Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8796 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-21-2017 7:01 PM
357 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Upcoming Birthdays: Flyer75
Post Volume:
Total: 820,979 Year: 25,585/21,208 Month: 1,212/2,338 Week: 333/450 Day: 26/72 Hour: 0/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1617
18
1920
...
23Next
Author Topic:   The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution
Eliyahu
Member (Idle past 367 days)
Posts: 286
From: Judah
Joined: 07-23-2013


Message 256 of 342 (719057)
02-11-2014 12:28 AM
Reply to: Message 255 by RAZD
02-10-2014 10:26 PM


Fossils disprove evolution
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?

Bs'd

The difference is that a creationist does not call his assumptions about the deep past "sience".

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. The evo's need to make up excuses why the fossil record doesn't show what they claim.

Edited by Eliyahu, : No reason given.

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 255 by RAZD, posted 02-10-2014 10:26 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by RAZD, posted 02-11-2014 7:39 AM Eliyahu has not yet responded
 Message 276 by edge, posted 02-11-2014 10:18 AM Eliyahu has not yet responded

    
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 409 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


(1)
Message 257 of 342 (719058)
02-11-2014 12:35 AM



    
Eliyahu
Member (Idle past 367 days)
Posts: 286
From: Judah
Joined: 07-23-2013


Message 258 of 342 (719061)
02-11-2014 1:42 AM
Reply to: Message 244 by edge
02-10-2014 3:01 PM


Re: Fossils disprove evolution
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.

Bs'd

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.

But I see you also don't know.



"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 244 by edge, posted 02-10-2014 3:01 PM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by RAZD, posted 02-11-2014 7:45 AM Eliyahu has not yet responded
 Message 275 by edge, posted 02-11-2014 10:15 AM Eliyahu has not yet responded

    
Eliyahu
Member (Idle past 367 days)
Posts: 286
From: Judah
Joined: 07-23-2013


Message 259 of 342 (719065)
02-11-2014 1:57 AM
Reply to: Message 253 by Percy
02-10-2014 8:40 PM


Fossils disprove evolution
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.

Bs'd

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.

So it will be absolutely impossible to breed a hamster into a crocodile. Also in thousands of generations, because the genes for it are simply not available.

For more about recombination see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_recombination

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.

There is a limit to adaptation, because the limits in the available genes in the DNA.

For new bodyparts you need new genes, and they don't pop up out of nowhere.



"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 253 by Percy, posted 02-10-2014 8:40 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by Tangle, posted 02-11-2014 2:14 AM Eliyahu has responded
 Message 266 by RAZD, posted 02-11-2014 7:57 AM Eliyahu has responded
 Message 270 by Percy, posted 02-11-2014 8:48 AM Eliyahu has responded
 Message 278 by edge, posted 02-11-2014 10:46 AM Eliyahu has responded

    
Eliyahu
Member (Idle past 367 days)
Posts: 286
From: Judah
Joined: 07-23-2013


Message 260 of 342 (719067)
02-11-2014 2:08 AM
Reply to: Message 250 by Taq
02-10-2014 6:00 PM


Fossils disprove evolution
The problem for you is that Darwin predicted the same thing that Gould and Eldredge would later predict:

Bs'd

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:

"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
Niles Eldredge is an evolutionist en co-inventor of the punctuated equilibrium theory

So the one prediction that Darwin made, is proven wrong.

"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?

Darwin believed in constant gradual evolution. He, just like Gould and Eldredge, was forced to find excuses for the fact that the fossil record totally disagrees with him.

The excuse is called "punctuated equilibrium".

In short it is the claim that evolution only takes place in nooks and crannies, and therefore we cannot find any evidence for it.



"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 250 by Taq, posted 02-10-2014 6:00 PM Taq has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by RAZD, posted 02-11-2014 8:08 AM Eliyahu has not yet responded
 Message 277 by edge, posted 02-11-2014 10:41 AM Eliyahu has responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5102
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.2


(2)
Message 261 of 342 (719068)
02-11-2014 2:14 AM
Reply to: Message 259 by Eliyahu
02-11-2014 1:57 AM


Re: Fossils disprove evolution
Eliyahu writes:

So it will be absolutely impossible to breed a hamster into a crocodile. Also in thousands of generations, because the genes for it are simply not available.

I think we might make some progress if you didn't post anything for a week and instead spent your time trying to find a single evolutionary biologist that believes that evolutionary theory says that anything like this is possible.

Once you've done that and found that no biologists thinks that this is how evolution works, you need to ask yourself what you've got wrong. You've built yourself a straw man here - and elsewhere - and you need to go looking for it if you want to be more successful when you argue with people who actually know a little bit about the subject.

quote:
For new bodyparts you need new genes, and they don't pop up out of nowhere.

Well, quite. That's a good start.


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by Eliyahu, posted 02-11-2014 1:57 AM Eliyahu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by Eliyahu, posted 02-11-2014 6:32 AM Tangle has responded

  
Eliyahu
Member (Idle past 367 days)
Posts: 286
From: Judah
Joined: 07-23-2013


Message 262 of 342 (719072)
02-11-2014 6:32 AM
Reply to: Message 261 by Tangle
02-11-2014 2:14 AM


Re: Fossils disprove evolution
Bs'd

So we agree it doesn't work like that.

Can now somebody tell me how they think it DOES happen?

Edited by AdminModulous, : subtitle shrinkage



"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 261 by Tangle, posted 02-11-2014 2:14 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by RAZD, posted 02-11-2014 8:12 AM Eliyahu has not yet responded
 Message 271 by Percy, posted 02-11-2014 8:51 AM Eliyahu has not yet responded
 Message 283 by Tangle, posted 02-11-2014 1:52 PM Eliyahu has responded

    
Eliyahu
Member (Idle past 367 days)
Posts: 286
From: Judah
Joined: 07-23-2013


Message 263 of 342 (719074)
02-11-2014 6:59 AM
Reply to: Message 253 by Percy
02-10-2014 8:40 PM


Fossils disprove evolution
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.

Bs'd

Looks to me we're saying the same thing: "PE says that evolution happened in nooks and crannies, and therefore we cannot find any evidence of it."

So PE is just an explanation for the total lack of evolution in the fossil record.

And since species pop up suddenly, without any link to supposed predecessors, and since those species don't change during the millions of years they are present in the fossil record, therefore they are totally in line with the creation story.

So the fossil record confirms creation, and disproves evolution.

Is that really so hard to understand?

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.

Except there where it doesn't, there an evo must say that the layers got mixed up.

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.

Please give me some numbers of posts in which people prove that my notion of what Eldredge says is wrong.

Please take good notice that I don't want people SAYING that my notion of what Eldredge says is wrong, because everybody can say whatever he wants.

What I want is post numbers where people PROVE that point.

In the meantime I post some more Eldredge:
.
.
.

"The record jumps, and all the evidence shows that the record is real: the gaps we see reflect real events in lifes 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 flatly fails to substantiate this expectation of finely graded change."

Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p. 163

.
.
.



"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 253 by Percy, posted 02-10-2014 8:40 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by RAZD, posted 02-11-2014 8:19 AM Eliyahu has not yet responded
 Message 272 by Percy, posted 02-11-2014 9:29 AM Eliyahu has not yet responded
 Message 274 by edge, posted 02-11-2014 10:11 AM Eliyahu has responded
 Message 280 by Percy, posted 02-11-2014 11:15 AM Eliyahu has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19091
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 264 of 342 (719075)
02-11-2014 7:39 AM
Reply to: Message 256 by Eliyahu
02-11-2014 12:28 AM


Re: Fossils show evolution
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 edit


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


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by Eliyahu, posted 02-11-2014 12:28 AM Eliyahu has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19091
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 265 of 342 (719076)
02-11-2014 7:45 AM
Reply to: Message 258 by Eliyahu
02-11-2014 1:42 AM


Reality disproves creationist interpretations of evolution
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

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIntro.shtml


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


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Eliyahu, posted 02-11-2014 1:42 AM Eliyahu has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19091
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 266 of 342 (719080)
02-11-2014 7:57 AM
Reply to: Message 259 by Eliyahu
02-11-2014 1:57 AM


Re: Fossils and life demonstrate evolution
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: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_recombination

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 large


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


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by Eliyahu, posted 02-11-2014 1:57 AM Eliyahu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by Eliyahu, posted 02-12-2014 1:46 AM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19091
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 267 of 342 (719081)
02-11-2014 8:08 AM
Reply to: Message 260 by Eliyahu
02-11-2014 2:08 AM


Re: Fossils show evolution
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, : subtitle


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


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by Eliyahu, posted 02-11-2014 2:08 AM Eliyahu has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19091
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 268 of 342 (719082)
02-11-2014 8:12 AM
Reply to: Message 262 by Eliyahu
02-11-2014 6:32 AM


Re: evolution 101
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.


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


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by Eliyahu, posted 02-11-2014 6:32 AM Eliyahu has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19091
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 269 of 342 (719083)
02-11-2014 8:19 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by Eliyahu
02-11-2014 6:59 AM


evolution is visible in the fossil record -- for those who know what evolution means
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 http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIntro.shtml

Who knows, you might learn some real knowledge.

Edited by RAZD, : ..


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


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Eliyahu, posted 02-11-2014 6:59 AM Eliyahu has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 16036
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 270 of 342 (719086)
02-11-2014 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 259 by Eliyahu
02-11-2014 1:57 AM


Re: Fossils disprove evolution
Eliyahu writes:

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.

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.

In sexual species each reproductive event includes recombination and mutation. Humans average in the neighborhood of a hundred mutations with each act of conception. These mutations are heritable and will be passed on to the next generation, accumulating from one generation to the next.

So as I said, every reproductive event contains a tiny bit of evolution.

There is a limit to adaptation, because the limits in the available genes in the DNA.

Because mutation produces new alleles and genes, adaptation can be spectacularly wide ranging.

For new body parts you need new genes, and they don't pop up out of nowhere.

Do you see anyone here (or anywhere for that matter) arguing that evolution produces new body parts? I don't think so.

The basic body plans that emerged in the Cambrian Explosion are not thought likely to change. Evolution works with what is already there and through mutation and selection modifies it to produce better adaptation.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by Eliyahu, posted 02-11-2014 1:57 AM Eliyahu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by Eliyahu, posted 02-12-2014 7:37 AM Percy has responded

    
RewPrev1
...
1617
18
1920
...
23Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017