Member (Idle past 2053 days)
Message 14 of 121 (521360)
08-27-2009 7:49 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by cpthiltz
08-26-2009 4:46 AM
oh dear...another straw man
Oh dear...mister (or miss) cpthiltz, please just go to the library and read up on paleontology, geology and perhaps even beg, borrow, steal or buy "the origin of species" and you'll see (hopefully) why that article you linked is simply wrong from top to bottom.
Why is there hardly any evidence in the fossil record of the millions & millions of complex organism with failed mutations?
because mutations don't happen like that. There are no crocoducks. The next generation isn't the next evolutionary branch of the species. Real life does not produce pokemon, nor does it produce teenage mutant ninja turtles.
|Can the lack of evidence prove evolution is not a driving force in life as we see today?|
There is no lack of evidence!
Look, if you can tell me why you believe you know anything about your great-great grandparents (assuming you have pictures of them, assuming they didn't live to actually see you) then you'll understand more about the fossil record. We don't have the skeleton of every single species, let alone every single member of every single species, that has ever existed. We have pieces...but a LOT of pieces.
|An analogy of this is leaving a group of monkeys in a room with a typewriter to produce a perfect copy of Shakespeare's Hamlet through random keystrokes.|
no, just no. The analogy is wrong, wrong, wrong. I lack the leet linking skills of others, but go read the "evolving new information" thread for a far better analogy - suffice to say it's wrong because the lamarckian method you expect is a strawman oft trotted out by people who should know better and fed wholesale to those who do not.
Changes, mutations, are small, small, small.
What we DO see in the fossil records are examples of changes in one species over time, and species with traits of other species (archaeopteryx, tiktaalik, ...there are more). The fossil record is amazingly complex, amazingly complete and very, very much backs up evolution. Please study reliable sources of information about the subject written by people who understand it. Start with Darwin's book for information on natural selection.
yes, and I'm sorry to say the author is either pig-ignorant or deliberately confusing the issue with inaccurate examples of randomness, chance, mutation, evolution, paleontology and everything else his digital pen has touched. It is, in three words, full of fail.
|This message is a reply to:|
| ||Message 1 by cpthiltz, posted 08-26-2009 4:46 AM|| ||cpthiltz has not yet responded|
|Replies to this message:|
| ||Message 16 by RAZD, posted 08-27-2009 10:01 PM|| ||greyseal has not yet responded|