Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Some Evidence Against Evolution
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 1 of 309 (69305)
11-25-2003 9:34 PM


Science reporter Richard Milton says concerning the theory of evolution : "...the inability of Darwinists to demonstrate to a thinking member of the public {non Darwinist} conclusive scientific evidence to substantiate the theory ...."
The larger context for the above statement is the fact that this criticism is specifically directed at the British Museum of Natural History at Teddington. With this said, I ask what museum actually possesses and displays the intermediary missing link bones ?
Every museum I have encountered diplays fake bones made of rubber and plaster. These pieces are always surrounded by impressive visual presentations that insert the bones as the missing links.
This is outrageous as it appears these museum displays are presenting what they HOPE to find but have not. If there is a paucity of missing link bones in museums could this mean that there are none ?

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Rei, posted 11-25-2003 9:45 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied
 Message 3 by Chiroptera, posted 11-25-2003 9:47 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 5 by Coragyps, posted 11-25-2003 10:01 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 7 by Darwin's Terrier, posted 11-26-2003 5:42 AM Cold Foreign Object has replied
 Message 9 by Dr Jack, posted 11-26-2003 9:37 AM Cold Foreign Object has replied
 Message 48 by JIM, posted 11-30-2003 11:55 AM Cold Foreign Object has replied
 Message 112 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-06-2003 3:10 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Rei
Member (Idle past 7013 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 2 of 309 (69308)
11-25-2003 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Cold Foreign Object
11-25-2003 9:34 PM


quote:
Science reporter Richard Milton says concerning the theory of evolution : "...the inability of Darwinists to demonstrate to a thinking member of the public {non Darwinist} conclusive scientific evidence to substantiate the theory ...."
Actually, 43% of Americans even believe in Theistic evolution (not counting atheistic evolution/ so that's not correct.
quote:
The larger context for the above statement is the fact that this criticism is specifically directed at the British Museum of Natural History at Teddington. With this said, I ask what museum actually possesses and displays the intermediary missing link bones ?
Bones of missing links, or fossils that you think should but there but aren't?
There are no fossils that we think should be there but aren't. For example, here is the smooth transition from humans to jawless fish:
) H. Sapiens Sapiens (us) (40kya)
2) H. Sapiens (500kya)
3) H. Erectus (1.8 Mya)
4) H. Habilis (2.5 Mya)
5) A. Africanus (3.0 Mya)
6) A. Afarensus (3.9 Mya)
7) Ardipithecus Ramidus (5.8 Mya)
8) Orrorin Tugenesis (6 Mya)
9) Sahelanthropus tchadensis (7Mya)
10) Kenyapithecus (16 Mya)
11) Dryopithecus (~16Mya)
12) Proconsul Africanus (~20 Mya)
13) Aegyptopithicus (~30 Mya)
14) Parapithecus (~32 Mya)
15) Amphipithecus, Pondaungia (~35 Mya)
16) Pelycodus, etc (~50 Mya)
17) Cantius (~50 Mya)
18) Palaechthon, Purgatorius (~60 Mya)
19) Kennalestes, Asioryctes (~80 Mya)
20) Pariadens kirklandi (95 Mya)
21) Vincelestes neuquenianus (135 Mya)
22) Steropodon galmani (~140 Mya)
23) Kielantherium and Aegialodon (~140 Mya)
24) Endotherium (very latest Jurassic, 147 Ma)
25) Peramus (~155 Mya)
26) Eozostrodon, Morganucodon, Haldanodon (~205 Mya)
27) Kuehneotherium (~205 Mya)
28) Sinoconodon (~208 Mya)
29) Adelobasileus cromptoni (225 Mya)
30) Pachygenelus, Diarthrognathus (earliest Jurassic, 209 Mya)
31) Oligokyphus, Kayentatherium (early Jurassic, 208 Mya)
32) Probelesodon (~225 Mya?)
33) Exaeretodon (239 Mya)
34) Probainognathus (239-235 Mya)
35) Diademodon (240 Mya)
36) Cynognathus (240 Mya)
37) Thrinaxodon (~240 Mya)
38) Dvinia (Permocynodon) (~245 Mya)
39) Procynosuchus (~245 Mya)
40) Biarmosuchia (~255 Mya)
41) Dimetrodon, Sphenacodon (~270 Mya)
42) Varanops (~275 Mya)
43) Haptodus (~290 Mya)
44) Archaeothyris (~315 Mya)
45) Clepsydrops (~325 Mya)
46) Protoclepsydrops haplous (~325 Mya)
47) Paleothyris (~325 Mya)
48) Hylonomus, Paleothyris (~325 Mya)
49) Limnoscelis, Tseajaia (~325 Mya)
50) Proterogyrinus or another early anthracosaur (~335 Mya)
51) Temnospondyls (Pholidogaster) (330 Mya)
52) Labyrinthodonts (eg Pholidogaster, Pteroplax) (~360 Mya)
53) Hynerpeton, Acanthostega, and Ichthyostega (~365 Mya)
54) Obruchevichthys (370 Mya)
55) Panderichthys, Elpistostege (370 Mya)
56) Eusthenopteron, Sterropterygion (~375 Mya)
57) Osteolepis (~385 Mya)
58) Palaeoniscoids (Cheirolepis, Mimia) (~400 Mya)
59) Acanthodians(?) (~420 Mya)
Tell me where you think a "missing link" should be. If you can't name a specific, don't bring up the subject.
quote:
Every museum I have encountered diplays fake bones made of rubber and plaster. These pieces are always surrounded by impressive visual presentations that insert the bones as the missing links.
Please be more specific. Are you talking about entire skeletons, or just places where part of the skeleton was missing? If you're talking about the latter case, what do you expect, entire skeletons to be miraculously preserved intact? Think about the situation for a second: what happens when you throw a vase? You get some big pieces, some small pieces, and some things pretty much turned to dust. That's the same thing that happens when bones get buried under kilotons of rock under pressure and heat.
Complete skeletons are incredibly rare, and very valuable.
quote:
This is outrageous as it appears these museum displays are presenting what they HOPE to find but have not. If there is a paucity of missing link bones in museums could this mean that there are none ?
You need to clarify which concept of "missing link" you're referring to in your statement of "missing link bones". Do you mean bones that belong to a supposed "missing link" in human evolution, or bones of a species for which a particular museum doesn't happen to own a complete skeleton for? Or are you trying to assert that there is no way to identify an organism without a 100% skeleton?
Again, we need specifics before we can comment, not vague assertions.
------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-25-2003 9:34 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Brad McFall, posted 11-25-2003 9:51 PM Rei has not replied
 Message 6 by Minnemooseus, posted 11-26-2003 12:15 AM Rei has not replied
 Message 25 by Sonic, posted 11-27-2003 12:48 AM Rei has not replied
 Message 72 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-01-2003 8:28 PM Rei has replied
 Message 73 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-01-2003 8:36 PM Rei has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 309 (69309)
11-25-2003 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Cold Foreign Object
11-25-2003 9:34 PM


plenty of non-missing links
Willowtree,
Kathleen Hunt has written a pretty good list of transitional species between some of the major animal groups. Look at the lists. They are quite long and detailed. And the species depicted show the necessary "step-by-step" transitions, and occur at the right time in the geological record. There are very few significant gaps.
Now whatever the museums display to the public, scientists study the original fossils. Here is a description of one fossil, that of the Morganucodons. Note the detail. The study of these fossils are very detailed, and these are exactly the details one sees transforming when examining the evolutionary lineages.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-25-2003 9:34 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 4 of 309 (69310)
11-25-2003 9:51 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Rei
11-25-2003 9:45 PM


Srill looks rough or greasy to me. But oh, well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Rei, posted 11-25-2003 9:45 PM Rei has not replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 5 of 309 (69314)
11-25-2003 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Cold Foreign Object
11-25-2003 9:34 PM


Every museum I have encountered diplays fake bones made of rubber and plaster.
The Royal Tyrell, in Drumheller, Alberta, does this in many cases. But "fake bones" is rather a loaded phrase for a plaster cast painstakingly made to precisely reproduce the original, don't you think?
And let's not get started on Milton....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-25-2003 9:34 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 6 of 309 (69339)
11-26-2003 12:15 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Rei
11-25-2003 9:45 PM


Spin-off the 'list of 59'
It sure seems to me, that if you could spin-off that list of 59, into a new topic complete with online references, you would potentially have a "post of the year".
As it sits, it's just a big list of words, that doesn't mean hardly anything to me.
Moose (the non-admin mode)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Rei, posted 11-25-2003 9:45 PM Rei has not replied

Darwin's Terrier
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 309 (69350)
11-26-2003 5:42 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Cold Foreign Object
11-25-2003 9:34 PM


Science reporter Richard Milton says concerning the theory of evolution : "...the inability of Darwinists to demonstrate to a thinking member of the public {non Darwinist} conclusive scientific evidence to substantiate the theory ...."
The larger context for the above statement
That’s a statement? It looks like the first half of a sentence to me. And who cares what Milton says anyway? Science doesn’t derive its power from authority, but from evidence. Some people can never be convinced.
is the fact that this criticism is specifically directed at the British Museum of Natural History at Teddington.
It’s in South Kensington, in west central London. Which is nowhere near Teddington, which is in Middlesex (as was). Someone needs to get their facts straight, and this is indicative of the depth of research behind your claims.
With this said,
What said? ‘Darwinists’ not allegedly being able to demonstrate evolution to creationists is a criticism of a museum? Erm, what on earth are you on about?
I ask what museum actually possesses and displays the intermediary missing link bones ?
Well the Natural History Museum does, that’s for certain. Tucked away through doors the public doesn’t usually get to go through, there are rabbit warrens of corridors, all lined with grey metal sliding door fronted cabinets. Slide back a door at random, and there’s wooden drawers. Each contains a dozen fossils, each in a lidded cardboard box lined with cotton wool and labelled with names like Acanthostega gunneri.
I have myself held some of these fossils; accompanied by Per Ahlberg, I have held the skull of a 340 million year old tetrapod, and a chunk of rock of a similar age, still being prepared, in which I could clearly see a shoulder and humerus.
Would you like me to explain about all the ‘missing’ links that have been found which reveal the course of tetrapod evolution? Guess what? They are just about all in museums. The actual, real fossils.
And many other museums do have these things too, because the NHM has from time to time put on exhibitions of material loaned from other museums. Earlier this year, for instance, they had an exhibition of many of the fossils -- the real fossils -- which confirm the dinosaur-bird link. I have seen them and photographed them. Fossils like ‘fuzzy raptor’ (not sure if it’s got a proper name yet), both the slab and counterslab; at least two Archaeopteryx (their own ‘London’ one and the Berlin one for sure, maybe another (altogether eight have been found)... I was so bowled over that I didn’t think to count up what I saw!); and many of the recently unearthed Chinese Liaoning fossils. Each one a non-missing link.
Is all this material on display? Of course not. Is it real and in museums? Absolutely.
Every museum I have encountered diplays fake bones made of rubber and plaster.
Painstakingly moulded from the originals. The real things are rare and precious. Would you rather see a precise, moulded-from-the-original model at your local museum, or have to cross half the planet to see the original? Personally, I’d rather see the original too; but since I cannot, an exact replica will do. Nobody is being deceived.
These pieces are always surrounded by impressive visual presentations that insert the bones as the missing links.
I’ve no idea what you mean by this. Do you mean adding in bones where the original has none... because a mounted Triceratops would look stupid with three legs and some spine missing? Or do you mean that the displays are entirely made-up tosh, and the so-called missing links are still missing?
This is outrageous as it appears these museum displays are presenting what they HOPE to find but have not.
I suppose you could say that every museum HOPES to have its own T rex... but that’s not, I’d guess, what you’re getting at.
Yep, it would be outrageous, if it were true. But since it isn’t true, there’s no cause for creationist celebration.
If there is a paucity of missing link bones in museums could this mean that there are none ?
Nope. It just means that there aren’t enough of the really important fossils to go round all the museums that might want them. Anyone can have a trilobite. Not everyone can have an Ichthyostega.
Here’s another ‘missing link’ for you, btw. The real fossil.
Here’s some more. The real fossils.
You can see yet more here.
Therre’s thousands and thousands of these ‘missing link’ fossils. But not all museums can have all of them.
Remind me again what the problem was?
TTFN, DT
[This message has been edited by Darwinsterrier, 11-26-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-25-2003 9:34 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by mark24, posted 11-26-2003 9:27 AM Darwin's Terrier has not replied
 Message 21 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-26-2003 9:59 PM Darwin's Terrier has replied
 Message 68 by Brad McFall, posted 12-01-2003 1:05 PM Darwin's Terrier has not replied
 Message 76 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-01-2003 8:56 PM Darwin's Terrier has replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 8 of 309 (69368)
11-26-2003 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Darwin's Terrier
11-26-2003 5:42 AM


Darwinsterrier,
British Museum of Natural History at Teddington.
The British Museum & the Natural History Museum are two entirely different entities as well, & neither is located at Teddington.
Mark

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Darwin's Terrier, posted 11-26-2003 5:42 AM Darwin's Terrier has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by PaulK, posted 11-26-2003 9:37 AM mark24 has replied
 Message 14 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-26-2003 6:36 PM mark24 has replied

Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 9 of 309 (69372)
11-26-2003 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Cold Foreign Object
11-25-2003 9:34 PM


Richard Milton, as in author of 'Shattering the Myths of Darwinism'?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-25-2003 9:34 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-26-2003 9:27 PM Dr Jack has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 10 of 309 (69373)
11-26-2003 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by mark24
11-26-2003 9:27 AM


Just to be pedantic the "Natural History Museum" is more properly known as "The British Museum of Natural History".
And Milton gets the location right - Kensington. Willowtree is responsible for that error.
Mind you considering the opinion of an anti-science crank like Milton worthwhile evidence of anything is a far greater error.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by mark24, posted 11-26-2003 9:27 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by mark24, posted 11-26-2003 9:52 AM PaulK has not replied
 Message 12 by Darwin's Terrier, posted 11-26-2003 9:59 AM PaulK has not replied
 Message 15 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-26-2003 6:43 PM PaulK has replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 11 of 309 (69376)
11-26-2003 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by PaulK
11-26-2003 9:37 AM


PaulK,
Just to be pedantic the "Natural History Museum" is more properly known as "The British Museum of Natural History".
It isn't. The official title is The Natural History Museum. It officially changed its name in 1963 when it was officially separated from the British Museum, by act of parliament, no less!
Mark

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by PaulK, posted 11-26-2003 9:37 AM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by darlostt, posted 12-15-2003 2:06 PM mark24 has not replied

Darwin's Terrier
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 309 (69377)
11-26-2003 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by PaulK
11-26-2003 9:37 AM


Just to be pedantic the "Natural History Museum" is more properly known as "The British Museum of Natural History".
Just to be even more pedantic, the institution we're talking about was called the 'British Museum (Natural History)' until sometime in the 1980s, when it became simply the 'Natural History Museum', which is what it's called now. (See their website!) Though just to be confusing, their catalogue numbers are prefixed 'BMNH', which clearly translates as you said.
(Edit: Argh, beaten to the punch by Mark! However, while the Act separated it off in '63, 'British Museum (Natural History)' was what it was (still?) called in the mid-70s when I used to go regularly. David Attenborough mentions the name change as being in the '80s in Life on Air, and I'd guess that would have been in '86 when the Geological Museum was incorporated.)
[This message has been edited by Darwinsterrier, 11-26-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by PaulK, posted 11-26-2003 9:37 AM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by mark24, posted 11-26-2003 12:12 PM Darwin's Terrier has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 13 of 309 (69414)
11-26-2003 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Darwin's Terrier
11-26-2003 9:59 AM


I stand corrected, sir!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Darwin's Terrier, posted 11-26-2003 9:59 AM Darwin's Terrier has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 14 of 309 (69454)
11-26-2003 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by mark24
11-26-2003 9:27 AM


I was inaccurate, this museum is a few miles to the east of Teddington, also there should be millions and millions of bones for evolution to be true on the scale you claim it to be. The problem I have with the real bones and fossils is that they are locked away just like the Catholic Church locks away their treasures in vaults, which means we have to take someones word about the authenticity, which sounds to me like the same criticism that science levels at religion for having to take their word on it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by mark24, posted 11-26-2003 9:27 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Darwin's Terrier, posted 11-27-2003 5:16 AM Cold Foreign Object has replied
 Message 38 by mark24, posted 11-27-2003 7:14 AM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 15 of 309 (69455)
11-26-2003 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by PaulK
11-26-2003 9:37 AM


Richard Milton is no crank. He is a member of Mensa the I Q society group and of course he is not a creationist. You sound like a religious fundementalist in your unfounded slander toward Milton, which means you are deficent on arguments to respond with pertaining to his questions about Darwinism. Instead you attack the question asker which deflects away from besting him with merits of truth. Milton has legitimate problems with the theory and all you Darwinists can do is attack him personally.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by PaulK, posted 11-26-2003 9:37 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by NosyNed, posted 11-26-2003 6:56 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied
 Message 17 by Chiroptera, posted 11-26-2003 6:59 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 18 by NosyNed, posted 11-26-2003 7:11 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 33 by PaulK, posted 11-27-2003 2:37 AM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024