Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,437 Year: 3,694/9,624 Month: 565/974 Week: 178/276 Day: 18/34 Hour: 2/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Some Evidence Against Evolution
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9003
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 16 of 309 (69458)
11-26-2003 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Cold Foreign Object
11-26-2003 6:43 PM


WT, I think you will could choose to take the comments about Milton as a warning that your sources may not be the best. Of course, the wording of the warning leaves a lot to be desired. Lets just restate the warning. Milton may or may not be a crank but there is certainly a lot of complete garbage on the web for you to be fooled by. Watch out for them, many mislead deliberately, some out and out lie.
However, the overwhelming bulk of the posts in response to your posts has been directly aimed at the evidence. I notice that your posts contain no references to anything but the very partial quote of Miltons. Your idea that the museums don't have the bones is based on nothing but your personal perusal of museums. How many have you been to by the way? This is hardly telling evidence against evolution is it?
There are way too many specimens to list them all or any such thing. If you had specific questions then they could be refered to for you.
Making assertions without any backup will not impress anyone but the gullible. This doesn't say that you have to supply detailed backup at the point of your first assertion. However, if the assertion is controversial or is assailed then you need to be able to support it. Good luck.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-26-2003 6:43 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-03-2003 8:00 PM NosyNed has replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 309 (69459)
11-26-2003 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Cold Foreign Object
11-26-2003 6:43 PM


Willowtree, I wouldn't be so quick to charge others of slander:
EvC Forum: Considerations of Christ's Resurrection
Added: And, by the way, you started this thread, and you ended up getting a few replies. While I find the locations of all the museums in England a fascinating topic, I'm wondering whether you will be answering any of us?
[This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 11-26-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-26-2003 6:43 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9003
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 18 of 309 (69465)
11-26-2003 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Cold Foreign Object
11-26-2003 6:43 PM


Try having a look over this review of his work and see what you think. If you disagree with it will you tell me where it got the book wrong?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-26-2003 6:43 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3069 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 19 of 309 (69490)
11-26-2003 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Dr Jack
11-26-2003 9:37 AM


Yes, the same Richard Milton who wrote the book in question.

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by NosyNed, posted 11-26-2003 9:47 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9003
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 20 of 309 (69493)
11-26-2003 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Cold Foreign Object
11-26-2003 9:27 PM


And you support everything he wrote in it? Even though that review points out a number of places where he is wrong?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-26-2003 9:27 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3069 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 21 of 309 (69494)
11-26-2003 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Darwin's Terrier
11-26-2003 5:42 AM


I demand to know where are the transitional bones that prove humans evolved from apes ? There should be lot of them if humans evolved from apes. I contend that the amount of bones that should exist if evolution is true do not exist or every museum in the world would have some. Billions of people over eons of time should translate into millions of bones at least. There is a paucity of these types of bones for obvious reasons, in that evolution could not be true on the scale purported or we would find and possess them. Instead the ones that claim to be are locked away in vaults inaccessible to most people. The bones that do exist are bones of contention and the irony of where a lot of them were found is in the valley of Neander, who of course is a person the valley is named after, who wrote some of the greatest hymns of the Church - a creationist !

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Darwin's Terrier, posted 11-26-2003 5:42 AM Darwin's Terrier has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by NosyNed, posted 11-26-2003 10:06 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 39 by Peter, posted 11-27-2003 7:16 AM Cold Foreign Object has replied
 Message 42 by Darwin's Terrier, posted 11-27-2003 8:08 AM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9003
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 22 of 309 (69498)
11-26-2003 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Cold Foreign Object
11-26-2003 9:59 PM


Excuse me, you seem to think you have a good estimate of the number of ancestors that would have existed as indviduals between us and the common ancestor. Where did you get your number?
Do you have any idea of what percentage of bones survive to fossilize under what conditions? How do you arrive at your estimate of how many should be found?
Do you know how much area the fossils would be spread over? And what percentage of that has been searched to what degree?
In other words could you demonstrate that you have any idea of what you are talking about?
Aside from that what do you need to see for transitionals? Does it make a difference how many there are? Is the number more important than the nature of them? Why?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-26-2003 9:59 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

lpetrich
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 309 (69515)
11-26-2003 11:40 PM


Seems like WILLOWTREE needs to take a course in taphonomy, the study of how fossils form.
Let's imagine that you are living in east Africa a few million years ago, like Australopithecus africanus and similar species. You die, and what happens next?
If some hyenas find you, there will not be much left of you when they were done; hyenas eat nearly all of a corpse, skin and bones and all.
Other scavengers, like jackals, vultures, big cats, etc. may not eat your bones, but are likely to break and scatter them as they eat.
And passing herds of ungulates will likely trample your bones, breaking them even further.
And finally, small rodents and the like will gnaw at your bones, hoping to get minerals.
So if you wish to be represented in the fossil record, you'd have to die near a stream and be washed out to some lake before your corpse either decays or gets consumed.
"Life" does get easier, because once you sink to the bottom of that lake, your bones are now as snug as a bug in a rug. Though your flesh will decompose, your bones will become buried by sediment carried into that lake by streams that empty into it.
The sediment will gradually become turned into rock, with your bones inside of it; they may be re-mineralized by water flowing through it with dissolved minerals.
But for come curious paleoanthropologist to find them, your rocky tomb will have to become lifted up by geological forces, where it can erode away, eventually revealing your bones.

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by NosyNed, posted 11-27-2003 12:46 AM lpetrich has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9003
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 24 of 309 (69521)
11-27-2003 12:46 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by lpetrich
11-26-2003 11:40 PM


Now why did you have to go through all that, Ipetrich? WT must know all that since s/he was so very dogmatic about how many fossils there must be. S/he sure acts like they know a lot.
You did forget that the fossil has to erode out but not too much because it erodes too. I don't know if the last part is the most periless for the fossil or is the first steps are.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by lpetrich, posted 11-26-2003 11:40 PM lpetrich has not replied

Sonic
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 309 (69523)
11-27-2003 12:48 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Rei
11-25-2003 9:45 PM


Ok Rie,
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 ?
Rei writes:
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.
You do realize that there is no evidence of this connection besides the morphilogical standpoint right?
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.
Rei writes:
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.
Agreed, Even if they found the entire skeleton, this discovery would not present anymore then a theoretical and morphilogical view that organic evolution occured.
Thank You
Sonic
[This message has been edited by Sonic, 11-27-2003]

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by NosyNed, posted 11-27-2003 1:03 AM Sonic has replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9003
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 26 of 309 (69526)
11-27-2003 1:03 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Sonic
11-27-2003 12:48 AM


Agreed, Even if they found the entire skeleton, this discovery would not present anymore then a theoretical and morphilogical view that organic evolution occured.
Yes, but what other conclusion would you draw? There are appropriately date sequenced fossils showing various changes leading from one form to another. Just like you would draw conclusions if you say a series of photos showing various stages of some change you would be reasonable to draw conclusions from such a series of fossils. So, again, what other conclusion can you draw?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Sonic, posted 11-27-2003 12:48 AM Sonic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Sonic, posted 11-27-2003 1:31 AM NosyNed has not replied

Sonic
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 309 (69529)
11-27-2003 1:31 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by NosyNed
11-27-2003 1:03 AM


NosyNed writes:
Yes, but what other conclusion would you draw? There are appropriately date sequenced fossils showing various changes leading from one form to another. Just like you would draw conclusions if you say a series of photos showing various stages of some change you would be reasonable to draw conclusions from such a series of fossils. So, again, what other conclusion can you draw?
Common Creator
Thank You
Sonic
[This message has been edited by Sonic, 11-27-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by NosyNed, posted 11-27-2003 1:03 AM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by roxrkool, posted 11-27-2003 1:34 AM Sonic has replied

roxrkool
Member (Idle past 1010 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 28 of 309 (69531)
11-27-2003 1:34 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Sonic
11-27-2003 1:31 AM


Common creator??? Please explain.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Sonic, posted 11-27-2003 1:31 AM Sonic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Sonic, posted 11-27-2003 1:43 AM roxrkool has not replied

Sonic
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 309 (69535)
11-27-2003 1:43 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by roxrkool
11-27-2003 1:34 AM


roxrkool writes:
Common creator??? Please explain.
If I were to draw two pictures, between the two pictures there would be similarities. The similarities would be the style which they were drawn. Every artist has their own style and thus is why some people who keep up with art are able to identify art by a glimpse without looking for signiture and date to validate there assumption, they just know from the sight, such as you claim, except there is nothing to validate your claim regarding orgranic evolution. The same idea would apply to the FR. I would Expect to find all life on the earth to be similar in order for there to have been a creation event.
Thank You
Sonic
[This message has been edited by Sonic, 11-27-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by roxrkool, posted 11-27-2003 1:34 AM roxrkool has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by NosyNed, posted 11-27-2003 2:07 AM Sonic has replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9003
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 30 of 309 (69538)
11-27-2003 2:07 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Sonic
11-27-2003 1:43 AM


You have somehow managed to miss the point completely.
It is not, at all, just similarities. Over time there are different forms. But the forms are not completely new. They have similarities to forms that are close to them in time. When laid out in date sequence they show steps that lead from one form to another.
What conclusion would you draw? If they are created then they have been created and destroyed in a very specific sequence. The sequence when examined in more and more detail keeps looking more and more like one came from previous ones. What conclusion would you draw?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Sonic, posted 11-27-2003 1:43 AM Sonic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Sonic, posted 11-27-2003 2:17 AM NosyNed 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