|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
The fossil record flatly fails to substantiate this expectation of finely graded change. And curiously, you have been told that this is not the general expectation, that even Darwin suggested alternatives and reasons for it. Plus this was shown to be outright false in Message 5:
quote: There you have a fossil record of actual gradual evolution over time from 65 million years ago to today, complete with intermediates and other aspects predicted by evolution. Your claim is falsified -- shown to be false -- invalidated -- refuted.
In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another This too was shown to be an outright false statement in Message 5:
quote: This image shows smooth transitions from generation to generation, it shows "arbitrary speciation" (where difference occur sufficient to make the population different from the ancestral population through phylogenic evolution) and it shows "absolute speciation" where a breeding population divides into two distinct species. Again, your claim is falsified -- shown to be false -- invalidated -- refuted.
The fossil record itself provided no documentation of continuity - of gradual transition from one animal or plant to another of quite different form. And this too has been shown to be outright false in Message 63:
quote: Again, your claim is falsified -- shown to be false -- invalidated -- refuted. The fact that you have chosen to repeat these assertions after Message 5 and Message 63 without demonstrating that either Message 5 or Message 63 are in any way false, shows an intellectual dishonesty and a person that is arrogantly ignorant of reality, incapable of honest debate. If you are going to argue against a world of evidence I suggest that you become familiar with that world first. But you've made your mudpile now, and you can wallow in it to your hearts content and enjoy the view as much as you like. The real world will progress happily without you, unaffected in any way by your opinions and beliefs. We know your claims are false, we know that you have lied, and we know that you have no argument other than old cherry-picking quote-mines and tired false innuendos. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
I got them from here and there and everywhere. Some I checked in the original publications, I think I checked all of 'm in the Talk Origins Archive, and they are all totally correct. Fail. Do you know what it is like to submit an article to a peer reviewed journal (pick a science of your choice -- I won't say expertise as you haven't exhibited any)? And I know that one of your references is false.
There is no "sin of omission", because the context does not alter the meaning of the quotes. The context of the scientific papers show that what was discussed was gradualism vs non-gradualism, the context of the scientific papers does NOT show that evolution has not been observed anywhere in the fossil record, and the context of the scientific papers does not lead to the conclusion that evolution has never been observed in the fossil record. The context does not alter the meaning of the quotes when you deal with them honestly.
If you think different, then prove it; give the context and show that they mean something else. Message 5, Message 63 and Message 83 ALL show evolution occurring in the fossil record in several ways. What you don't seem to understand is that these FACTS in the fossil record showing evolution occurring eviscerate your argument no matter how many quotes you stand up on cardboard figures. Again, science is not run by opinion, it is run by evidence and testing. Every fossil find is a test of evolution and not one fossil has invalidated the theory of evolution:
The Theory of Evolution (ToE), stated in simple terms, is that the process of evolution over generations, and the process of divergent speciation, are sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from the fossil record, from the genetic record, from the historic record, and from everyday record of the life we observe in the world all around us. This has been tested and tested and tested and not one test has shown up the slightest discrepancy. Again I observe your inability\unwillingness to deal with the evidence of evolution in the fossil record that I have provided, and your intellectually shallow attempt to side-step this and pretend that these posts do not exist. Your readers will know that your lack of response to the evidence is inadequate at best, and clearly exhibits self-delusion. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Your use of quote-mined quotations as "evidence" does not impress me. But that's pretty much all creation "science" has to offer. It certainly is all I-lie-to-you has to offer, based on his repeated posts on this thread and his failure to engage the evidence that eviscerates his claims. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
But, unfortunately for you, creationists are not the ones likely to come up with those things. And it most certainly will not be done by cherry picking quote-mines. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Here's a thought for you Eliyahu,
If I were going to discuss the stories in the Torah ... ... would I do better to read quotes from people that read it, or ... would I do better to read the Torah? And if I were going to discuss what was or was not in those stories ... ... would I do better to read quotes from people that read it, or ... would I do better to read the Torah? Just askin Edited by RAZD, : +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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Darwin declared that what was known to have genetic causes, ... Can you please cite the book and chapter where he discusses genetic causes Faith?
Well, start with the fact that you DON'T have the transitionals Darwin said you'd have to have. ... Transitional have been found, so that prediction was filled. In fact this was part of the prediction for finding Tiktaalik -- the proper ecological location, the proper age for a transitional species from marine to terrestrial animal: transitional found. Then there are the Pelycodus fossils: A Smooth Fossil Transition: Pelycodus
quote: You can see evolution generation by generation, transitioning from a single species at the bottom to two reproductively isolated species at the top. Each level show transitional fossils intermediate between the layer below and the layer above, every one of those fossils are transitional.
... You have a few paltry wannabe transitionals, but nothing like the great number and variety Darwin knew were required. ... Can you please cite the book and chapter where he discusses how many transitionals should be found Faith? How many are needed to show\demonstrate that species transition from one form to another? When we look at fossils like the Therapsids we not only see a progression from reptile jaw and ear to mammal jaw and ear, we see several intermediate forms where the jaw is double jointed -- one at the reptile location and one at the new mammal location. Functional intermediates.
quote: This is the process of evolutionary transitions demonstrated in spades in the fossil record.
... But that doesn't stop evolution. Correct, fantasy opinion does not affect any science, only facts affect science.
... 'Cuz it's Silly Putty, it can be shaped any way you like it. um, just like your Grand Canyon fantasies? I'll have to remember this insightful refutation ...
The mere appearance of created things disproves it, so clearly the result of a Creative Intelligence, ... And yet not one species has been observed to appear de novo anywhere at any time, no one species has a form that is uniquely new in arrangement ... no one species has DNA that is not linked to other species ... ... and then there is the issue of Silly Design. ... or the problem of the appearance of design in the eye of the beholder -- especially one without a complete knowledge of what they are looking at.
... not mindless physical and chemical accidents. ... Which of course you have been told thousands of times is not how evolution works. Willful ignorance is not a valid basis for argument, Faith.
... But you deny that too, pretend an Intelligence is not needed. ... What science finds is that selection between different traits caused by "physical and chemical accidents" is sufficient for species to adapt to their ecologies. Curiously it was Dawin's insight that natural selection operated in essentially the same manner as the controlled selection of animal husbandry, and that this was sufficient to explain the fossil record.
... . Invent scenarios, Interpretations, call them Fact, say This happened, That happened, as if it really did. Silly Putty. You really should stop describing your argument regarding the Grand Canyon in this thread Faith, this is about the fossil record and how it shows evolution occurred.
Darwin declared that Where "descent" has the meaning in descendant -- the offspring of the breeding populations rather than going down stairs. And this has been observed to occur! And we have fossil evidence of this occurring! (see above). Who woulda thunk! We can see the process of evolution going on in virtually all breeding populations of all living species, and we have seen instances of speciation and reproductive isolation that then allows independent descent of the daughter populations in different ecologies, accumulating more adaptations to the different ecologies as the generations pass.
Simply declared it, no evidence, ... Actually he formed a theory based on lots of evidence Faith. Perhaps you should read his books instead of making up fantasies, not that you will pay any attention to any corrections of your misimpressions.
... no proof, ... No theory is ever proven, another item you have been told a thousand times but choose to ignore ... because it is too dangerous to really understand science eh?
... just rename things and there you have it. And ever since that's all that's happened, the renaming of everything. ... ROFLOL, you really are an amusing comedienne Faith. Ignore reality and then make up stuff to suit your fantasy -- isn't that (what do you call that ... oh yeah)
... . Silly Putty. Mental transformation. Word Magic. Good one. Tell me Faith -- how would we distinguish one breed of dogs from another without names? Names make discussion easier and more practical, they are key to knowing that we are talking about the same things. You use names for all the different layers in the Grand Canyon formations -- they are all just randomly assigned names, not precise descriptions of what the layers are. The names are defined to pertain to the layers with a precise description so that they can then be discussed without needing to repeat the descriptions every time you want to talk about them. Tell me Faith ... how does using names to define different groups in any way affect what is discussed other than making discussion simpler? This is the best argument you have against evolution? Denial, muddled thinking, misrepresentations and ranting about names??? Really? Epic fail. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
If the fossil record showed species turning into other species, who would need PE? Pelycodus, Message 5, shows speciation.
PE is a desperate attempt to give an explanation for the total lack of evolution in the fossil record. Foraminifera, Message 5, shows 65 million years of continual evolution. Gould agreed.
But, like I said, the fossil record is totally in line with creation, and disproves evolution. How come there is no single point in time where all species are created? Or even two species at the same time? Why is it more of a continual process over time? How is that consistent in any way with bible\torah\koran stories? Why are fossils of mammals (to say nothing of man) not found with the fossils from the first life to some 70 million years ago and hominids only in the last 10 million years, Homo sapiens in the last 200,000 years? How is that consistent in any way with bible\torah\koran stories? Curiously I wonder if you know what "consistent" means ...
Thus the evo's try to explain the fact that there is not the slightest proof for evolution in the fossil record. Again this claim was falsified in Message 5, and your continued denial\ignoring of this fact does not make your argument any more valid than it was then ... when it was demonstrated to be invalid. Repeating it is just silly delusion.
Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker London: W.W. Norton & Company, 1987, p. 229. More cherry-picked quote mining. Once again you are caught red-handed quoting from some creationist site rather than from an original reading of the book: Quote Mine Project: "Large Gaps"
quote: In other words ... your quote-mine does not tell the full story and meaning -- it is a misrepresentation. And because your usage exactly matches that found on other sites, your claim of making the quotes yourself is demonstrably false. Note please that Dawkins is and has been an ardent spokesman against punk-eek -- that the time scales are still measured in hundreds of years during the introduction of new species. Curiously I wonder that you lie and deceive so much when you could just cite actual evidence if your argument had any real validity. All you have are third hand misquotes of opinions and not a single fact. Sad. Pathetic. Why do you need to lie? Edited by RAZD, : +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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
So what you are saying is: Gould, Eldredge, and all other evolutionists cited in my quotes they are wrong when they say that the fossil record shows STASIS, and not evolution. Not quite, what they are saying is that the fossil record shows period of slow and fast evolution. Curiously if you actually read the articles and actually understood what they meant, you too would know this. But it seems you like to get your quotes second or third hand and predigested by creationist pap sites.
Sorry for having a hard time to accept that Which is not a big surprise seeing as you seem to be having a hard time accepting the reality of the fossil record showing evolution as shown in Message 5, Message 63, and repeated in Message 83. Let me remind you:
It is becoming clearer and clearer that this last definition is applicable here. Other definitions would be open to learning and correcting your belief or opinion. Curiously your delusional inability to accept things does not hamper reality in any substantial way. All it demonstrates is a blind willingness to be foolish, ignorant and deceived.
Message 123: Here's a thought for you Eliyahu, If I were going to discuss the stories in the Torah ... ... would I do better to read quotes from people that read it, or ... would I do better to read the Torah? And if I were going to discuss what was or was not in those stories ... ... would I do better to read quotes from people that read it, or ... would I do better to read the Torah? Just askin Perhaps you can see how silly your quote mining project is when discussing the reality of evolution ... or perhaps you will be a delsuional hypocrite here as well. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Or let's hear Dawkins discussing the very words the I-Lie-To_you quotes:
Presenting his book "The Greatest Show on Earth" 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
You still have not responded to Post 5, which shows you are wrong. Can we look forward to a response to that nice figure in Post 5 anytime soon? When you are delusional you ignore the world around you and live in your delusional world. His "response" to Message 5 was Message 31:
I think there are 2 possibilities for the post of Razd, one is: It is totally made up out of thin air, two: It is on the same level as the piltdown man and the Nebraska man, and it will be exposed as a hoax soon enough. And he is intellectually incapable of considering a third possibility: that the evidence is real and valid evidence of actual evolution in the fossil record. He is stuck in a pathetic delusional rut where selected quotes are real and evidence is false. Pretty sad eh? 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi Fizz57 and welcome to the fray.
In that quote, was Prof. Stanley referring to the fossil record in general or to one particular site with its own peculiarities? Does it matter? All Eliyahu has posted is a series of quotes taken out of context, followed by refusing to admit that the context when provided properly shows that evolution occurs by fits and starts rather than gradually. He claims Darwin only theorized gradual evolution, which is false, and he claims that stasis disproves evolution, which it of course doesn't. He appears to think that stasis occurs with no evolution at all (false) and that the rapid evolution of new species would have to be the "hopeful monster" ... not realizing that this occurs over many generations in reproductive isolation. There is so much evidence for evolution in the fossil record, but he won't confront actual evidence that his thesis is false -- see Message 5 and Message 31 -- and he doesn't change his song and dance. He says there is no evidence of evolution and then claims that evidence of evolution is either faked or a fraud. All in all, a rather pathetic sad delusional behavior after a while. And this is what religious indoctrination can do to an otherwise useful mind when reality is denied. One rather hopes that he is a Poe ...
... as you are new here, some posting tips: type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote: also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window. For other formatting tips see Posting TipsFor a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0 Edited by RAZD, : No reason given.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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/114
quote: To which I add deluded and confused. Notice that he goes on to talk about how some people seem almost tortured by the conflict between their belief and the reality of evolution. This, of course, is Cognitive Dissonance in operation, and this also predicts the behavior of people to attempt resolution of their dissonance while maintaining their conflicted beliefs: attack the messenger bearing contrary evidence, claim the contrary evidence is fraudulent or a hoax, seek confirmation from other believers rather than from the world as a whole, etc etc etc. 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) |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
In your quote above and the repost of message 5 you appear to be telling me that P. ralstoni and P. trigonodus ( as an example)are not capable of interbreeding and producing viable offspring. Mostly that they are in different age layers so they occurred at different times in the fossil record. Not very satisfactory I know, but this is the main problem with arbitrary speciation -- where do you take the differences from generation to generation and draw a line to say x is one species but y is another. I would in fact be rather surprised if a Pelycodus in one layer would be unable to breed with ones in either the layer above or the layer below if they were living at the same time. This is the basic problem with nomenclature and phyletic evolution. However at the top you have two species that show separation and the lack of intermediate forms between them at the same age level indicate failure to interbreed. In this case you have divergent speciation and very little question of where they are different. Now one could create a metric from the minimal differences for divergent speciation and apply that to phyletic speciation ... but it would still tend to be arbitrary concerning where you start.. Does that help? 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
According to Eldredge, the fossil record is OK, it is the predictions of Darwin who are wrong. Exit Darwin. Again science is not based on people and what they say, it is based on the scientific method and what the evidence says. In Message 5 I showed you two cases where the fossil record showed gradual transition over time from species to species complete with speciation events. What this shows is that Darwin at worst was not completely right or wrong in this regard. Your continued posting of the same quotes is nothing more than willful ignorance, denial and a sad inability to confront the fact that your thesis is invalid in many ways. The fact that you need to continue to lie about this just demonstrates how bankrupt your position is: you have no evidence for your belief and you need to lie about the evidence for evolution in order to maintain your belief. When confronted by evidence, as in Message 5, you conclude that it must be a hoax (Message 31) in order to shield your precious belief from reality. Thank you for demonstrating how dishonest and intellectually bankrupt your creationism is. Perhaps you would like to deny the age of the earth next? Or that the earth is round? That the earth orbits the sun? 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
it's been a long time since i read these kinds of quote mines. quote darwin, eldredge and gould as if they disagree with themselves is an interesting tactic. Now lets put them in chronological order, complete with the missing parts of the quotes, to show how the view of evolutionary pace and action has changed over time, and how the fossil record shows evolution occurred. 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)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024