Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution
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

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


(3)
Message 231 of 342 (718987)
02-10-2014 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 229 by Eliyahu
02-10-2014 12:01 AM


Re: Fossils disprove evolution
... and who managed to change the field from the erronous postion: "The fossil record supports gradual Darwinistic evolution" to PE ...
Which is, ummm, ... evolution!
I'm glad you hold the work of Gould and Eldredge in such esteem and now agree with evolution.
Thank you for playing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Eliyahu, posted 02-10-2014 12:01 AM Eliyahu has not replied

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


Message 232 of 342 (718989)
02-10-2014 12:31 AM
Reply to: Message 230 by Eliyahu
02-10-2014 12:16 AM


Re: Fossils disprove evolution
Since the beginning of time.
You are sure about that?
Here is what evolutionary experts say about that one...
But stasis is part of PE, is it not?
And what is PE?
And how about what you say? Are you incapable of speaking for yourself?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Eliyahu, posted 02-10-2014 12:16 AM Eliyahu has not replied

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


(2)
Message 237 of 342 (719015)
02-10-2014 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 233 by Eliyahu
02-10-2014 2:03 AM


Re: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.
On the other hand, we rely on evidence for evolution.
Evolution is always gradual, unless you believe in the now outdated term "hopefull monsters"..
Please show us anything in the modern synthesis of evolution that says evolution must occur at a given rate. Please tell us what that rate is.
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.
Please explain this line of reasoning. How can the rate of evolution also be 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'.
Why do you suppose that is?
What convolutions must you go through to rationalize this logic?
Isn't it more reasonable to say that Eldredge is saying that evolution occurs at variable rates?
He says "No miserly fossil record".
But you said a while ago that the fossil record is imperfect.
So which is 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.
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.
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?
And that is what I'm saying all the time.
Actually, you aren't saying very much, particularly since your experts say the opposite of what you attribute to them.
Yes it is. 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?
Could it also be that both occur? Wouldn't that solve your problem?
So we went from stasis being proof for non-evolution to stasis being a part of evolution.
What is this 'proof' business? Have you ever actually studies science?
Many times an about-face has occurred, and undoubtedly many more are going to come in the evo theory.
Not sure what you mean by an 'about face'. I don't see anyone saying that species have not evolved, just a dispute as to the rate of evolution.
But yes, we have added to our knowledge of evolution and revised the theory of evolution.
It's called learning.
You should try it.
So it is best not to take the statements of evolutionists too seriously, because tomorrow they may hold the opposite.
You have not shown this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Eliyahu, posted 02-10-2014 2:03 AM Eliyahu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by RAZD, posted 02-10-2014 1:14 PM edge has not replied
 Message 239 by Eliyahu, posted 02-10-2014 1:42 PM edge has replied

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


(2)
Message 244 of 342 (719028)
02-10-2014 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by Eliyahu
02-10-2014 1:42 PM


Re: Fossils disprove evolution
You seem to know something I don't.
Probably true.
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.
Gradualism is not the rate of evolution, it is slow evolution.
Fine, so now you have rate as part of your definition. I say that PE is rapid evolution. Now what?
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.
In that case Darwin was correct. As is Eldredge.
We have filled in gaps and evolution can occur at variable rates.
Not sure what your problem is then.
Maybe he says so, but not in the above quote.
I didn't say that he did, however, it does fill in the dots for you without trying to make Eldredge say that evolution is unsupported by the fossil record, when that is where his evidence comes from.
It is imperfect according to all the evo's, who cannot prove evolution with it.
Once again, you show your confusion. Science is not about proof, but the weight of evidence. You still argue from ignorance. To you an imperfect record refutes evolution. To most of us, the evidence available in the fossil record supports evolution.
With the difference that the punctuation, the gaps, are all over the fossil record, ...
This is a problem?
... and the gradual evolution is nowhere to be found. It is only assumed.
Actually, gradual evolution is evidenced by some of the examples given to you and also by stasis.
It's more like they interpreted non-evidence, the stasis, in order to come up with PE.
Actually, a lack of evidence can be evidence. They just look at it as knowledge, whereas you prefer to emphasize ignorance.
Their "evidence" was in their brainwashing.
Remember, these are the guys you present as experts. Now you are saying they were brainwashed.
And yet you quote them.
So, what's the story?
They were convinced evolution had happened, yet they couldn't find any proof for it.
Wrong again. No one is looking for 'proof', just evidence.
Ergo: It must have happened in nooks and crannies and therefore the evidence cannot be found; behold: PE is born!
Which just happens to be ... evolution! By the way, there was already ample evidence that evolution has happened. The real question is, what is the fossil record telling us about it.
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.
Yes, what have we learned about the fossil record and what does it tell us about the way evolution occurred.
And I've got news for you. Evolution is the only explanation for the fossil record. If not, please explain why there are no humans in the Cambrian record and no dinosaurs in the Precambrian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by Eliyahu, posted 02-10-2014 1:42 PM Eliyahu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by Eliyahu, posted 02-11-2014 1:42 AM edge has replied

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


(1)
Message 274 of 342 (719092)
02-11-2014 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by Eliyahu
02-11-2014 6:59 AM


Re: Fossils disprove evolution
So PE is just an explanation for the total lack of evolution in the fossil record.
Is that what your quote mines say?
Please document.
And since species pop up suddenly, without any link to supposed predecessors, ...
They do? Is that what Gould said?
... 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.
Is that the creation story? Millions of years? Stasis with sudden appearances?
So the fossil record confirms creation, and disproves evolution.
If you say so. Millions of years with long periods of stasis evident in some fossils, and (many) sudden changes throughout geological time, eventually leading to the current status of life on earth.
Sounds good to me.
But that kinda sounds like evolution...
Except there where it doesn't, there an evo must say that the layers got mixed up.
Please provide and example and maybe we could discuss it. You know, talk about the specifics a little bit rather than make sweeping generalizations.
Please give me some numbers of posts in which people prove that my notion of what Eldredge says is wrong.
Ummm... pretty much all of them.
In the meantime I post some more Eldredge:
I'm not getting the same message as you. But hey, you're the big science guy so you must be right.
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Eliyahu, posted 02-11-2014 6:59 AM Eliyahu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by Eliyahu, posted 02-12-2014 6:47 AM edge has replied

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


Message 275 of 342 (719093)
02-11-2014 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 258 by Eliyahu
02-11-2014 1:42 AM


Re: Fossils disprove evolution
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.
So, they just popped into existence, eh?
Sounds like YEC to me.
But no, organs and limbs don't do that. They evolve.
But I see you also don't know.
I never said I was a biologist, but I'm pretty sure that my understanding exceeds yours.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Eliyahu, posted 02-11-2014 1:42 AM Eliyahu has not replied

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


Message 276 of 342 (719094)
02-11-2014 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 256 by Eliyahu
02-11-2014 12:28 AM


Re: Fossils disprove evolution
The difference is that a creationist does not call his assumptions about the deep past "sience".
Neither do we.
But then, you are way ahead of me on what sience is.
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by Eliyahu, posted 02-11-2014 12:28 AM Eliyahu has not replied

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


Message 277 of 342 (719095)
02-11-2014 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 260 by Eliyahu
02-11-2014 2:08 AM


Re: Fossils disprove evolution
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:
So, you are saying that no gaps have been filled?
And what if Darwin was wrong about this? So what?
Your quote mine does not 'prove' this; and remember the future is still ahead of us.
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.
It's called 'learning', Eli. You should try it sometime.
You do realize that Darwin lived over a century ago, or has that fact also escaped you?
The excuse is called "punctuated equilibrium".
No, the explanation is PE.
In short it is the claim that evolution only takes place in nooks and crannies, and therefore we cannot find any evidence for it.
But we do see evidence for it. That is the point. Not to mention the logic of the argument.
Are you saying that a superhero magiking creatures into existence makes more sense?
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by Eliyahu, posted 02-11-2014 2:08 AM Eliyahu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by Eliyahu, posted 02-12-2014 6:53 AM edge has replied

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


Message 278 of 342 (719096)
02-11-2014 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 259 by Eliyahu
02-11-2014 1:57 AM


Re: Fossils disprove evolution
For new bodyparts you need new genes, and they don't pop up out of nowhere.
But isn't that how you think new genes appeared?
Just what is your story?
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by Eliyahu, posted 02-11-2014 1:57 AM Eliyahu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by Eliyahu, posted 02-12-2014 6:55 AM edge has replied

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


Message 279 of 342 (719097)
02-11-2014 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 271 by Percy
02-11-2014 8:51 AM


Re: Fossils disprove evolution
If you don't understand how evolution explains the history of life, how is it that you feel qualified to have an opinion?
My theory is that revealed truth always trumps learned truth in the world of YEC.
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by Percy, posted 02-11-2014 8:51 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 304 of 342 (719238)
02-12-2014 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 289 by Eliyahu
02-12-2014 6:47 AM


Re: Fossils disprove evolution
Yes.
"The Eldredge-Gould concept of punctuated equilibria has gained wide acceptance among paleontologists. It attempts to account for the following paradox: Within continuously sampled lineages, one rarely finds the gradual morphological trends predicted by Darwinian evolution; rather, change occurs with the sudden appearance of new, well-differentiated species. Eldredge and Gould equate such appearances with speciation, although the details of these events are not preserved. .... The punctuated equilibrium model has been widely accepted, not because it has a compelling theoretical basis but because it appears to resolve a dilemma. Apart from the obvious sampling problems inherent to the observations that stimulated the model, and apart from its intrinsic circularity (one could argue that speciation can occur only when phyletic change is rapid, not vice versa), the model is more ad hoc explanation than theory, and it rests on shaky ground."
Ricklefs, Robert E., "Paleontologists Confronting Macroevolution," Science, vol. 199, 1978, p. 59
That's odd. I don't see the words 'total lack of evolution' anywhere in your piece.
Please try again.
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by Eliyahu, posted 02-12-2014 6:47 AM Eliyahu has not replied

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


Message 305 of 342 (719239)
02-12-2014 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 290 by Eliyahu
02-12-2014 6:53 AM


Re: Fossils disprove evolution
For sure not in the fossil record, and that's the point of this discussion.
The fossil record shows ample evidence for the evolution of fossils and fossil communities through time. That is why we don't see elephants in the Cambrian, etc.
I say it is more in line with the evidence.
What evidence is that?
You actually have evidence for magic?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by Eliyahu, posted 02-12-2014 6:53 AM Eliyahu has not replied

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


(2)
Message 306 of 342 (719240)
02-12-2014 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 291 by Eliyahu
02-12-2014 6:55 AM


Re: Fossils disprove evolution
My story is: God created them.
Kinda lacks a few details, eh?
If you wrote news articles, you'e be looking for a new job.
Okay, so, you have this 'god', who has superhero powers. What evidence do you have for God? How does he/she/it create life? Is there some kind of magic wand? When and where did God create life?
I have more questions if you like.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by Eliyahu, posted 02-12-2014 6:55 AM Eliyahu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 314 by Eliyahu, posted 02-20-2014 6:40 AM edge 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