Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution
Eliyahu
Member (Idle past 2260 days)
Posts: 288
From: Judah
Joined: 07-23-2013


Message 211 of 342 (718849)
02-09-2014 6:53 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by edge
02-09-2014 3:47 AM


Re: The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution
All that we know about the fossil record supports evolution.
The things we don't know, we don't know.
Okay, so you want to base your argument on what we don't know. I prefer to go with what we do know.
I know. It's difficult, isn't it?
Bs'd
This might be confusing for you, but what we see in the fossil record, absolutely totally does NOT support evolution.
Because this is what we see:
Stasis, or non-change, of most fossil species during their lengthy geological lifespans was tacitly acknowledged by all paleontologists, but almost never studied explicitly because prevailing theory treated stasis as uninteresting nonevidence for nonevolution. .... The overwhelming prevalence of stasis became an embarrassing feature of the fossil record, best left ignored as a manifestation of nothing (that is, non-evolution)."
Gould, Stephen J., "Cordelia's Dilemma," Natural History, 1993, p. 15
Getting the picture? We see STASIS, NON-EVOLUTION in the fossil record. NOT evolution.
.
.
.
"Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. .... The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:
1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless.
2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.
"
Getting the picture? We see STASIS, NON-EVOLUTION in the fossil record. NOT evolution.
.
.
.

".... we have proffered a collective tacit acceptance of the story of gradual adaptive change, a story that strengthened and became even more entrenched as the synthesis took hold. We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports that interpretation, all the while really knowing that it does not."
Eldredge, Niles "Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1985, p. 44
Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182
You see, the fossile record DOES NOT support the story of gradual adaptive change,
.
.
.
"Species that were once thought to have turned into others have been found to overlap in time with these alleged descendants. In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another."
Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin of Species, 1981, p. 95, speaking about the Bighorn basin in Wyoming USA.
S.M. Stanley is an American paleontologist and evolutionary biologist at the University of Hawaii at Manoa.
He wrote many articles, also together with Niles Eldredge, de co-inventor of the punctuated equilibrium theory.
One of his articles is Paleontology and earth system history in the new millennium which has been published in Geological Society of America
For more info about prof Stanley look here: Steven M. Stanley - Wikipedia
.
.
.
How can anybody with two working braincells hold the opinion that the fossil record shows evoluton???
.
.
.
Edited by Eliyahu, : No reason given.
Edited by Eliyahu, : No reason given.
Edited by Eliyahu, : No reason given.
Edited by Eliyahu, : No reason given.


"Those who believe that the geological record is in any degree perfect, will undoubtedly at once reject my theory."

Darwin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by edge, posted 02-09-2014 3:47 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by edge, posted 02-09-2014 8:21 AM Eliyahu has replied
 Message 217 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-09-2014 8:45 AM Eliyahu has not replied
 Message 222 by Coyote, posted 02-09-2014 10:49 AM Eliyahu has not replied
 Message 224 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-09-2014 11:20 AM Eliyahu has not replied

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


(1)
Message 212 of 342 (718852)
02-09-2014 8:08 AM
Reply to: Message 201 by Eliyahu
02-09-2014 12:09 AM


The fossil record conclusively disproves Eliyahu
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?

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 201 by Eliyahu, posted 02-09-2014 12:09 AM Eliyahu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by Eliyahu, posted 02-10-2014 12:01 AM RAZD has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 213 of 342 (718853)
02-09-2014 8:08 AM
Reply to: Message 210 by Eliyahu
02-09-2014 6:36 AM


Re: The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution
What part of "Those who believe that the geological record is in any degree perfect, will undoubtedly at once reject my theory. " is it that you don't understand?
Does this mean that you are not going to answer my question?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Eliyahu, posted 02-09-2014 6:36 AM Eliyahu has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 214 of 342 (718856)
02-09-2014 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by Eliyahu
02-09-2014 6:53 AM


Re: The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution
This might be confusing for you, but what we see in the fossil record, absolutely totally does NOT support evolution.
So, you cannot address my points?
Getting the picture? We see STASIS, NON-EVOLUTION in the fossil record. NOT evolution.
Since when is stasis not a part of evolution?
"The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:
1. Stasis...
2. Sudden appearance..." (your source, emphasis added)
Thank you for demonstrating that stasis is part of evolution. Now maybe you can move on.
How can anybody with two working braincells hold the opinion that the fossil record shows evoluton???
Umm...
By reading your citations?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Eliyahu, posted 02-09-2014 6:53 AM Eliyahu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by Eliyahu, posted 02-10-2014 12:16 AM edge has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 215 of 342 (718858)
02-09-2014 8:31 AM
Reply to: Message 204 by Eliyahu
02-09-2014 1:54 AM


Re: The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution
Eliyahu writes:
So the evo's came up with a theory that the supposed evolution happens only once in a while,...
Evolution is occurring all the time. A tiny amount of evolution occurs in every reproductive event. As the authors you quoted explained, evolution is always taking place, but evolutionary change is a response to environmental change. It's called adaptation. Stable environments do not produce evolutionary change (except for genetic drift) because life is already adapted to that environment. When environments change then species adapt and change.
...and then relatively fast, in a small isolated area. And that is supposed to be the reason that no evolution can be found in the fossil record.
What they actually said (and you quoted them saying it) is that that's the reason that examples of *gradualism* (not evolution) are not well represented in the fossil record.
You're declaring that "no gradualism in the fossil record" equates with "no evolution in the fossil record", and that therefore the authors you've quoted are actually saying there's no evolution, but their own words make clear they don't believe that that's what they're saying, and you've thus far been unable to support your premise that "no evidence of gradualism" is the same as "no evidence of evolution".
Eldredge and Gould hold the fossil record is what it seems, it shows what happened. That is a break with Darwin, who held that the record is imperfect.
If now, 40 years after the onset of PE, things have changed according to you, then the only option is a regression to the viewpoints of Darwin, that the fossil record is imperfect.
Like Darwin, Eldredge and Gould and all other paleontologists understand that the fossil record is imperfect. They're merely pointing out that we now have enough data from the fossil record to conclude that the sparsity of evidence of gradualism is not an artifact of sparse data but is actually real.
Please give me some experts who disagree with the notion of Eldredge that the fossil record is exactly what it seems.
We have already given you tons of evidence that your notion of what Eldredge is saying is wrong. We can't give you any evidence that Eldredge's notion of what he is saying is wrong, because his views are fairly mainstream.
The now common held ET is PE, and that just gives an explanation for the fact that no evolution is to be seen in the fossil record. It confirms that the fossil record does not show evolution.
Again, they're talking about gradualism, not evolution. The next person you quote says exactly that:
"The fossil record itself provided no documentation of continuity - of gradual transition from one animal or plant to another of quite different form."
Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes and the Origin of Species, 1981, p. 40
Moving on:
And that's a good thing, science doesn't progress when we stick with old outdated ideas instead of upgrading our theories as more evidence comes to light.
So science can change its viewpoint at any given time, so it would be foolish to present a present scientific viewpoint as an established fact, because tomorrow science might hold something completely different.
Science is tentative. Theories will change in light of new evidence or improved insight. This is true of all fields of science. If you want to be super anal about it then you could argue there's no such thing as a scientific fact and that nothing can ever be proved, but most people see no need to trivialize language like that. Most people understand that "scientific fact" or "established fact" or "proven" means supported by a great deal of evidence. In science none of these terms is used to imply that some piece of knowledge or understanding is eternal truth. There is no such thing as eternal truth in science. Again, science is tentative.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Eliyahu, posted 02-09-2014 1:54 AM Eliyahu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by arachnophilia, posted 02-09-2014 9:28 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 233 by Eliyahu, posted 02-10-2014 2:03 AM Percy has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 216 of 342 (718859)
02-09-2014 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by Eliyahu
02-09-2014 2:13 AM


Re: The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution
Hi Eliyahu,
I'm not moderating this thread, but since as a participant I'm reading all the messages I will perform editorial functions as needed. In the case of your long cut-n-paste, there's a rule in the Forum Guidelines about that:
  1. Avoid lengthy cut-n-pastes. Introduce the point in your own words and provide a link to your source as a reference. If your source is not on-line you may contact the Site Administrator to have it made available on-line.
You didn't provide a link this time, so I'm going to edit a link to your source into your message.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Eliyahu, posted 02-09-2014 2:13 AM Eliyahu has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 217 of 342 (718861)
02-09-2014 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by Eliyahu
02-09-2014 6:53 AM


Re: The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution
How can anybody with two working braincells hold the opinion that the fossil record shows evoluton???
"Evolution is both a scientific fact and a scientific theory. Evolution is a fact in the sense that life has changed through time. In nature today, the characteristics of species are changing, and new species are arising. The fossil record is the primary factual evidence for evolution in times past, and evolution is well documented by further evidence from other scientific disciplines, including comparative anatomy, biogeography, genetics, molecular biology, and studies of viral and bacterial diseases." --- The Paleontological Society
"The fossil record of vertebrates unequivocally supports the hypothesis that vertebrates have evolved through time, from their first records in the early Paleozoic Era about 500 million years ago to the great diversity we see in the world today. The hypothesis has been strengthened by so many independent observations of fossil sequences that it has come to be regarded as a confirmed fact, as certain as the drift of continents through time or the lawful operation of gravity." --- Society of Vertebrate Paleontology
"The crowning achievement of paleontology has been the demonstration, from the history of life, of the validity of the evolutionary theory [...] The fossil record contains many well-documented examples of the transition from one species into another, as well as the origin of new physical features." --- American Geological Institute.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Eliyahu, posted 02-09-2014 6:53 AM Eliyahu has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


(2)
Message 218 of 342 (718867)
02-09-2014 9:24 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by Eliyahu
02-09-2014 2:13 AM


Re: The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution
Eliyahu writes:
Then please explain why Darwin said ten or more times that the fossil record is incomplete.
because it was. and it is today as well, to a much lesser degree. unless the fossil record were to present every individual that ever lived, it would necessarily be incomplete. but we have far more species described than is necessary to piece together a nearly complete picture of the history of evolution on this planet. very few mysteries, "missing links" remain. some of those major apparent transitions, like non-avian dinosaurs to avian dinosaurs are extremely strongly represented.
archaeopteryx there is the oldest and most hotly debated example. there are 6 complete specimens of archaeopteryx. but we have five or six dozen examples of primitive birds that come after it, showing varying degrees of more avian adaptations (eg: fusing of the carpometacarpus from the manus, reversing of the hallux, beaks) and countless feathered theropods that come both before and after archaeopteryx presenting many avian adaptations initially thought to be unique to archaeopteryx and its descendants (eg: the furcula, pneumatized bones). feathers themselves are an interesting case, as we have an extremely wide variety of various developmental stages in the evolution of feathers, including feathered ornithischians with extremely primitive feathers, showing that they might go all the way back to the earliest dinosaurs. and we have crocodiles, the only other living archosaurs, that were somewhat recently found to have part of a primitive version of the avian respiratory system. living dinosaurs (birds) are easily identified as such by the skeletal formations that identify dinosaurs.
If it agreed extremely strongly with him, then why keep on saying that it is imperfect??
this may come as a surprise to you, but darwin's been dead a long time. he doesn't keep on saying anything.
also, this may come as another surprise, but paleontology was kind of new in darwin's time. they modern science paleontology began in the same century, and the term itself was first used only about 37 years before darwin's book. it was a new science, and they didn't know much at the time. we've come a long, long way in 150 years.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Eliyahu, posted 02-09-2014 2:13 AM Eliyahu has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 219 of 342 (718868)
02-09-2014 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by Percy
02-09-2014 8:31 AM


Re: The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution
Percy writes:
Like Darwin, Eldredge and Gould and all other paleontologists understand that the fossil record is imperfect. They're merely pointing out that we now have enough data from the fossil record to conclude that the sparsity of evidence of gradualism is not an artifact of sparse data but is actually real.
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.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Percy, posted 02-09-2014 8:31 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by RAZD, posted 02-09-2014 10:25 AM arachnophilia has replied

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


(1)
Message 220 of 342 (718872)
02-09-2014 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 219 by arachnophilia
02-09-2014 9:28 AM


fossils and quotes, and the reality of evolution
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.

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 219 by arachnophilia, posted 02-09-2014 9:28 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by arachnophilia, posted 02-09-2014 12:47 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

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


(1)
Message 221 of 342 (718873)
02-09-2014 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by Eliyahu
02-09-2014 2:13 AM


Re: The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution
Then please explain why Darwin said ten or more times that the fossil record is incomplete.
BfD
Because Darwin was writing in the 1850s, and the fossil record was incomplete! (It still is.)
When Darwin published in 1859, one Neanderthal fossil had been identified, and that was in 1857. We now have fossils from over 400 individuals.
I'd say that was an incomplete fossil record in Darwin's day, wouldn't you?

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 206 by Eliyahu, posted 02-09-2014 2:13 AM Eliyahu has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by arachnophilia, posted 02-09-2014 12:49 PM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

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


(1)
Message 222 of 342 (718875)
02-09-2014 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by Eliyahu
02-09-2014 6:53 AM


Re: The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution
How can anybody with two working braincells hold the opinion that the fossil record shows evoluton???
BfD
How? Because I spent about four years studying the fossil evidence, not ten minutes quote-mining the creationist websites, which seems to be the pinnacle of your research.
Edited by Coyote, : Forgot the BfD

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 211 by Eliyahu, posted 02-09-2014 6:53 AM Eliyahu has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 223 of 342 (718877)
02-09-2014 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 204 by Eliyahu
02-09-2014 1:54 AM


Re: The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution
The whole reason for that theory is the total lack of evidence in the fossil record for evolution.
No, that's not true. The reason for the theory was because the evidence of evolution that the fossil record did actually show was that evolution is not a continuous and gradual change like people used to think it was.
What we see are relatively long periods (that is a geological timescale) of equilibrium (what you're calling stasis) that are punctuated by spurts of change (still on a geological timescale). On a biological timescale, the rate of change looks much slower.
Here is the picture again:
Can't you see that those shapes are fairly similar? They're both describing evolution. We've learned that its not nearly as smooth in transition as we used to think it was.
If there was evolution visibele in the fossil record, we would not need PE.
You're misunderstanding what is meant by 'evolution' by assuming it requires gradualism.
If now, 40 years after the onset of PE, things have changed according to you, then the only option is a regression to the viewpoints of Darwin, that the fossil record is imperfect.
Nobody thinks the fossil record is perfect.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Eliyahu, posted 02-09-2014 1:54 AM Eliyahu has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 224 of 342 (718878)
02-09-2014 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by Eliyahu
02-09-2014 6:53 AM


Re: The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution
How can anybody with two working braincells hold the opinion that the fossil record shows evoluton???
We've held the fossils with our own hands and seen with our own eyes that they show evolution.
That's way more powerful than misunderstood cherry-picked quote-mines.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Eliyahu, posted 02-09-2014 6:53 AM Eliyahu has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


(1)
Message 225 of 342 (718892)
02-09-2014 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by RAZD
02-09-2014 10:25 AM


Re: fossils and quotes, and the reality of evolution
RAZD writes:
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.
how can we do that, if we don't have the complete writings of darwin, eldredge and gould?

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by RAZD, posted 02-09-2014 10:25 AM RAZD has seen this message but 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