Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8898 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-25-2019 1:42 PM
28 online now:
Diomedes, Dr Adequate, JonF, PaulK, ringo, Tangle, vimesey (7 members, 21 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,640 Year: 3,677/19,786 Month: 672/1,087 Week: 41/221 Day: 12/29 Hour: 1/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
36NextFF
Author Topic:   TOE and the Reasons for Doubt
Peg
Member (Idle past 3009 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 1 of 530 (526163)
09-26-2009 1:24 AM


We hear all the reasons why evolution is a 'fact' and all the 'evidence' which is supposed to make us feel compelled to believe it. Well this topic is not about reasons TO BELIEVE, but rather the DOUBTS THAT EXIST among those who study ToE.

I dedicate this to Melindoor to whom I made the suggestion to seriously consider some of these doubts.

No.1 Doubt the fossil record.
Darwin’s theory has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils yet do they show the gradual changes that he predicted ?

quote:
Steven M Stanley, The new Evolutionary Timetable, 1981 p92:
He said there is a “general failure of the record to display gradual transitions from one major group to another.” He said: “The known fossil record is not, and never has been, in accord with [slow evolution].”

Niles Eldridge says the same thing in 'The Enterprise, Nov 14, 1980
“The pattern that we were told to find for the last 120 years does not exist.”

Donald E. Chittick, a physical chemist who earned a doctorate degree at Oregon State University, comments:
“A direct look at the fossil record would lead one to conclude that animals reproduced after their kind as Genesis states. They did not change from one kind into another. The evidence now, as in Darwin’s day, is in agreement with the Genesis record of direct creation. Animals and plants continue to reproduce after their kind. In fact, the conflict between paleontology (study of fossils) and Darwinism is so strong that some scientists are beginning to believe that the in-between forms will never be found.”

evolutionist Michael Ruse wrote: “A growing number of biologists...argues that any evolutionary theory based on Darwinian principles—particularly any theory that sees natural selection as the key to evolutionary change—is misleadingly incomplete.”

And even Darwin himself doubted the fossil record for in the introduction to The Origin of Species, he wrote: “I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived.”


Doubt No.2 Evolution by Mutation

Many scientists have noted that over time, the descendants of living things may change slightly. Charles Darwin called this process “descent with subsequent modification.” Such changes have been observed directly, recorded in experiments, and used ingeniously by plant and animal breeders. Seems plausible on the surface.

what is the evidence for mutations in evolution?

quote:
Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, a scientist from the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research in Germany concluded: “Mutations cannot transform an original species [of plant or animal] into an entirely new one. This conclusion agrees with all the experiences and results of mutation research of the 20th century taken together as well as with the laws of probability. Thus, the law of recurrent variation implies that genetically properly defined species have real boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed by accidental mutations.”

Doubt No.3 Evolution by Naturual selection

Darwin believed that natural selection would favor those life-forms best suited to the environment, while less suitable life-forms would eventually die off. Modern evolutionists teach that isolated groups eventually developed into totally new species. The finch's on the golapogolas islands was given as evidence of this. The finch's with smaller beaks died out and those with larger beaks survived during a drought. Seems plausible doesnt it.

did the finch's on the golapogolas islands prove that natural selection drives evolution? No they didnt. In the years following the drought, finches with smaller beaks again dominated the population. Thus, Peter Grant and graduate student Lisle Gibbs wrote in the science journal Nature in 1987 that they had seen “a reversal in the direction of selection.” In 1991, Grant wrote that “the population, subjected to natural selection, is oscillating back and forth” each time the climate changes. The researchers also noticed that some of the different “species” of finches were interbreeding and producing offspring that survived better than the parents. So even after all the small beaked finchs had died out, years later, they were back again...what does this show?

Evolutionary theorist Jeffrey Schwartz wrote in 1999 that "natural selection may be helping species to adapt to the changing demands of existence, but it is not creating anything new.”

_____________________________________________________________

Now i havnt even gone into the 'origin' of life debate which, according to science, is highly unlikely. I'll be happy to add this later...the chance of life spontaneously generating is unbelievably improbably...so much so we could say it is impossible.

I hope this is good for a start and hopefully will get you thinking that there is enough doubt in the ToE, to not completly write off the idea of a creator.

(im not sure which thread, i'll let the mods decide)

Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix a bit of coding.


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Huntard, posted 09-26-2009 2:12 AM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 4 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-26-2009 2:18 AM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 5 by PaulK, posted 09-26-2009 2:43 AM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 6 by Meldinoor, posted 09-26-2009 2:47 AM Peg has responded
 Message 7 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-26-2009 2:51 AM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 11 by subbie, posted 09-26-2009 11:10 AM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 26 by Modulous, posted 09-28-2009 8:56 AM Peg has not yet responded

    
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


(1)
Message 2 of 530 (526167)
09-26-2009 1:34 AM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the TOE and the Reasons for Doubt thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 375 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 3 of 530 (526180)
09-26-2009 2:12 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Peg
09-26-2009 1:24 AM


Creation website much?
Peg, tell me honestly please (not that you wouldn't, but meh), you got this from creationist websites, yes? Even after you were told in the Why are there no human apes alive today? thread that some of those quotes are false (by Percy, in Message 102), you still bring them out here. Why do that, Peg?

I'm willing to bet those other quotes are false as well. When will you learn that these sites lie to you, Peg? Why is it that you trust them so blindly?


I hunt for the truth

I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, ,y servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Peg, posted 09-26-2009 1:24 AM Peg has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 445 by traste, posted 11-26-2009 2:57 AM Huntard has responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16086
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 4 of 530 (526182)
09-26-2009 2:18 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Peg
09-26-2009 1:24 AM


No.1 Doubt the fossil record.
Darwin’s theory has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils yet do they show the gradual changes that he predicted ?

Yes. Hence all the intermediate forms in the fossil record.

All the quotations out of context in the whole world won't make them go away.

Doubt No.2 Evolution by Mutation

Many scientists have noted that over time, the descendants of living things may change slightly. Charles Darwin called this process “descent with subsequent modification.” Such changes have been observed directly, recorded in experiments, and used ingeniously by plant and animal breeders. Seems plausible on the surface.

what is the evidence for mutations in evolution?

We can directly observe beneficial mutations occurring and spreading through a population by natural selection.

Doubt No.3 Evolution by Naturual selection

You don't explain what your doubt is.

did the finch's on the golapogolas islands prove that natural selection drives evolution? No they didnt. In the years following the drought, finches with smaller beaks again dominated the population. Thus, Peter Grant and graduate student Lisle Gibbs wrote in the science journal Nature in 1987 that they had seen “a reversal in the direction of selection.” In 1991, Grant wrote that “the population, subjected to natural selection, is oscillating back and forth” each time the climate changes. The researchers also noticed that some of the different “species” of finches were interbreeding and producing offspring that survived better than the parents. So even after all the small beaked finchs had died out, years later, they were back again...what does this show?

As the scientists you quoted said, it shows that the morphology of the finches was subject to natural selection. As in:

Grant wrote that “the population, subjected to natural selection, is oscillating back and forth” each time the climate changes.

Evolutionary theorist Jeffrey Schwartz wrote in 1999 that "natural selection may be helping species to adapt to the changing demands of existence, but it is not creating anything new.”

Well of course not, that's what mutations do. Selection simply selects the best variants, hence the name.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Peg, posted 09-26-2009 1:24 AM Peg has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14753
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 5 of 530 (526186)
09-26-2009 2:43 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Peg
09-26-2009 1:24 AM


Some facts that you may not be aware of
1) Your first two quotes are part of a dispute within evolution. Your source is misrepresenting them.

The third, from Chittick is from a creationist - as should be obvious, He has no qualifications in geology or paleontology. And he is lying about the absence of transitional forms.

The Ruse quote at best is unclear - because it lacks anything that might tell us what Ruse thought was missing or how the supposed gap might be filled. Quite likely because your source doesn't want us to know - or copied from someone else who doesn't want us to know.

The Darwin quote does not specifically deal with the fossil record specifically and does not even support your point. Did you not notice the word "apparently" ?

If the fossil record did not support evolution why is every point an attempt to mislead or deceive ?

2) Lönnig is a creationist. And the evidence shows no such thing (what is a "genetically properly defined species" anyway ?)

3) The fact that the changes reversed in the finch study only shows that there was no directional change in forms already well adapted to the environment. In other words the objection is a red herring. The study DOES show that natural selection does work.

The Schwartz quote is unclear and could easily refer to the fact that evolution requires the combination of mutation and natural selection working together. (Isn't it interesting that your source tries to keep them separate ?).

quote:

Now i havnt even gone into the 'origin' of life debate which, according to science, is highly unlikely. I'll be happy to add this later...the chance of life spontaneously generating is unbelievably improbably...so much so we could say it is impossible.

This is another creationist falsehood. THere is NO good estimate for the probability of life originating. None at all.

quote:

I hope this is good for a start and hopefully will get you thinking that there is enough doubt in the ToE, to not completly write off the idea of a creator.

Ask yourself, if there were good reasons to doubt evolution - why has your source not produced any ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Peg, posted 09-26-2009 1:24 AM Peg has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by mike the wiz, posted 09-28-2009 8:14 AM PaulK has responded
 Message 232 by Calypsis4, posted 10-05-2009 11:31 PM PaulK has not yet responded

    
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 2888 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


(2)
Message 6 of 530 (526187)
09-26-2009 2:47 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Peg
09-26-2009 1:24 AM


Peg writes:

I dedicate this to Melindoor to whom I made the suggestion to seriously consider some of these doubts.

I am honored, Peg. And per your suggestion, I will continue to look into these arguments you offer. Here are my initial thoughts:

No. 1 Doubt the fossil record

quote:
Steven M Stanley, The new Evolutionary Timetable, 1981 p92:
He said there is a “general failure of the record to display gradual transitions from one major group to another.” He said: “The known fossil record is not, and never has been, in accord with [slow evolution].”

Steven M Stanley is a proponent of punctuated equilibrium. In other words, he is an evolutionist who believes that species are in stasis most of the time, but during periods of intense selective pressures quickly evolve new traits (I say quickly on a geological timescale). He does not believe the fossil record is inconsistent with evolution, only that it is inconsistent with a uniformly gradual one.

Niles Eldredge holds a similar position. He is critiquing the idea that evolution occurs in a smooth, uniform fashion over millions of years.

quote:
Donald E. Chittick, a physical chemist who earned a doctorate degree at Oregon State University, comments:
“A direct look at the fossil record would lead one to conclude that animals reproduced after their kind as Genesis states. They did not change from one kind into another. The evidence now, as in Darwin’s day, is in agreement with the Genesis record of direct creation. Animals and plants continue to reproduce after their kind. In fact, the conflict between paleontology (study of fossils) and Darwinism is so strong that some scientists are beginning to believe that the in-between forms will never be found.”

This is a confusing reason to doubt evolution, Peg. You offered it in my thread "Skepticism vs Faith", and I still can't see why it is anything but a strawman. Of course animals and plants reproduce according to their species!! Otherwise they wouldn't be species! Evolution doesn't say that a dog will give birth to a cat, or any other creature but a dog. Yet creationists will often argue that the fact that a dog doesn't suddenly produce a new species is evidence against evolution.

I'm also confused about this alleged lack of transitional fossils. Why don't the following qualify as transitional?

Archaeopteryx
Homo Ergaster
Eohippus

It seems that, to a creationist, everytime scientists discover a new "transitional" fossil it doesn't fill a gap, but it creates two new ones.

quote:
evolutionist Michael Ruse wrote: “A growing number of biologists...argues that any evolutionary theory based on Darwinian principles—particularly any theory that sees natural selection as the key to evolutionary change—is misleadingly incomplete.”

Curiously, this quote is from "Darwinism Defended" by Michael Ruse. Michael Ruse is a Theistic evolutionist, who, like me, believes that Christian faith and evolution do not conflict. Anyhow, I've tried to look up the above quote in a google search in order to see the context and all I got was the following excerpt from a review:

quote:
Darwinism, the representative of objective modern science, is under ideologically motivated attack. Professor Ruse is alarmed: "'Darwinism,' as I shall refer to Darwin-inspired evolutionary thought, is threatened from almost every quarter." Well, not from every quarter, just the right and left flanks, it seems. First, the fundamentalists, supported by Ronald Regan, make a know-nothing assault from the right. No sooner have real evolutionists wheeled to face this attack than they are fallen upon by subversive elements from the left, "biologists with Marxist sympathies" and their "fellow travelers" among philosophers who argue "that any evolutionary theory based on Darwinian principles—particularly any theory that sees natural selection as the key to evolutionary change—is misleadingly incomplete."

I already know that evolution is under attack by people of conflicting beliefs. It seems rather strange to say that a growing number of biologists oppose evolution when polls show that the real number is disappearingly small.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

I'd be curious to hear if anyone has the context of Ruse's quote? If not I'd be happy to get his book and find out, he's an interesting read.

quote:
And even Darwin himself doubted the fossil record for in the introduction to The Origin of Species, he wrote: “I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived.”

Darwin wrote those words over a century ago. It is a fact that many new "transitional" fossils have been uncovered since then, and our knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded.

No. 2 Evolution by Mutation

Peg writes:

what is the evidence for mutations in evolution?

There is plenty of evidence of mutations But I think your question is, what is the evidence that mutations can lead to speciation? To that I'd like to give my favourite example: The Ensatina salamander.

Populations of this salamander interbreed around the Californian central valley, and if you saw their population from above, it would look kind of horse-shoe shaped. A semi circular arrangement of populations where the ends don't meet. Now the salamanders can interbreed all along the stretch as long as they are interbred with nearby populations of salamander, but the populations at the ends are no longer able to interbreed with one another. In this scenario we have a beautiful spectrum of what one might call hybrids or transition population all around the valley, but the opposite ends of the population have become truly separate species.

I know my description may have been a bit tricky to follow, and I haven't figured out how to include pictures in my posts, but I'll direct you to the wikipedia article on ring species to find out more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

Doubt No.3 Evolution by Natural selection

You're right. Natural selection by itself cannot produce new traits. But allied with mutation, I don't see why not. In the case of the galapagos finches we should not expect any one beak-size to win out in the near future. It seems to me they would always reach an equilibrium. When a drought causes big-beaked finches to dominate we still reach an equilibrium where the number of small beaks are so small that they benefit from the lack of competition. Of course the small beaks are not going to disappear. When conditions improve for the small beaks, the equilibrium shifts. How does this disprove evolution?! All it is is an example of an occassion where no new traits have arisen. What are we supposed to be expecting? Finches with antlers? Finches who evolve electro-sensitivity? I don't follow the argument unless it shows how evolution would predict something that we are not seeing in the finch population.

-Meldinoor

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Peg writes:

Now i havnt even gone into the 'origin' of life debate which, according to science, is highly unlikely. I'll be happy to add this later...the chance of life spontaneously generating is unbelievably improbably...so much so we could say it is impossible.

If you're talking about evolution, then avoid abiogenesis. Discuss it in a different thread. Abiogenesis and evolution are only related in the mind of someone who equates both with atheism. Incidentally, since no one knows how life originated, how the heck can we determine the probability of it happening? How do you determine the probability of something which you do not know?

Peg writes:

I hope this is good for a start and hopefully will get you thinking that there is enough doubt in the ToE, to not completly write off the idea of a creator.

I never wrote off the idea of a creator. Nor does evolution necessitate the absence of one.

Edited by Meldinoor, : Added some stuff

Edited by Meldinoor, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Peg, posted 09-26-2009 1:24 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by greyseal, posted 09-26-2009 3:39 AM Meldinoor has responded
 Message 13 by Peg, posted 09-28-2009 7:56 AM Meldinoor has responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16086
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 7 of 530 (526189)
09-26-2009 2:51 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Peg
09-26-2009 1:24 AM


Stuff Not Related To The TOE
Now i havnt even gone into the 'origin' of life debate which, according to science, is highly unlikely.

When did science tell you that? Only I was chatting to science down the pub the other night, and science told me something rather different.

Science told me that it is foolish and footling to try to calculate the probability of an event when you know neither the nature of that event nor the conditions under which it took place.

I'll be happy to add this later...the chance of life spontaneously generating is unbelievably improbably...so much so we could say it is impossible.

Show your working.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Peg, posted 09-26-2009 1:24 AM Peg has not yet responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 3009 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 8 of 530 (526194)
09-26-2009 3:35 AM


I will be back online tomorrow or the next day, i have many things on this weekend

adios all

have fun scrutinizing my every sentence heheh

I'll be back! Im sure i'll have a lot of explaining to do.

Edited by Peg, : No reason given.


    
greyseal
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 9 of 530 (526195)
09-26-2009 3:39 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Meldinoor
09-26-2009 2:47 AM


that was an awesomely complete rebuttal
meldinoor, my hat's off to you.

theist you may be, but you do not shrink from the facts.

I hope you're listening Peg.

Edited by greyseal, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Meldinoor, posted 09-26-2009 2:47 AM Meldinoor has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Meldinoor, posted 09-26-2009 3:48 AM greyseal has not yet responded

    
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 2888 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


(1)
Message 10 of 530 (526196)
09-26-2009 3:48 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by greyseal
09-26-2009 3:39 AM


Re: that was an awesomely complete rebuttal
greyseal,

Thanks for the compliment. Although I still feel new to debate, and lack the education to be as eloquent as I'd like, I'm starting to feel more a part of this forum.

-Meldinoor


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by greyseal, posted 09-26-2009 3:39 AM greyseal has not yet responded

    
subbie
Member (Idle past 40 days)
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


(1)
Message 11 of 530 (526239)
09-26-2009 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Peg
09-26-2009 1:24 AM


The real reason for doubt
quote:
I hope this is good for a start and hopefully will get you thinking that there is enough doubt in the ToE, to not completly write off the idea of a creator.

While I agree with the things others have said, I want to comment specifically on this sentence.

There's a vast difference between doubting the ToE and believing in a creator. Even if your quote mining were enough to convince me that the ToE is on shaky ground, that doesn't mean I'd believe in a creator by default. What's more, science didn't write off the idea of a creator simply because the ToE came along. Scientists wrote off the idea of a creator because the evidence they found was inconsistent with the idea of a creator.

While it may seem that my point is a bit off topic, I don't think that it is. You proffer a few misguided quotes as the reason you doubt the ToE, but in fact you don't get to the real reason until the last line. The only reason you doubt the ToE is because you think that accepting it makes one write off the idea of a creator. You have no real problem with the idea of the fossil record comprising a massive continuum of life, with millions upon millions of small transitions and a classification system that shows a neatly nested hierarchy. You couldn't care less about mutations or what effect they can have on a population, how quickly they spread or the process of how a beneficial mutation becomes fixed in a population. I'd be willing to bet that you'd be more than willing to accept the idea that organisms compete for scarce resources, and those that compete better are more likely to leave more progeny than those that don't, except that you swallow the lie of a few blinkered and frightened ignoramuses that if you believe those things then you can't believe in a creator.

That's your Reason for Doubt.

And, that's why no amount of evidence in support of the ToE will ever convince you. You've made up your mind and you couldn't care less about the evidence. Instead, for you it's all about trying to figure out a way to reconcile your understanding of the evidence with your foundational belief in a creator. That's why you're content to drink the kool aid from creo web sites, and pass along quotes that have been mined from their context to change the apparent meaning as well as quotes that have been flat out changed to mean the exact opposite of what the speaker actually said. This has nothing to do with the truth to you, but has everything to do with saving your core belief. We could show you a million times, with a million unique examples, that creo websites lie, but you're still going to go back to them for succor. It doesn't matter to you if they lie, because it's not about finding evidence to you, it's about rationalization. It's about finding some reason to doubt the massive amounts of evidence that you know must be out there.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Peg, posted 09-26-2009 1:24 AM Peg has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by themasterdebator, posted 09-26-2009 9:01 PM subbie has acknowledged this reply

  
themasterdebator
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 530 (526362)
09-26-2009 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by subbie
09-26-2009 11:10 AM


Re: The real reason for doubt
Subbie, I think you are being a little unfair. While I agree there are plenty of Christians out there who follow the exact logic you described, I would not write off Peg in that category yet. I would wait to see how she responds in this thread first.

Edit: although I will agree her reasons for doubt seem rather underthought. It seems like she just went to 1 or 2 creatonists websites and pulled out a few quotes.

Edited by themasterdebator, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by subbie, posted 09-26-2009 11:10 AM subbie has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by mike the wiz, posted 09-28-2009 8:24 AM themasterdebator has not yet responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 3009 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 13 of 530 (526509)
09-28-2009 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Meldinoor
09-26-2009 2:47 AM


Hi Melindoor

Melindoor writes:

Of course animals and plants reproduce according to their species!! Otherwise they wouldn't be species! Evolution doesn't say that a dog will give birth to a cat, or any other creature but a dog.

im aware of that, but the point is that evolution is said to explain how the great variety of species developed, albeit slowly, and yet the fossil record does not show the supposed changes taking place. It shows fully formed and functioning creatures as opposed to anything in its development stage.

quote:
A View of Life states: “Beginning at the base of the Cambrian period and extending for about 10 million years, all the major groups of skeletonized invertebrates made their first appearance in the most spectacular rise in diversity ever recorded on our planet.”—(California, 1981), Salvador E. Luria, Stephen Jay Gould, Sam Singer, p. 649.

Paleontologist Alfred Romer wrote: “Below this [Cambrian period], there are vast thicknesses of sediments in which the progenitors of the Cambrian forms would be expected. But we do not find them; these older beds are almost barren of evidence of life, and the general picture could reasonably be said to be consistent with the idea of a special creation at the beginning of Cambrian times.”—Natural History, October 1959, p. 467.

Zoologist Harold Coffin states: “If progressive evolution from simple to complex is correct, the ancestors of these full-blown living creatures in the Cambrian should be found; but they have not been found and scientists admit there is little prospect of their ever being found. On the basis of the facts alone, on the basis of what is actually found in the earth, the theory of a sudden creative act in which the major forms of life were established fits best.”—Liberty, September/October 1975, p. 12.

Carl Sagan, in his book Cosmos, candidly acknowledged: “The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer.”—(New York, 1980), p. 29.


Melindoor writes:

I'm also confused about this alleged lack of transitional fossils. Why don't the following qualify as transitional?
Archaeopteryx
Eohippus

regarding the Archaeopteryx, the fossil has perfectly formed feathers and wings that are capable of flight. Also the wing and leg bones are thin and hollow which is what is found in birds today. It does not predate birds, because fossils of other birds have been found in rocks of the same period as Archaeopteryx.

The New Evolutionary Timetable says that the fossils show very little evidence for evolutionary modification so obviously not all are in agreement that the fossil document the full history of the horse family. Some even think that the animal is still alive today...the fossil is apparently very similar to a fox like animal called a Hyrax in Africa.

and i dont know about your 3rd example.

Meldinoor writes:

Darwin wrote those words over a century ago. It is a fact that many new "transitional" fossils have been uncovered since then, and our knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded.

they claim to have found transitional fossils, true. In Darwins day he wrote in Ori/Spec “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. . . . The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the [evolutionary] views here entertained"

And after a century of digging and millions of catelogued fossils, what have they got?

the Swedish botanist Heribert Nilsson has spent over 40 years in the research field and he wrote in his book 'The Synthetic Origin of the Species' 1953 p.1212
"It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of palaeobiological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled."
Granted that this was written in the 50's, but surely with thousands of scientists collecting fossils from all around the globe, they would have found many transitional fossils.

Meldinoor writes:

I know my description may have been a bit tricky to follow, and I haven't figured out how to include pictures in my posts, but I'll direct you to the wikipedia article on ring species to find out more.

i dont have a problem with this example, its not in contention. The salamanders are still salamanders, perhaps a different type of salamander, but a salamander nonetheless. I dont doubt that Genetics play a part in the diversity of species. That wiki article doesnt say anything about mutation. Mutations supposedly involved in evolution are small accidental changes that accumulate over a long period of time...im not sure these fish qualify, if they do, i dont see how.

Meldinoor writes:

How does this disprove evolution?! All it is is an example of an occassion where no new traits have arisen. What are we supposed to be expecting? Finches with antlers? Finches who evolve electro-sensitivity? I don't follow the argument unless it shows how evolution would predict something that we are not seeing in the finch population.

I used 'Darwins finch's' as an example because they were said to be a compelling example of speciation [the evolution of new species] but the fact that the population, subjected to natural selection, is oscillating back and forth each time the climate changes seem to be more better explained as the maintenance of adaptation. Whole populations of small beaked finshes died out, yet they came back again decades later! Think about it, the finches didnt go thru an evolutionary change. It wasnt speciation...it was adaption and because the small beaked finches began to be born again, it must have been the genes that was controlling the change, not natural selection or speciation or evolution. The finches did not change to a new species of finch.

Meldinoor writes:

I never wrote off the idea of a creator. Nor does evolution necessitate the absence of one.

thats not entirely true

We could not have been created if we evolved. Its one or the other.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Meldinoor, posted 09-26-2009 2:47 AM Meldinoor has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Larni, posted 09-28-2009 8:34 AM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 21 by Huntard, posted 09-28-2009 8:37 AM Peg has responded
 Message 24 by greyseal, posted 09-28-2009 8:49 AM Peg has responded
 Message 32 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-28-2009 10:21 AM Peg has responded
 Message 33 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-28-2009 10:40 AM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 34 by Blue Jay, posted 09-28-2009 11:00 AM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 37 by Dr Jack, posted 09-28-2009 11:24 AM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 38 by Percy, posted 09-28-2009 11:24 AM Peg has responded
 Message 47 by Meldinoor, posted 09-28-2009 9:49 PM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 51 by Meldinoor, posted 09-28-2009 10:34 PM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 233 by bluescat48, posted 10-05-2009 11:32 PM Peg has not yet responded

    
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4637
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 14 of 530 (526512)
09-28-2009 8:14 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by PaulK
09-26-2009 2:43 AM


Re: Some facts that you may not be aware of
For purposes of debate, can transitionals be shown. Birds for example - are there real-life examples of dinosaurs to birds? The claim is evolution, originally, not the facts. The facts therefore have to show evolution. There has to be a progression if it is true.

The popular answer is that fossilization is rare, and can only show us a small part of the picture. That seems like a fair but weak explanation rather than, "there are transitionals, you're a liar".

There might be transitionals, but the question is; how many are missing, percentage-wise.

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by PaulK, posted 09-26-2009 2:43 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by greyseal, posted 09-28-2009 8:22 AM mike the wiz has responded
 Message 17 by Larni, posted 09-28-2009 8:26 AM mike the wiz has responded
 Message 31 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-28-2009 9:59 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 39 by PaulK, posted 09-28-2009 12:08 PM mike the wiz has responded
 Message 40 by subbie, posted 09-28-2009 12:43 PM mike the wiz has responded

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 15 of 530 (526514)
09-28-2009 8:22 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by mike the wiz
09-28-2009 8:14 AM


Re: Some facts that you may not be aware of
yes, mike, there's archaeopteryx and the four-leg-winged raptor who's name escapes me, at least (very well could be more).

I'm sorry if you think that the fact that it's rare to get a fossil is "weak" - it really is pretty rare.

If you're asking for transitional forms between DINOSAURS and BIRDS alive right now...well, that's a different kettle of fish. I don't know enough to answer.

There are plenty of transitional forms alive now (platypus, platypi...platypeople? and bats, flying foxes...) - you'd have to have a good reason for saying they're not "transitional" (and saying they're complete organisms doesn't count, we all agree that's not how evolution works).

ground rules set, go!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by mike the wiz, posted 09-28-2009 8:14 AM mike the wiz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by mike the wiz, posted 09-28-2009 8:29 AM greyseal has responded

    
1
23456
...
36NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019