Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 181 of 342 (718462)
02-06-2014 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by Eliyahu
02-06-2014 12:01 AM


Re: The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution
Yes I do. It says that evolution took place in far away places, small isolated places, and the evolution there went relatively fast. And that, according to the PE theory, is the reason that we cannot find any proof for evolution in the fossil record, because it happened in small far away places, very fast.
It doesn't say that evolution took place in far away places. It says that changes happen over hundreds of thousands to millions of years in a small population, and then that small population spreads out and replaces other populations that did not evolve as quickly. That's it.
So the PE theory is an attempt to give an explanation for the total lack of evolution in the fossil record.
"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationistswhether through design or stupidity, I do not knowas admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."--Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory"
Top Cash Earning Games in India 2022 | Best Online Games to earn real money
"Some discoveries in science are exciting because they revise or reverse previous expectations, others because they affirm with elegance something well suspected, but previously undocumented. Our four-case story, culminating in Ambulocetus, falls into the second category. This sequential discovery of picture-perfect intermediacy in the evolution of whales stands as a triumph in the history of paleontology. I cannot imagine a better tale for popular presentation of science, or a more satisfying, and intellectually based, political victory over lingering creationist opposition. As such, I present the story in this series of essays with both delight and relish."--Stephen Jay Gould, "Hooking Leviathan by Its Past"
Top Cash Earning Games in India 2022 | Best Online Games to earn real money

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Eliyahu, posted 02-06-2014 12:01 AM Eliyahu has not replied

  
petrophysics1
Inactive Member


Message 182 of 342 (718466)
02-06-2014 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by Coyote
02-06-2014 11:20 AM


Re: The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution--NOT
So, there you have it--evidence of evolution, including change from one species to another and change from one genus to another.
Hi Coyote,
Maybe you can clear something up for me.
My glossary of geology defines species as "a group of organisms, either plant or animal, which may interbred and produce viable offspring having similar structure, habits, and functions."
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.
What exactly is your fossil evidence for taking this position?
Edited by petrophysics1, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Coyote, posted 02-06-2014 11:20 AM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by Coyote, posted 02-06-2014 8:29 PM petrophysics1 has not replied
 Message 194 by RAZD, posted 02-07-2014 9:58 AM petrophysics1 has not replied
 Message 196 by Modulous, posted 02-07-2014 10:47 AM petrophysics1 has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 183 of 342 (718476)
02-06-2014 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by petrophysics1
02-06-2014 6:59 PM


Re: The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution--NOT
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.
I am just reposting a graphic with text, that has been posted several times by RAZD, in an attempt to get some reaction.
I am not the original author of the piece so any technical questions would have to go to them.
But I would guess that, based on the graph, there is quite a temporal separation between those two species, prohibiting interbreeding much as you would not be able to interbreed with archaic Homo sapiens or Homo erectus. With this large temporal separation, the question of interfertility would seem moot.
Maybe RAZD could also comment here.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by petrophysics1, posted 02-06-2014 6:59 PM petrophysics1 has not replied

  
Eliyahu
Member (Idle past 2260 days)
Posts: 288
From: Judah
Joined: 07-23-2013


Message 184 of 342 (718496)
02-07-2014 1:18 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by Modulous
02-06-2014 8:49 AM


Re: Nothing can ever disprove evolution
What is your evidence that Darwin was troubled because he realised it showed the opposite of evolution?
His book The Origin of Species.
Where in his book? In there he warns the reader 8 times not to look at the fossil record, because it does not support his theory. You said this twice without supporting it. I've read it and I don't remember him saying that. It's freely available on line, why don't you find him doing this and quote it to me along with the edition and chapter number. Thanks.
Bs'd
To prevent whining about "taking out of context", I give you the whole chapter of the master himself, our Charles, who devoted a whole chapter of his book to the imperfections of the fossil record. "Imperfections", because it didn't agree with his theory, therefore in his eyes it was imperfect.
For those who don't feel like reading so much, the juicy parts are in yellow:
CHAPTER X. ON THE IMPERFECTION OF THE GEOLOGICAL RECORD.
Read On the Origin of Species 6th Edition by Charles Darwin, Read free on ReadCentral.com
[ Remove exceedingly long cut-n-paste from the above link. Please see link.
Eliyahu: In the future, please just excerpt the portions of interest. I've sent your cut-n-paste to you in a PM so that you can recover the portions you highlighted in yellow. --Admin ]
As everybody can see, it is one long litany about how the fossil record goes against his theory.
In the days of Darwin it was already known that the fossil record goes agains the evolution theory.
Edited by Eliyahu, : No reason given.
Edited by Eliyahu, : No reason given.
Edited by Eliyahu, : No reason given.
Edited by Eliyahu, : No reason given.
Edited by Admin, : Remove long cut-n-paste.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Modulous, posted 02-06-2014 8:49 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by edge, posted 02-07-2014 2:39 AM Eliyahu has replied
 Message 187 by edge, posted 02-07-2014 2:59 AM Eliyahu has not replied
 Message 190 by Modulous, posted 02-07-2014 8:31 AM Eliyahu has replied
 Message 199 by Taq, posted 02-07-2014 12:08 PM Eliyahu has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 185 of 342 (718501)
02-07-2014 2:39 AM
Reply to: Message 184 by Eliyahu
02-07-2014 1:18 AM


Re: Nothing can ever disprove evolution
Here's the first one:
"But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record."
Charles Darwin, Origin of Species
This is a "warning not to use the fossil record"?
Please explain your logic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Eliyahu, posted 02-07-2014 1:18 AM Eliyahu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by Eliyahu, posted 02-07-2014 2:45 AM edge has replied

  
Eliyahu
Member (Idle past 2260 days)
Posts: 288
From: Judah
Joined: 07-23-2013


Message 186 of 342 (718502)
02-07-2014 2:45 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by edge
02-07-2014 2:39 AM


Re: Nothing can ever disprove evolution
This is a "warning not to use the fossil record"?
Bs'd
OK, it is not literally a warning.
Look above to the updated post, and see how Darwin time and again, has to say that the fossil record is imperfect, because it does not conform to his theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by edge, posted 02-07-2014 2:39 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by edge, posted 02-07-2014 3:05 AM Eliyahu has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(2)
Message 187 of 342 (718503)
02-07-2014 2:59 AM
Reply to: Message 184 by Eliyahu
02-07-2014 1:18 AM


Re: Nothing can ever disprove evolution
To prevent whining about "taking out of context", I give you the whole chapter of the master himself, our Charles, who devoted a whole chapter of his book to the imperfections of the fossil record. "Imperfections", because it didn't agree with his theory, therefore in his eyes it was imperfect.
Actually, no. Just because a record is incomplete does not mean that it does not support the theory.
I have a feeling that there are multitudes of defense attorneys out there looking for you.
For those who don't feel like reading so much, the juicy parts are in yellow:
CHAPTER X. ON THE IMPERFECTION OF THE GEOLOGICAL RECORD.
(extensive c&p text snipped)
As everybody can see, it is one long litany about how the fossil record goes against his theory.
Actually, no, I don't see that. All I see is a statement that the fossil record is incomplete.
In the days of Darwin it was already known that the fossil record goes agains the evolution theory.
Actually, no. Darwin did not reject his own theory. Why do you think that is?
Perhaps he had an explanation for the imperfection of the fossil record?
Nah, couldn't be!
But, if you'd care to, you could also join us in the 21st century and discuss the modern evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Eliyahu, posted 02-07-2014 1:18 AM Eliyahu has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(2)
Message 188 of 342 (718504)
02-07-2014 3:05 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by Eliyahu
02-07-2014 2:45 AM


Re: Nothing can ever disprove evolution
OK, it is not literally a warning.
Then why did you say so? Your language, like your logic, is imprecise.
Look above to the updated post, and see how Darwin time and again, has to say that the fossil record is imperfect, because it does not conform to his theory.
No, it only says that the reason for a perceived lack of transitionals is because the record is imperfect. That would be called an 'explanation'. YECs should follow suit and give us some explanations.
I have a feeling that, if there is a way to read something wrong, you will find it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Eliyahu, posted 02-07-2014 2:45 AM Eliyahu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by Eliyahu, posted 02-07-2014 5:04 AM edge has replied

  
Eliyahu
Member (Idle past 2260 days)
Posts: 288
From: Judah
Joined: 07-23-2013


Message 189 of 342 (718505)
02-07-2014 5:04 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by edge
02-07-2014 3:05 AM


The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution
Bs'd
So Darwin already saw that the fossil record did NOT support his theory, put posed serious problems for it.
He goes as far as to say that "Those who believe that the geological record is in any degree perfect, will undoubtedly at once reject my theory."
And therefore Darwin says that the fossil record is not perfect.
However, now, more than 150 years later, we have many more fossils, hundreds of millions are in musea all over the world, and see what experts now say about the fossil record:
"Paleontologists just were not seeing the expected changes in their fossils as they pursued them up through the rock record. ... That individual kinds of fossils remain recognizably the same throughout the length of their occurrence in the fossil record had been known to paleontologists long before Darwin published his Origin. Darwin himself, .... prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search .... One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a miserly fossil record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong.
The observation that species are amazingly conservative and static entities throughout long periods of time has all the qualities of the emperor's new clothes: everyone knew it but preferred to ignore it. Paleontologists, faced with a recalcitrant record obstinately refusing to yield Darwin's predicted pattern, simply looked the other way
."
Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p. 45-46
Niles Eldredge is an evolutionist en co-inventor of the punctuated equilibrium theory
So the fossil record is good, it is Darwin who is imperfect.
"The record jumps, and all the evidence shows that the record is real: the gaps we see reflect real events in life’s history - not the artifact of a poor fossil record."
Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p. 59
The fossil record is real, it is Darwins theory that is unreal.
So Darwin was forced to say about ten times or more, that the fossil record is imperfect.
However, it turned out there is nothing wrong with the fossil record, there is only a lot wrong wit the evolution theory.
Edited by Eliyahu, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by edge, posted 02-07-2014 3:05 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by edge, posted 02-07-2014 9:53 AM Eliyahu has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 190 of 342 (718511)
02-07-2014 8:31 AM
Reply to: Message 184 by Eliyahu
02-07-2014 1:18 AM


Chapter 10
CHAPTER X. ON THE IMPERFECTION OF THE GEOLOGICAL RECORD.
You admit Darwin is not telling us to ignore the fossil record. So when I said 'Really?' you should have said 'No, not really' and instead you didn't tell the truth and said 'Really.'
I see you didn't support your claim that all life appeared suddenly 500 million years ago and that there has been no change to life, no new species, since then. I guess that wasn't true, either.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Eliyahu, posted 02-07-2014 1:18 AM Eliyahu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by Eliyahu, posted 02-07-2014 9:34 AM Modulous has replied

  
Eliyahu
Member (Idle past 2260 days)
Posts: 288
From: Judah
Joined: 07-23-2013


Message 191 of 342 (718518)
02-07-2014 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by Modulous
02-07-2014 8:31 AM


The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution
Bs'd
Before 500 million years ago, there was no life to speak of. One cell life forms started according to the evo's 3.5 billion years ago, but it only really took of 500 million years ago.
And then, suddenly, with a bang, there were all the major type of animals.
Really new concepts did not pop up in 500 million years.
Like Dawkins says; there can be two explanations for this phenomenon: One is a faulty fossile record, the second is divine creation.
Other options don't exist.
So the fact of the matter is: The fossil record disproves evolution.
"The record jumps, and all the evidence shows that the record is real: the gaps we see reflect real events in life’s history - not the artifact of a poor fossil record."
Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p. 59
.
.
.

S. Bengtson on the Cambrian explosion:
"If any event in life's history resembles man's creation myths, it is this sudden diversification of marine life when multicellular organisms took over as the dominant actors in ecology and evolution. Baffling (and embarrassing) to Darwin, this event still dazzles us and stands as a major biological revolution on a par with the invention of self-replication and the origin of the eukaryotic cell. The animal phyla emerged out of the Precambrian mists with most of the attributes of their modern descendants."
Bengtson, Stefan, "The Solution to a Jigsaw Puzzle," Nature, vol. 345 (June 28, 1990), p. 765-766
Stefan Bengtson is an evolutionist en head curator of the Swedish museum of natural history in Stockholm Zweden.
For more info about S. Bentson look here http://palaeo-electronica.org/staff/stefan.htm
.
.
.
"The paleontological data is consistent with the view that all of the currently recognized phyla had evolved by about 525 Ma. Despite half a billion years of evolutionary exploration generated in Cambrian time, no new phylum level designs have appeared since then."
"Developmental Evolution of Metazoan Body plans: The Fossil Evidence," Valentine, Erwin, and Jablonski, Developmental Biology 173, Article No. 0033, 1996, p. 376
.
.
.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Modulous, posted 02-07-2014 8:31 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by edge, posted 02-07-2014 9:58 AM Eliyahu has not replied
 Message 195 by Modulous, posted 02-07-2014 10:32 AM Eliyahu has not replied
 Message 197 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-07-2014 10:49 AM Eliyahu has not replied
 Message 198 by frako, posted 02-07-2014 11:26 AM Eliyahu has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 192 of 342 (718519)
02-07-2014 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by Eliyahu
02-07-2014 5:04 AM


Re: The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution
So Darwin already saw that the fossil record did NOT support his theory, put posed serious problems for it.
No, he presented the fact that the fossil record is incomplete.
Wow, you really are hooked on religious myth aren't you?
He goes as far as to say that "Those who believe that the geological record is in any degree perfect, will undoubtedly at once reject my theory."
So, you believe that the fossil record is perfect?
You did read that part of the statement and agree to it, correct?
In that case, you are one of a very few select people.
And therefore Darwin says that the fossil record is not perfect.
You truly are confused.
Darwin cannot say anything.
And if he did say it was not perfect, so what? That's pretty common knowledge.
Do you have a point?
"... One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions."(emphasis added) Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p. 45-46
Okay, did you read the bolded part above?
Do you understand what it means?
Do you need some remedial help in understanding the English language?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Eliyahu, posted 02-07-2014 5:04 AM Eliyahu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by Eliyahu, posted 02-09-2014 12:09 AM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(2)
Message 193 of 342 (718520)
02-07-2014 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by Eliyahu
02-07-2014 9:34 AM


Re: The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution
Before 500 million years ago, there was no life to speak of.
Well, at least you are consistently wrong...
One cell life forms started according to the evo's 3.5 billion years ago, but it only really took of 500 million years ago.
Hunh? Please try this sentence again.
And then, suddenly, with a bang, there were all the major type of animals.
You mean like zebras and trout and dogs?
Please reference.
Really new concepts did not pop up in 500 million years.
What do you mean 'really new'?
Okay, find us a giraffe in Cambrian strata.
Oh, your misquotes actually prove you are wrong. Do you realize that quote mining is a form of stealing as well as lying?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Eliyahu, posted 02-07-2014 9:34 AM Eliyahu has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 194 of 342 (718521)
02-07-2014 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by petrophysics1
02-06-2014 6:59 PM


when fossils show speciation has occurred
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?

we are limited in our ability to understand
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by petrophysics1, posted 02-06-2014 6:59 PM petrophysics1 has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(2)
Message 195 of 342 (718523)
02-07-2014 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by Eliyahu
02-07-2014 9:34 AM


Re: The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution
And then, suddenly, with a bang, there were all the major type of animals.
Really new concepts did not pop up in 500 million years.
What do you mean 'really new concepts' didn't turn up? Are you saying there were mammals in the Cambrian? Dinosaurs? Birds? Primates?
What turned up in the Cambrian were primitive chordates, in actuality.
So what we have there is this. Do you think that since this form was around no 'really new concepts' have evolved?
Like Dawkins says; there can be two explanations for this phenomenon: One is a faulty fossile record, the second is divine creation.
How about 'certain organisms don't fossilize nearly as well as others', which is Dawkins' position:
quote:
...the free-living tubellarian worms, of which there are more than four thousand species; that’s about as numerous as all the mammal species put togetherThey are common, both in water and on land, and presumably have been common for a very long time. You’d expect, therefore, to see a rich fossil history. Unfortunately, there is almost nothing. Apart from a handful of ambiguous trace fossils, not a single fossil flatworm has ever been found...in this case, ‘the very first time they appear’ is not the Cambrian but today. Do you see what this means, or at least ought to mean for creationists? Creationists believe that flatworms were created in the same week as all other creatures. They have therefore had exactly the same time in which to fossilise as all other animals. ... If the gap before the Cambrian Explosion is used as evidence that most animals suddenly sprang into existence in the Cambrian, exactly the same ‘logic’ should be used to prove that the flatworms sprang into existence yesterday. Yet this contradicts the creationist’s belief that flatworms were created during the same creative week as everything else. You cannot have it both ways. This argument, at a stroke, completely destroys the creationist case that the Precambrian gap in the fossil record weakens the evidence for evolution.
--The Greatest Show on Earth
All you need to do, is to show that life on earth has not changed since the Cambrian. That will completely disprove evolution. Even if God created the phyla, that still does not discredit the notion that they have changed since the creation.
Is that what you want to say 'that the baramin were approximately at the phyla level'? Presumably humans aren't chordata and we're in our own unique phylum? Are there any human fossilized remains in Cambrian aged rocks?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Eliyahu, posted 02-07-2014 9:34 AM Eliyahu has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024