear as if suddenly created there, and will be simply classed as new species." [Charles Darwin, Origin of Species 1st Edition 1859, p.439] Darwin described Punctuated Equilibria as part of the original work on Evolution. How can PE prove Darwin wrong when Darwin fully accepted PE?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined:
|
RAZD writes: Or that we can't figure out what picture this represents: this is way, way less insulting than the time i asked randman to play connect the dots Edited by AdminModulous, : edited subtitle; obnoxiously large on topic lists
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
The problem for you is that Darwin predicted the same thing that Gould and Eldredge would later predict: "Only a small portion of the world has been geologically explored. Only organic beings of certain classes can be preserved in a fossil condition, at least in any great number. Widely ranging species vary most, and varieties are often at first local, -- both causes rendering the discovery of intermediate links less likely. Local varieties will not spread into other and distant regions until they are considerably modified and improved; and when they do spread, if discovered in a geological formation, they will appear as if suddenly created there, and will be simply classed as new species." [Charles Darwin, Origin of Species 1st Edition 1859, p.439] Darwin described Punctuated Equilibria as part of the original work on Evolution. How can PE prove Darwin wrong when Darwin fully accepted PE? Curiously, Eliyahu has been told this previously, but his worldview bubble doesn't allow reality to make a dent. Prediction: the quote mines will continue ... without shame. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
Eliyahu writes: Evolution is occurring all the time. Or so you think. Every reproductive event, every birth of a child or a kitten or a tadpole, contains a tiny bit of evolution because offspring are different from parents, and the differences are inherited by the next generation which will contain yet more differences.
Environment cannot make new species. Actually, nobody knows what can. Wrong on both counts. Evolution through selection of existing variation and the creation of new variation is what produces adaptation to changing environments. This has been demonstrated experimentally many times with short-lived species like bacteria.
It always takes millions of years to come up with a fundamentally different new species. The time it takes to create a new species is more accurately measured in generations, not years. Some bacteria can produce several generations in an hour, while humans take a century. A tiny amount of evolutionary change accumulates in the genomes of each successive generation, and across many generations the accumulated change can grow very large, sufficient to eventually produce a new species. In a stable environment species can survive largely unchanged for millions and millions of years, but in a changing environment new species can be created in perhaps only a thousand generations, far far less than the millions of years you claim.
Species don't change overnight in a totally new species. If evolution happens at all, it has to be gradual. Therefore: Gradualism = evolution, and the other way around. If you're taking a snapshot every generation, then of course evolution is gradual. But if you're taking a snapshot every ten thousand years then you can't capture that gradual change, and the incompleteness of the paleontological record means that we only get snapshots at widely separated intervals.
Clear what? He does NOT hold by an imperfect fossil record. All paleontologists understand the fossil record is imperfect. My God, man, upland regions almost never produce fossils (they're areas of net erosion, not deposition), and entire environments and geologic eras have descended into subduction zones to be lost forever. How could anyone still in their sane mind consider the fossil record anything but imperfect. Back in Darwin's time the paucity of evidence for gradualism seemed explained by the comparatively little fossil evidence that existed, but in the modern era it became clear that lack of evidence for gradualism was real. But at no point in this process did any paleontologist conclude that the fossil record is now perfect. It's sufficient to conclude that the evidence of gradualism is limited, but perfect? No.
And according to PE, that what did happen, happened in out of the way small places, and therefore we cannot find any evidence of it. We're over 200 messages in and you still can't get it right. It is thought that much evolutionary change occurs in small populations in small geographic regions, greatly reducing the likelihood of fossils and of their being discovered.
So the fossil record shows us that there is no evidence of evolution. For the fossil record to show no evidence of evolution would require all species to be found in all geologic eras, but that's not what the fossil record shows. What the fossil record actually shows is increasing difference from modern forms with increasing depth, a record of continual change over time, evolution.
Oh. Well, I don't remember anything like that. That's of course my bad memory, but please give me some numbers of the posts where I can find that. Thanks in advance. See almost any message in the thread. I've never seen "playing dumb" employed as a debate strategy with such determination before.
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. Again, they're talking about gradualism, not evolution. The next person you quote says exactly that: There is no non-gradual evolution. No one anywhere here has ever claimed there is non-gradual evolution, yet you keep pulling out this objection as if they are. You obviously don't understand what is being said. Maybe the fact that you're not a native speaker of English is getting in the way. Again, you're quoting paleontologists writing about the absence of evidence of gradualism, not the absence of evidence for evolution. What you're getting confused about is the gradual generational change of everyday life that is far too rapid to be captured on geologic scales of tens of thousands of years.
Yes it is. So we went from a fossil record that supported gradualism, to a fossil record that does not support it. No, of course not, the fossil record was never strongly representative of gradualism.
So we went from stasis being proof for non-evolution to stasis being a part of evolution. As has already been explained, stable environments do not produce much evolutionary change. Life will change in reaction to changing environments.
Many times an about-face has occurred, and undoubtedly many more are going to come in the evo theory. So it is best not to take the statements of evolutionists too seriously, because tomorrow they may hold the opposite. I'm sure we all earnestly hope that evolutionary theory will change to reflect new evidence or improved insight, but you don't seem to have a clue about how evolutionary theory has changed so far. --Percy Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Get rid of large font and color in subtitle.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
So the fossil record shows us that there is no evidence [that would convince a hard-core creationist] of evolution. There, fixed it for you. With my addition that statement is now accurate. As we have seen with Faith, and now you, there is no amount of any kind of evidence that will convince a hard-core creationist of the accuracy of the theory of evolution because they simply will not or can not see that evidence! While they may pretend to follow the scientific method, their bias makes that impossible. And as Heinlein noted: Belief gets in the way of learning. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Of course Faith (and Ham) would likely argue that you are making assumptions about the unknowable deep past that are not valid because you weren't there ... of course that would also hold for Eliyahu ... but why would creationists worry about that eh?
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)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024