|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,907 Year: 4,164/9,624 Month: 1,035/974 Week: 362/286 Day: 5/13 Hour: 0/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Proofs of Evolution: A Mediocre Debate (Faith, robinrohan and their invitees) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
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 posting
[qs As I said originally, all the digs showed a pattern of simple down deep and complicated the further up you got. Now it is true that this is not 100% accurate, as explained by Pink, but it is generally the case./qs] No, this is inaccurate as genetics show. The whole upward concept of evolution, progress, was a social concept interjected into science. [qs Evolution accounts for this pattern./qs] But evolution does not account for the overall pattern, namely we don't see species to species evolution in the fossil record showing groups of species gradually changing into whole new forms. We don't see anything close to it, in fact, and what we do see contradicts evolution, stasis and sudden appearance.
This message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 12-23-2005 02:08 PM This message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 12-23-2005 02:13 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Robin, there is no complete set of fossils showing a transition from reptiles to mammals. That's total horse dung to claim that. It's a gross overstatement just like the Biogenetic law and all of the other myths evos rely on. What evos have are some similarities in the jaw-line, similarities in design, which can just as easily be explained by any number of things, including design and convergent evolution. You were shown to be wholly wrong in your idea that convergent evolution referred only to surface traits, and you are wrong here. In fact, your claim of a complete set of fossils is patently absurd as the fossils are not species to species or even close to it. In fact, I would go as far as to say you have believed a calculated lie, as anyone educated knows there is no complete set of fossils, not even enough to say "there are gaps." You guys claim to have something like .1% of the species involved and then say all that is missing is "gaps." It's absurd. You are also wrong on your other claims to faith. You don't understand adaptive mutations, natural selection and many other areas.
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
======================================================
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 ======================================================
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
OUCH. Why did erasing Randman's posts leave big bright white spaces?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminAsgara Administrator (Idle past 2332 days) Posts: 2073 From: The Universe Joined: |
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 Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com
New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Can you please put the argument in your own words. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
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. That's fine with me. No problem. Whatever you and Admin. want to do is fine with me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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. 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 PM This message has been edited by Faith, 12-23-2005 06:14 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.html How 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#speciation Likewise 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#isolation All 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#reversal Why 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-legs Whale 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#pcr So 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
The only way descent could actually be proved is through genetics. Good luck Can you explain this? You can't check the DNA of FOSSILS, if that's what you mean by genetics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
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 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
It looks like robinrohan and Faith have managed to once again string together at least 3 messages each, that had absolutely no connection to the theme of the topic. Didn't I suspend you two for something along those lines once before? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
This thread is littered with barely begun topics and you want to start a new one?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024