Proofs of Evolution: A Mediocre Debate (Faith, robinrohan and their invitees)

Robin, if you wanted me to get that out of that article, it didn't work. Can you please put the argument in your own words.That creatures have features of other creatures is commonplace and proves nothing about descent. Design economy explains it all just as well. And when all you have is the bones you have even less proof of anything.There is an enormous variety of living things on this planet and the fossil record shows that even more variety once existed. But descent is a purely imaginative construct that cannot be demonstrated.The only way descent could actually be proved is through genetics. Good luck.

Rand you have not been invited to this GD, in fact the issue of whether to invite you in was answered with a definate NO in msg 61. Please pay attention to where you are postingThis message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 12-23-2005 02:08 PMThis message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 12-23-2005 02:13 PM

Rand, please refrain from posting in a Great Debate topic you have not been invited into.This message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 12-23-2005 02:12 PM

======================================================
NOT-SO-GREAT DEBATE THREAD, ROBINROHAN & FAITH ONLY, PLUS INVITEES
====================================================== I know Robin said no, but if he will agree, just for whatever Randman posted here and not for anything else, I request that the posts be reinstated. They may help me with the argument on transitionals. Nothing beyond these two posts however, and only with Robin's agreement. ======================================================
NOT-SO-GREAT DEBATE THREAD, ROBINROHAN & FAITH ONLY, PLUS INVITEES
======================================================

OUCH. Why did erasing Randman's posts leave big bright white spaces?

The messages are still there if you want to read them for yourself, but no I am NOT going to uncloak them. This is not the first time that Rand had posted on a GD to which he was not a participant.The first time I understood why he thought he had permission, but this time you'd think he would have made sure.The messages are not erased.This message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 12-23-2005 02:28 PM

---

AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe

http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

It is my own words. I'm just saying they have fossils of something that seems to be a cross between a reptile and a mammal.

That's fine with me. No problem. Whatever you and Admin. want to do is fine with me.

OK, well there's a living mole that appears to be a cross between a mole and a flower, but we can be pretty sure that it's not genetically related to the flower -- I think. Weird that Yaro thinks this is some kind of challenge to creationism.In other words living things come in quite a variety of forms without implying descent.{AbE: Variety of SIMILAR forms.This message has been edited by Faith, 12-23-2005 06:04 PMThis message has been edited by Faith, 12-23-2005 06:14 PM

I just started going through this Talk Origins file to see what it has to say about supposed proofs for evolution. The first six were easy to answer and then it started talking about polymerases and I figured I needed a nap at that point. Anyway, maybe I'll get back to the rest of it eventually. It's a bit dated but Tim Chase made a lot out of these same examples a few months back so I figure they are still alive enough to deserve some attention:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.htmlHow on earth is the fact that the cichlids were all descended from the same ancestor in Lake Victoria evidence for evolution? Why would creationists find this kind of ancestry any challenge?http://www.talkorigins.org/...ution-research.html#speciationLikewise the Introduction to Speciation Theory. These evos need at first to understand what creos believe, as they are simply answering a straw man. In this case the problem is semantic, the consequence of the way the term "speciation" is used by evos. The phenomena itself is not challenged by creos at all, it simply is not evidence of anything other than different ways variation within a Kind may occur. The definition of reproductive isolation is purely artificial, something that occurs within a Kind. I'd also point out that this is usually the result of a reduction in genetic diversity, which is hardly compatible with any possibility of "macro" evolution.These examples are in fact good evidence for my point that what is called "speciation" is the product of reduced genetic diversity.http://www.talkorigins.org/...lution-research.html#isolationAll the following statements about reproductive isolation such as Isolation mediated by microorganisms can be thrown out as they are not evidence for (macro) evolution at all, but only variation within a Kind or "micro" evolution which creationists strongly affirm, and did as far back as domestic breeding was known.http://www.talkorigins.org/...research.html#sexual-selection Sexual Selection is likewise no challenge to creationism, as Natural Selection is not, nor any of the processes that separate some alleles from others or even eliminate some altogether. This is business as usual for the built-in capacity of variation within all Kinds.http://www.talkorigins.org/...olution-research.html#reversalWhy should creationism have a problem with parental adaptability among katydids? God's creation is magnificently designed for all kinds of adaptations.http://www.talkorigins.org/...ution-research.html#whale-legsWhale with Legs: Assuming this is actually a creature that existed rather than a hoax or a misreading of the fossil data, it offers absolutely no evidence in the fact that it existed that it evolved from or to anything else. No evidence for descent from Kind to Kind exists here. Design economy can explain everything. However, it MAY be a member of the whale Kind, descended from other members of the whale Kind. That is not impossible. Creationism can accommodate a very large range of variation within Kinds.http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html#pcrSo far we have 6 items and 6 failures to evidence (macro)evolution over against creationism. Now here comes #7, about polymerase chain reaction, more of a challenge to me though I'm sure not to creationism.Woops, right off I have a problem with this claim that DNA could have survived intact enough after 17-20 million years, in a magnolia leaf, fossilized yet, which should turn the DNA itself into minerals should it not? Just read a report this morning about the bad condition of the DNA in a merely 28,000 year old mammoth that was remarkably well preserved.So this is as far as I got. More to follow perhaps.This message has been edited by Faith, 12-23-2005 07:07 PM

Can you explain this? You can't check the DNA of FOSSILS, if that's what you mean by genetics.

In my post Proofs of Evolution -- NOT (Message 100), I just linked to some posts at Talkorigins, one of which actually claims that intact DNA was taken from a 17-20-million year old fossilized magnolia leaf. I got bogged down at that point, however, and haven't read his whole argument.However, I just meant that fossils can't prove descent, no matter how suggestive the supposed progression appears. The whole thing is ludicrous for many other reasons for starters, for instance the idea that those discrete layers with their sharp demarcations and their Just-So fossil contents more or less evenly dispersed throughout a homogeneous layer, could possibly represent the passage of millions of years. This is SO obvious but ignored nevertheless.This message has been edited by Faith, 12-23-2005 06:40 PM

Yes, I know. We were writing posts at the same time, so I did not see it until after I wrote mine.I never heard of that before (DNA from fossils), but in any case that would be an extremely rare event and not, I think, very important.I will study your post some more--haven't had a chance to look in detail.

That's all Faith's fault, not mine. She has this sneaky way of leading people off topic.But what I wanted to say was that I have some stuff coming up that is going to knock Faith's socks off.Topic: human origins.

This thread is littered with barely begun topics and you want to start a new one?