|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
considering there must have been millions of living neanderthals, we have a long way to go! The thing to remember is that the fossil evidence is not the foundational evidence for the Theory of Evolution -- that is the evidence we see in the world around us -- it is the test for the prediction of the theory, that the process of evolution is sufficient to explain all the fossil evidence. What this means is not that each fossil must demonstrate evolution, but that every fossil tests the theory of evolution -- meaning each fossil is an opportunity to falsify evolution. So it doesn't matter how fast or slow evolution appears to be in the geological strata. This is also why it doesn't matter that the fossils are in the deep "unwitnessed" past ... or that they can be absolutely dated ... all that is needed is relative dating (which cannot be altered by flood fantasies due to the law of superposition). 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Here I agree with you. And therefore you'll understand that I'm not going to be swayed by you post nr 5, because that is just something that somebody says, somebody I don't know, an anonymous person. Your post is spiced up by some pictures, which, for all intends and purposes, might be taken from a fairy tale book. So therefore, I won't pay too much attention to that. But the evidence in Message 5 is not something said by people -- it is objective evidence presented for you to see, and you can follow the links to articles about the evidence and if you are truly interested you can look up the peer reviewed scientific articles and even contact the authors if you have any questions.
I go by the scientific method. So you say, but you have yet to demonstrate that you know how this works or that you have taken the first step.
And I also believe that big well known scientists who were/are leaders in their field, who managed to turn their field around ... They developed a new hypothesis that had a better fit to the evidence, something all scientists try to do.
... and managed to make the rest follow them, ... They didn't make the rest follow, scientists accept new approaches when they work, when they explain the evidence better than the previous approach. Some, like Dawkins. don't accept PE as being a significant new idea, that the idea of different rates has been around for a long time, even being mentioned by Darwin, and when you look at the punctuated events they are only brief on a geological time scale, but still take many generations to occur, and that this fits in well with the known variation rates of evolution.
... like for instance Gould and Eldredge, who went with danger for life and limb, well, lets make that: with danger for job and career, ... A risk any good scientist will gladly take if they develop a new approach or develop a new hypothesis, because that is what science and the scientific method is all about. It's not for people who want to stay in their comfort zone with a fixed set of beliefs.
... against the grain, and who managed to change the field from the erronous postion: "The fossil record supports gradual Darwinistic evolution" to PE, ... To correct the common misunderstanding that Darwin proposed only gradualistic evolution (which came into the field with genetics), to revisit his view that evolution could occur a different speeds depending on evolutionary pressure, and to look at how this actually works in the evidence. You need only understand how the process of evolution works to understand this, as I mentioned in Message 63:
quote: Here are two more pictures of the Pelycodus fossil data, now with some additional Copelemur fossil data from a neighboring ecology:
These show the "gradualistic view" on the left, and the "punctuational view" on the right. Both show the data is the same: the horizontal bars represent the size distribution of the fossils in each layer, and these size distributions are seen to evolve from one generation to the next, from level to level, even when only size is measured (there are other differences as well, but this is a convenient way to document the data). Note that the only "interpretations" here are how the lines are drawn, not where the data is plotted. Note further that the first branching, between Copelemur praetatus and Pelycodus trigonodus either ends abruptly (with the extinction of Copelemur praetatus) or that Copelemur praetatus is absorbed back into the main breeding population as that population shifts strongly to the left just above the Pelycodus trigonodus labelled layer. The horizontal bars are the fossil data, not any persons interpretation nor are they "something that somebody says" ... and I can provide further links to scientific articles with this data as presented by Gingrich in the original scientific articles.
... I believe that if they say something about the fossil record, you can be reasonably sure about it. There you go falling back on putting more 'faith' in quotes\statements than on the objective data again ... ... so when Gould commented on the Foraminifera (as noted in Message 5), that indeed it showed gradualistic evolution, we can be reasonably sure about it? Curiously I am not swayed by Gould's opinion but by the fact that the Foraminifera demonstrate gradualistic evolution in a continuous and virtually complete picture covering 65 million years of evolution. Curiously, the data of Foraminifera does not show the same rate of evolution at all times, but a varying one dependent on evolutionary pressure, fully in accordance with both Darwin and modern thinking. We know that this represents gradualistic evolution because we can follow all the lines of development, all the speciation events, and observe how new species arise and then come to dominate the ecological niche that Foraminifera inhabit. Again from the reference in Message 5:
Foraminifera evolution quote: So there you have it: rapid evolution when selection pressure is low and slower evolution as selection pressure increases. All documented in the Foraminifera fossil record
Like I made clear to you, message 5 is not evidence, it is the ramblings of an anonymous nobody, not to be wasted too many words on. Denial of the evidence does not make it go away. Curious that you build your arguments solely on your interpretations of the words you quote, but don't want to look at the evidence presented in these articles. That's the logical fallacy of special pleading, also known as hypocrisy.
Remember, we don't go by what people say, and we definitely don't go by what an anonymous layman says. Then look at the data, look at what the scientists that you are so fond of quoting say about the evidence, look up the scientific articles and look for reviews by scientists -- do some actual research rather than cherry pick quotes with confirmation bias and misrepresentations.
Confirmation Bias, Cognitive Dissonance, cherry picking and ide fixes, are not the tools of an open-mind or an honest skeptic, and continued belief in the face of contradictory evidence is delusion. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Also note that I have not seen a single original quote by Eliyahu -- his quote-mines can be found complete with ellipse etc on the web
Quote Mine Project: "Sudden Appearance and
Stasis"
quote: And we know that there are examples of evolution and speciation transitions in the fossil record, The record being "poor" does not mean it is non-existent -- the conclusion Eliyahu falsely derives from the abbreviated quotes. Further it doesn't look like he has actually read anything but these quotes as quoted from creationist websites. Nothing new there. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
The difference is that a creationist does not call his assumptions about the deep past "sience". Then we are in agreement -- we don't call what creationists do science either.
Another difference is that the creationist has the fossil record to back him up in his believe that all species are created, without evolutionair link to predecessors. Proving again that you are not doing science but engaging in wishful thinking, fantasy, delusion.
... The evo's need to make up excuses why the fossil record doesn't show what they claim. Actually we just need to make scientific observations. Edited by AdminModulous, : subtitle editby 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
According to evolution, whole new species with new organs an limbs have been made, so obviously there must be some kind of mechanism for it. Nope, only someone badly ignorant about evolution, which you keep demonstrating, thinks this is how evolution works.
But I see you also don't know. New species occur when subpopulations become reproductively isolated. This has nothing to do with the evolution of organs which is a different time in the development of life on earth. All mammals have the same organs, they don't need "new" ones for speciation. You can begin learning about the real science of evolution here An introduction to evolution - Understanding Evolution 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Wrong. The difference between parents and offspring, and between brothers, is not because of evolution, but because of recombination. And since recombination can only work with the DNA available in the parents, the amount of change is limited. Wrong. The amount of change is unlimited: all DNA is composed of 4 bases repeated many times, any new arrangement -- which can occur during recombination -- can occur. You need to demonstrate that there is a limit, not blindly claim it.
So it will be absolutely impossible to breed a hamster into a crocodile. ... And curiously, evolution theory predicts that you cannot breed a hamster into a crocodile ... because that is not how evolution works.
For more about recombination see here: Genetic recombination - Wikipedia Which tells you how new genes are evolved.
There is a limit to adaptation, because the limits in the available genes in the DNA. So show us where that limitation is ... if you are up to doing science that is, otherwise just babble on in ignorance.
For new bodyparts you need new genes, and they don't pop up out of nowhere. Correct, they evolve over generations. You are wandering away from the fossil record into modern life, and in the process demonstrating even more ignorance than before -- keep up the good work in demonstrating how invalid creationism is for learning about the real world. Edited by AdminModulous, : subtitle size minimized, obnoxiously largeby 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
That was not a prediction, but an assumption. What Darwin did predict, was that future finds would fill up the gaps in the fossil record. And that predicton has been proved wrong: And gradualism was discussed in the same vein So you think the fossil record is complete?
So the one prediction that Darwin made, is proven wrong. So you think the fossil record is complete?
Darwin believed in constant gradual evolution. ... "No that was not a prediction is was an assumption" -- you can't have it both ways and not be a hypocrite.
He, just like Gould and Eldredge, was forced to find excuses for the fact that the fossil record totally disagrees with him. Do you think that the fossil record was completed in his lifetime now?
The excuse is called "punctuated equilibrium". Which is a different evolution from gradualism only in the difference in rates of evolution, a difference in quantity rather than the quality of evolution. And even then, the rates are not all that different.
In short it is the claim that evolution only takes place in nooks and crannies, and therefore we cannot find any evidence for it. Repeating your ignorance after you have been told it is wrong is delusional, and still doesn't affect reality in any way. Edited by AdminModulous, : subtitleby 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
So we agree it doesn't work like that. Can now somebody tell me how they think it DOES happen? By evolution. But you will need to learn about evolution to understand. What you think you know is full of falsehoods and misrepresentations, and you need to forget ALL of it and start over with studying the science and the scientific approach. Start here: Evolution 101 If you have trouble with any of it feel free to ask questions. Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
So PE is just an explanation for the total lack of evolution in the fossil record. So you DO think that the fossil record is complete?
So PE is just an explanation for the total lack of evolution in the fossil record. And yet you have been shown many instances of evolution in the fossil record, so you must be either delusional or willfully ignorant.
Except there where it doesn't, there an evo must say that the layers got mixed up. And where would that be?
What I want is post numbers where people PROVE that point. Read all the posts on this thread except yours. Then read all the ones that show evolution in the fossil record. Then read An introduction to evolution - Understanding Evolution Who knows, you might learn some real knowledge. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Except there where it doesn't, there an evo must say that the layers got mixed up. Inverted layers are both uncommon and extremely obvious, obvious like paging through an upside down book. The progression of change in the fossil record through successively higher levels of strata is precisely what evolution tells us to expect. The tilting or inverting of strata in some places long after they were originally laid down doesn't change anything or make them particularly difficult to interpret. Well, unless you ignore stratigraphy and relative ages of layers (via the law of superposition), in which case you can claim almost anything. But then you are believing in a lying creator. One wonders how Eliyahu explains deep time. 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