Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


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 204 of 342 (718830)
02-09-2014 1:54 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by New Cat's Eye
02-07-2014 12:30 PM


Re: The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution
Anyways here's what it actually is:
quoteunctuated equilibrium (also called punctuated equilibria) is a theory in evolutionary biology which proposes that most species will exhibit little net evolutionary change for most of their geological history, remaining in an extended state called stasis. When significant evolutionary change occurs, the theory proposes that it is generally restricted to rare and rapid (on a geologic time scale) events of branching speciation called cladogenesis. Cladogenesis is the process by which a species splits into two distinct species, rather than one species gradually transforming into another.From wiki
As you see, it is still evolution. Its just a different way of going about it.
Bs'd
The whole reason for that theory is the total lack of evidence in the fossil record for evolution.
What the fossil record shows is that species exhibit STASIS, non-change.
So the evo's came up with a theory that the supposed evolution happens only once in a while, 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.
And your quote from an expert is from almost 40 years ago. We've come along way sense then.
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.
Please give me some experts who disagree with the notion of Eldredge that the fossil record is exactly what it seems.
You really need to find some more up-to-date experts.
Do I need to find them or you?
I hold that the fossil record does not support evolution.
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.
So PE is the proof that there is no evolution to be seen in the fossil record,
No, its an explanation that evolution didn't happen extrememly gradually like we used to think it did.
If there was evolution visibele in the fossil record, we would not need PE. Therefore PE is the proof that there is no evolution te be seen in the fossil record.
But its still evolution happening nonetheless.
Only in theory, not in the real world, and not in the fossil record.
But we can find evolution in the fossil record, its just not exactly like we originally thought it to be.
No we can not:
"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
S.M. Stanley is an American professor, paleontologist, and evolutionary biologist at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. For most of his career he taught geology at Johns Hopkins University (1969-2005) He is best known for his empirical research documenting the evolutionary process of punctuated equilibrium in the fossil record.
He wrote many articles, also together with Niles Eldredge, de co-inventor of the punctuated equilibrium theory.
For more info about prof Stanley look here: Steven M. Stanley - Wikipedia
As you can see: No evolution in the fossil record.
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 foulish to present a present scientific viewpoint as an established fact, because tomorrow science might hold something completely different.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-07-2014 12:30 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-09-2014 1:59 AM Eliyahu has not replied
 Message 215 by Percy, posted 02-09-2014 8:31 AM Eliyahu has replied
 Message 223 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-09-2014 11:17 AM Eliyahu has not replied

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


Message 206 of 342 (718832)
02-09-2014 2:13 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by arachnophilia
02-09-2014 12:56 AM


Re: The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution
don't be ridiculous. the specimens that are represented do in fact agree extremely strongly with darwin.
Bs'd
Then please explain why Darwin said ten or more times that the fossil record is incomplete.
If it agreed extremely strongly with him, then why keep on saying that it is imperfect??
Your fossil picture is from 1863, 4 years after the first ediion of The Origin of Species, however, the 6th and final edition came out in 1872, and in there he put a whole chapter about the imperfections of the fossil record.
I posted that whole chapter herre, and then this happened:
[ 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 ]
So you'll have to make do with the out of context quotes, here are some of 'm from that chapter ( Read On the Origin of Species 6th Edition by Charles Darwin, Read free on ReadCentral.com ):
In the sixth chapter I enumerated the chief objections which might be justly urged against the views maintained in this volume. Most of them have now been discussed. One, namely, the distinctness of specific forms and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty. I
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, 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.
On the poorness of palaeontological collections.
Now let us turn to our richest museums, and what a paltry display we behold! That our collections are imperfect is admitted by every one.
But the imperfection in the geological record largely results from another and more important cause than any of the foregoing;
On the absence of numerous intermediate varieties in any single formation.
From these several considerations it cannot be doubted that the geological record, viewed as a whole, is extremely imperfect; but if we confine our attention to any one formation, it becomes much more difficult to understand why we do not therein find closely graduated varieties between the allied species which lived at its commencement and at its close.
It may be worth while to sum up the foregoing remarks on the causes of the imperfection of the geological record under an imaginary illustration.
If then there be some degree of truth in these remarks, we have no right to expect to find, in our geological formations, an infinite number of those fine transitional forms, which, on our theory, have connected all the past and present species of the same group into one long and branching chain of life.
But I do not pretend that I should ever have suspected how poor was the record in the best preserved geological sections, had not the absence of innumerable transitional links between the species which lived at the commencement and close of each formation, pressed so hardly on my theory.
On the sudden appearance of whole groups of allied species.
The abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palaeontologists for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick, as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species.
On the sudden appearance of groups of allied species in the lowest known fossiliferous strata.
There is another and allied difficulty, which is much more serious. I allude to the manner in which species belonging to several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks.
So the fossil record does not "extremely strong agree" with Darwin, what it does is extremely strong DISagreeing with Darwin.
No evolution in the fossil record.
Edited by Admin, : Provide link to source of quotes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by arachnophilia, posted 02-09-2014 12:56 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-09-2014 2:48 AM Eliyahu has not replied
 Message 209 by edge, posted 02-09-2014 3:47 AM Eliyahu has replied
 Message 216 by Admin, posted 02-09-2014 8:37 AM Eliyahu has not replied
 Message 218 by arachnophilia, posted 02-09-2014 9:24 AM Eliyahu has not replied
 Message 221 by Coyote, posted 02-09-2014 10:45 AM Eliyahu has not replied

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


Message 210 of 342 (718848)
02-09-2014 6:36 AM
Reply to: Message 208 by edge
02-09-2014 3:33 AM


Re: The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution
You do understand the difference between being incomplete and being in disagreement, don't you?
Bs'd
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?
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 208 by edge, posted 02-09-2014 3:33 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by edge, posted 02-09-2014 8:08 AM Eliyahu has not replied
 Message 227 by ringo, posted 02-09-2014 1:45 PM Eliyahu has not replied

  
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

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


Message 229 of 342 (718982)
02-10-2014 12:01 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by RAZD
02-09-2014 8:08 AM


Fossils disprove evolution
Again science is not based on people and what they say, it is based on the scientific method and what the evidence says.
Bs'd
Here I agree with you. And therefore you'll understand that I'm not going to be swayed by you post nr 5, because that is just something that somebody says, somebody I don't know, an anonymous person. Your post is spiced up by some pictures, which, for all intends and purposes, might be taken from a fairy tale book. So therefore, I won't pay too much attention to that.
I go by the scientific method.
And I also believe that big well known scientists who were/are leaders in their field, who managed to turn their field around and managed to make the rest follow them, like for instance Gould and Eldredge, who went with danger for life and limb, well, lets make that: with danger for job and career, against the grain, and who managed to change the field from the erronous postion: "The fossil record supports gradual Darwinistic evolution" to PE, I believe that if they say something about the fossil record, you can be reasonably sure about it.
And that is why I hold the words of Gould and Eldredge in a much higher regard then those of a certain "RAZD".
And that is why whatever a cerain "RAZD" says, it cannot overthrow the opinion of established experts like Gould and Elfdredge.
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.
Like I made clear to you, message 5 is not evidence, it is the ramblings of an anonymous nobody, not to be wasted too many words on.
Remember, we don't go by what people say, and we definitely don't go by what an anonymous layman says.


"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 212 by RAZD, posted 02-09-2014 8:08 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by edge, posted 02-10-2014 12:25 AM Eliyahu has not replied
 Message 235 by RAZD, posted 02-10-2014 9:39 AM Eliyahu has not replied

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


Message 230 of 342 (718985)
02-10-2014 12:16 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by edge
02-09-2014 8:21 AM


Fossils disprove evolution
Since when is stasis not a part of evolution?
Bs'd
Since the beginning of time.
Here is what evolutionary experts say about that one:
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
.
.
.
Edited by Eliyahu, : No reason given.
Edited by AdminPhat, : 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 214 by edge, posted 02-09-2014 8:21 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by edge, posted 02-10-2014 12:31 AM Eliyahu has not replied

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


Message 233 of 342 (718993)
02-10-2014 2:03 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by Percy
02-09-2014 8:31 AM


Fossils disprove evolution
Evolution is occurring all the time.
Bs'd
Or so you think.
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.
Environment cannot make new species. Actually, nobody knows what can.
...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.
Evolution is always gradual, unless you believe in the now outdated term "hopefull monsters".
It always takes millions of years to come up with a fundamentally different new species.
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".
Species don't change overnight in a totally new species. If evolution happens at all, it has to be gradual.
Therefore: Gradualism = evolution, and the other way around.
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.
That's strange, I see them saying things like this:
"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
He says "No miserly fossil record".
And also:
"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
Clear what? He does NOT hold by an imperfect fossil record.
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.
So we are no longer hampered by an imperfect fossil record, but we can deduct from it that gradualism just didn't happen.
And according to PE, that what did happen, happened in out of the way small places, and therefore we cannot find any evidence of it.
So the fossil record shows us that there is no evidence of evolution.
And that is what I'm saying all the time.
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.
Oh. Well, I don't remember anything like that. That's of course my bad memory, but please give me some numbers of the posts where I can find that.
Thanks in advance.
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:
There is no non-gradual evolution.
"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
Amen.
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.
Yes it is. So we went from a fossil record that supported gradualism, to a fossil record that does not support it .
So we went from stasis being proof for non-evolution to stasis being a part of evolution.
Many times an about-face has occurred, and undoubtedly many more are going to come in the evo theory.
So it is best not to take the statements of evolutionists too seriously, because tomorrow they may hold the opposite.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Return subtitle to normal from large font color.


"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 215 by Percy, posted 02-09-2014 8:31 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-10-2014 2:14 AM Eliyahu has not replied
 Message 236 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-10-2014 9:54 AM Eliyahu has not replied
 Message 237 by edge, posted 02-10-2014 11:42 AM Eliyahu has replied
 Message 253 by Percy, posted 02-10-2014 8:40 PM Eliyahu has replied
 Message 254 by Coyote, posted 02-10-2014 9:22 PM Eliyahu has not replied

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


Message 239 of 342 (719021)
02-10-2014 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by edge
02-10-2014 11:42 AM


Fossils disprove evolution
Environment cannot make new species. Actually, nobody knows what can.
Thank you for confirming that your whole argument is based on ignorance.
Bs'd
You seem to know something I don't. Please enlighten me and tell me through which mechanism new species which completely new organs and limbs can be made.
Therefore: Gradualism = evolution, and the other way around.
Please explain this line of reasoning. How can the rate of evolution also be evolution?
Gradualism is not the rate of evolution, it is slow evolution.
That's strange, I see them saying things like this:
"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
Okay, so according to you, Eldredge is saying that evolution is wrong and yet, Eldredge is an 'evolutionist'.
He doesn't say "evolution is wrong", he says that the fossil record does not show any evolution, and he says that Darwin was wrong when he prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search.
Isn't it more reasonable to say that Eldredge is saying that evolution occurs at variable rates?
Maybe he says so, but not in the above quote.
He says "No miserly fossil record".
But you said a while ago that the fossil record is imperfect.
It is imperfect according to all the evo's, who cannot prove evolution with it.
So we are no longer hampered by an imperfect fossil record, but we can deduct from it that gradualism just didn't happen.
Not really. We can say that gradualism is accompanied by punctuation just as well.
With the difference that the punctuation, the gaps, are all over the fossil record, and the gradual evolution is nowhere to be found. It is only assumed.
And according to PE, that what did happen, happened in out of the way small places, and therefore we cannot find any evidence of it.
Actually, we do see evidence of that. In fact, your own experts (Gould and Eldredge) interpreted evidence to come up with PE.
It's more like they interpreted non-evidence, the stasis, in order to come up with PE.
So the fossil record shows us that there is no evidence of evolution.
Please explain your logic here. Gould and Eldredge were both evolutionists and they used evidence to arrive at the theory of PE. So, how is that 'no evidence' for evolution?
Their "evidence" was in their brainwashing. They were convinced evolution had happened, yet they couldn't find any proof for it. Ergo: It must have happened in nooks and crannies and therefore the evidence cannot be found; behold: PE is born!
So we went from a fossil record that supported gradualism, to a fossil record that does not support it .
Not sure how you got that. When did the fossil record support gradualism and when did it change?
The fossil record of course NEVER supported evolution, but we are here not talking about the fossil record changing, but about science changing its opinion about the fossil record.
For more than 100 years science told the public the big lie about the fossil record, all the while knowing is was not true:
".... 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"
Could it also be that both occur? Wouldn't that solve your problem?
There is only evidence for stasis, not for evolution.


"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 237 by edge, posted 02-10-2014 11:42 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-10-2014 2:00 PM Eliyahu has not replied
 Message 244 by edge, posted 02-10-2014 3:01 PM Eliyahu has replied
 Message 245 by Percy, posted 02-10-2014 4:22 PM Eliyahu has not replied

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


Message 256 of 342 (719057)
02-11-2014 12:28 AM
Reply to: Message 255 by RAZD
02-10-2014 10:26 PM


Fossils disprove evolution
Of course Faith (and Ham) would likely argue that you are making assumptions about the unknowable deep past that are not valid because you weren't there ... of course that would also hold for Eliyahu ... but why would creationists worry about that eh?
Bs'd
The difference is that a creationist does not call his assumptions about the deep past "sience".
Another difference is that the creationist has the fossil record to back him up in his believe that all species are created, without evolutionair link to predecessors. The evo's need to make up excuses why the fossil record doesn't show what they claim.
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 255 by RAZD, posted 02-10-2014 10:26 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by RAZD, posted 02-11-2014 7:39 AM Eliyahu has not replied
 Message 276 by edge, posted 02-11-2014 10:18 AM Eliyahu has not replied

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


Message 258 of 342 (719061)
02-11-2014 1:42 AM
Reply to: Message 244 by edge
02-10-2014 3:01 PM


Re: Fossils disprove evolution
Please enlighten me and tell me through which mechanism new species which completely new organs and limbs can be made.
That wasn't my point. My point is that your argument relies on what we don't know rather than what we do know. It is basically an argument from ignorance.
But in answer to your question, you are confused. There is no mechanism for a 'completely new organ or limb' can be formed. That is not how evolution works. So your question is not relevant.
Bs'd
According to evolution, whole new species with new organs an limbs have been made, so obviously there must be some kind of mechanism for it.
But I see you also don't know.


"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 244 by edge, posted 02-10-2014 3:01 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by RAZD, posted 02-11-2014 7:45 AM Eliyahu has not replied
 Message 275 by edge, posted 02-11-2014 10:15 AM Eliyahu has not replied

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


Message 259 of 342 (719065)
02-11-2014 1:57 AM
Reply to: Message 253 by Percy
02-10-2014 8:40 PM


Fossils disprove evolution
Every reproductive event, every birth of a child or a kitten or a tadpole, contains a tiny bit of evolution because offspring are different from parents, and the differences are inherited by the next generation which will contain yet more differences.
Bs'd
Wrong. The difference between parents and offspring, and between brothers, is not because of evolution, but because of recombination. And since recombination can only work with the DNA available in the parents, the amount of change is limited.
So it will be absolutely impossible to breed a hamster into a crocodile. Also in thousands of generations, because the genes for it are simply not available.
For more about recombination see here: Genetic recombination - Wikipedia
Environment cannot make new species. Actually, nobody knows what can.
Wrong on both counts. Evolution through selection of existing variation and the creation of new variation is what produces adaptation to changing environments. This has been demonstrated experimentally many times with short-lived species like bacteria.
There is a limit to adaptation, because the limits in the available genes in the DNA.
For new bodyparts you need new genes, and they don't pop up out of nowhere.


"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 253 by Percy, posted 02-10-2014 8:40 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by Tangle, posted 02-11-2014 2:14 AM Eliyahu has replied
 Message 266 by RAZD, posted 02-11-2014 7:57 AM Eliyahu has replied
 Message 270 by Percy, posted 02-11-2014 8:48 AM Eliyahu has replied
 Message 278 by edge, posted 02-11-2014 10:46 AM Eliyahu has replied

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


Message 260 of 342 (719067)
02-11-2014 2:08 AM
Reply to: Message 250 by Taq
02-10-2014 6:00 PM


Fossils disprove evolution
The problem for you is that Darwin predicted the same thing that Gould and Eldredge would later predict:
Bs'd
That was not a prediction, but an assumption. What Darwin did predict, was that future finds would fill up the gaps in the fossil record. And that predicton has been proved wrong:
"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 one prediction that Darwin made, is proven wrong.
"Only a small portion of the world has been geologically explored. Only organic beings of certain classes can be preserved in a fossil condition, at least in any great number. Widely ranging species vary most, and varieties are often at first local, -- both causes rendering the discovery of intermediate links less likely. Local varieties will not spread into other and distant regions until they are considerably modified and improved; and when they do spread, if discovered in a geological formation, they will appear as if suddenly created there, and will be simply classed as new species." [Charles Darwin, Origin of Species 1st Edition 1859, p.439]
Darwin described Punctuated Equilibria as part of the original work on Evolution.
How can PE prove Darwin wrong when Darwin fully accepted PE?
Darwin believed in constant gradual evolution. He, just like Gould and Eldredge, was forced to find excuses for the fact that the fossil record totally disagrees with him.
The excuse is called "punctuated equilibrium".
In short it is the claim that evolution only takes place in nooks and crannies, and therefore we cannot find any evidence for it.


"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 250 by Taq, posted 02-10-2014 6:00 PM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by RAZD, posted 02-11-2014 8:08 AM Eliyahu has not replied
 Message 277 by edge, posted 02-11-2014 10:41 AM Eliyahu has replied

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


Message 262 of 342 (719072)
02-11-2014 6:32 AM
Reply to: Message 261 by Tangle
02-11-2014 2:14 AM


Re: Fossils disprove evolution
Bs'd
So we agree it doesn't work like that.
Can now somebody tell me how they think it DOES happen?
Edited by AdminModulous, : subtitle shrinkage


"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 261 by Tangle, posted 02-11-2014 2:14 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by RAZD, posted 02-11-2014 8:12 AM Eliyahu has not replied
 Message 271 by Percy, posted 02-11-2014 8:51 AM Eliyahu has not replied
 Message 283 by Tangle, posted 02-11-2014 1:52 PM Eliyahu has replied

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


Message 263 of 342 (719074)
02-11-2014 6:59 AM
Reply to: Message 253 by Percy
02-10-2014 8:40 PM


Fossils disprove evolution
And according to PE, that what did happen, happened in out of the way small places, and therefore we cannot find any evidence of it.
We're over 200 messages in and you still can't get it right. It is thought that much evolutionary change occurs in small populations in small geographic regions, greatly reducing the likelihood of fossils and of their being discovered.
Bs'd
Looks to me we're saying the same thing: "PE says that evolution happened in nooks and crannies, and therefore we cannot find any evidence of it."
So PE is just an explanation for the total lack of evolution in the fossil record.
And since species pop up suddenly, without any link to supposed predecessors, and since those species don't change during the millions of years they are present in the fossil record, therefore they are totally in line with the creation story.
So the fossil record confirms creation, and disproves evolution.
Is that really so hard to understand?
So the fossil record shows us that there is no evidence of evolution.
For the fossil record to show no evidence of evolution would require all species to be found in all geologic eras, but that's not what the fossil record shows. What the fossil record actually shows is increasing difference from modern forms with increasing depth, a record of continual change over time, evolution.
Except there where it doesn't, there an evo must say that the layers got mixed up.
Oh. Well, I don't remember anything like that. That's of course my bad memory, but please give me some numbers of the posts where I can find that.
Thanks in advance.
See almost any message in the thread. I've never seen "playing dumb" employed as a debate strategy with such determination before.
Please give me some numbers of posts in which people prove that my notion of what Eldredge says is wrong.
Please take good notice that I don't want people SAYING that my notion of what Eldredge says is wrong, because everybody can say whatever he wants.
What I want is post numbers where people PROVE that point.
In the meantime I post some more Eldredge:
.
.
.

"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 flatly fails to substantiate this expectation of finely graded change."
Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p. 163
.
.
.


"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 253 by Percy, posted 02-10-2014 8:40 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by RAZD, posted 02-11-2014 8:19 AM Eliyahu has not replied
 Message 272 by Percy, posted 02-11-2014 9:29 AM Eliyahu has not replied
 Message 274 by edge, posted 02-11-2014 10:11 AM Eliyahu has replied
 Message 280 by Percy, posted 02-11-2014 11:15 AM Eliyahu has replied

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


Message 288 of 342 (719186)
02-12-2014 1:46 AM
Reply to: Message 266 by RAZD
02-11-2014 7:57 AM


Re: Fossils and life demonstrate evolution
Wrong. The difference between parents and offspring, and between brothers, is not because of evolution, but because of recombination. And since recombination can only work with the DNA available in the parents, the amount of change is limited.
Wrong. The amount of change is unlimited: all DNA is composed of 4 bases repeated many times, any new arrangement -- which can occur during recombination -- can occur.
Bs'd
Wrong. When there is a limited number of bases, then there is a limited number of ways in which you can recombine them.
For more about recombination see here: Genetic recombination - Wikipedia
Which tells you how new genes are evolved.
That's one thing I don't see there. Please post it here.
For new bodyparts you need new genes, and they don't pop up out of nowhere.
Correct, they evolve over generations.
And HOW do you think they evolve??
That's the question.


"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 266 by RAZD, posted 02-11-2014 7:57 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by RAZD, posted 02-12-2014 8:16 AM Eliyahu has not replied
 Message 302 by Taq, posted 02-12-2014 11:23 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