quote:Don't take my word for it, let's read what the scientists say:
To begin with, as has been said already, using thirty year old sources doesn't cut it in real science. That's ancient history. Ten years is old when writing a thesis for an art history degree, let alone the ever moving world of cutting edge science. Get with the program.
I also believe you should investigate your sources better...
quote:Mark Ridley, Oxford, "...a lot of people just do not know what evidence the theory of evolution stands upon. They think that the main evidence is the gradual descent of one species from another in the fossil record. ...In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation." New Scientist, June, 1981, p.831
31 years old.
This is actually used as an example of quote mining on rationalwiki. Googling it gives you a list of creationist webvomit a mile long - all the same. Note that the sentence always left out by the creationist sites is "This does not mean that the theory of evolution is unproven."
quote:John Reader (photo-journalist and author of "Missing Links"), "Whatever happened to Zinjanthropus?" New Scientist, 26 March 1981, p. 802
21 years old.
I got beaten to this one so I'll leave it alone. Message 16
quote:"A five million-year-old piece of bone that was thought to be a collarbone of a humanlike creature is actually part of a dolphin rib, ...He [Dr. T. White] puts the incident on par with two other embarrassing [sic] faux pas by fossil hunters: Hesperopithecus, the fossil pig's tooth that was cited as evidence of very early man in North America, and Eoanthropus or 'Piltdown Man,' the jaw of an orangutan and the skull of a modern human that were claimed to be the 'earliest Englishman'.
"The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone.'"
"Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. Fossil evidence of chimpanzee evolution is absent altogether". Henry Gee?, Return to the Planet of the Apes?, Nature, Vol. 412, 12 July 2001, p. 131
11 years old.
It's funny - I usually see other stuff by Gee quote mined.
Of course you do realise that the fact that anthropologists make mistakes doesn't invalidate the science in any way. Science has built in systems to weed out errors and hoaxes. Religions generally have built in systems to treat ancient traditions as the only truth and may bend reality to suit them.
All evidence is open to interpretation. This is called science. The thing to remember is that it needs to be interpreted with the help of supporting evidence, not misrepresentation and outright lies.
quote:The lack of ancestral or intermediate forms between fossil species is not a bizarre peculiarity of early metazoan history. Gaps are general and prevalent throughout the fossil record. R. A. Raff and T. C. Kaufman, Embryos, Genes and Evolution: The Developmental Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change, Indiana University Press, 1991, p. 34
21 years old.
As above. Of course our knowledge is incomplete. Do you seriously expect us to have found an record of every living thing that ever existed? This is not evidence against homonid evolution and it is such a broad statement that is not really evidence of anything.
It's a good thing that genetics does such a good job of backing up the theory that the fossil record is superfluous. It is, however strong supporting evidence and also really cool.
quote:In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation. (Ridley, Mark, Who doubts evolution? New Scientist, vol. 90, 25 June 1981, p. 831.
Still 31 years old.
I can't believe you used the same PRATT again. Could this be considered a PRATT fall?
Please, please, read what you are posting. Don't just cut and paste this on here and expect us to take it seriously.
quote:The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualist accounts of evolution. Gould, Stephen J., ‘Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?’ Paleobiology, Vol. 6(1), January 1980, p. 127.
32 years old.
This is another classic quote mine. Once you read the quote in context, you should see what I mean. If not, I, and I'm sure many others will be happy to help.
quote:The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the gradual transformation of its ancestors: it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’ Steven Jay Gould (Harvard University), Evolution’s erratic pace, Natural History 86(5):14, May 1977.
quote:Many evolutionary biologists since Darwin’s time, and even Darwin himself, have been struck by how few sequences of fossils have ever been found that clearly show a gradual, steady accumulation of small changes in evolutionary lineages. Instead, most fossil species appear suddenly, without transitional forms, in a layer of rock and persist essentially unchanged until disappearing from the record of rocks as suddenly as they appeared. Campbell, et al., Biology Concepts and Connections, 3rd Ed., p 290, 2000.
12 years old.
Sigh. Another one?
Most fossils. There is a tendency for species to hang around for a while and then die out. What a shocking revelation. This is why Gould argued for punctuated equilibrium.
quote:In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, these have not been found - yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks. Dr. David M. Raup (U. of Chicago - Field Museum), Evolution and the Fossil Record, Science, Vol. 213 (July 17, 1981), p. 289.
31 years old.
Once again, talking about the fact that humans are fallible does nothing to support your point.
quote:Dr. Richard Leakey?, discoverer of Skull 1470 (Homo habilis), one of world’s foremost paleo-anthropologists,said in a PBS documentary in 1990: If pressed about man’s ancestry, I would have to unequivocally say that all we have is a huge question mark. To date, there has been nothing found to truthfully purport as a transitional specie to man, including Lucy, since 1470 was as old and probably older. If further pressed, I would have to state that there is more evidence to suggest an abrupt arrival of man rather than a gradual process of evolving.
The Creationist movement is lead by a dishonest bunch of operators and misquotation is the hall mark of their work. Responding to them is time wasting and a letter would not be adequate to put your questions to rest. There are some things best ignored and the stupidity of these so called religious fanatics continues to astonish me
quote:Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. Fossil evidence of chimpanzee evolution is absent altogether. Henry Gee, Return to the Planet of the Apes, Nature, Vol. 412, 12 July 2001, p. 131.
Still 11 years old.
I'm getting tired of this now, so I'll just say that the rest of them have already been addressed using examples above.
Special mention goes to the second Leakey quote, which weighs in at 39 years old!
From the beginning...
quote:I am aware that there is a dispute about the hominid fossils and its interpretations.
It would appear that the greatest dispute would be where creationists get their facts from and why are they so willing to lie to people about this. Why does it scare them so?
quote:I find it quite funny that they all just so happen to be extinct. Evolutionists will give ad hoc explanations for why it is so. It's one of the many reasons why I doubt their evolution story.
I find it absolutely hilarious that you would actually present any of this as evidence at all. You have not given any cogent argument as to why other hominids should still be alive according to the ToE. No reason at all to assume this at all.
Maybe you should also be asking why the coelocanthorder has living representatives , while tiktaalik is extinct.
Now, show us some actual evidence so that we have something to talk about. Why shouldn't the other hominids be extinct?
quote:Please don't post ad hoc explanations with no scientific evidence to back up it up.
You seem to have missed my reply, so I suggest you go back and read it before repeating the same things. I seem to have trouble getting creationists to respond in a meaningful way to my posts. I wonder why?
quote:It doesn't matter how old the quotes are if there are no more recent statements from scientists who say otherwise. Moreover not all the quotes are 30 years or older.
Age of references most certainly matters simply because our level of understanding changes over time. The most recent quote (which you posted twice) was Gee 2001 - congratulations on making it into this century, if only barely. Most of your copypasta PRATTs were from a time when a computer capable of keeping up with my laptop would fill rooms, if it existed at all.
quote:If you claim they are lies or taken out of context then prove it.
I believe I have already done so. Please reread my response and tell me why I haven't proven it - show us your evidence.
quote:Scientists expected to find gradual transitions in the fossil record (hence the quotes).
And in many cases they have.They have also found rapid change and stability of species over time. You oversimplify then nature of evolution, misrepresent how it works and then claim it to be false.
This image has been shown before but how's this for gradual transitions? Show me where apes end and humans begin.
quote:So evolutionists can't even use the sub humans became extinct explanation when there is no solid scientific evidence they existed. It is well known the fossil record doesn't support their story and that is why they conjured up the ad hoc explanation punctuated equilibrium to cover up their failed expectation.
Try googling 'hominid evolution' and look at some of the many sites describing the 'imaginary' evidence before pasting any more creationist babble. A hint: If a site is about both evolution and christianity, it's usually misrepresenting science to prop up religion. Show me your evidence that my assertion is wrong.
You should also know more about punctuated equilibrium before trying to use it as an example of why evolution is false.
quote:Evolution is a funny 'theory'. It explains everything with just-so stories and ad hoc explanations which means it explains nothing.
I love the creationist 'just so' argument. It is constantly regurgitated while ignoring evidence and without anything but religious 'just so' stories to counter it.
I suggest you extend your research beyond AiG etc and actually look at the real evidence available to anyone to look at. After you have done that, maybe you can do better than paste this crud over and over without ever thinking about it for yourself.
Show us YOUR evidence that refutes what we are saying.
Also - off topic but relating to your other thread attempt about woodpeckers...
Copypasta is for the Emotionally Crippled and the Intellectually Unwashed
For the love of (insert favourite deity)!
So much bullshit in just one post.
Please, will you actually think about the things you are posting. e.g.
quote:Theobald's conclusion has been rigorously challenged.
You do realise that you are taking the word of a Lawyer who was briefly a geologist over that of a Biochemistry Ph D about his particular field of biochemisty? Do you also realise that the only fundamental problem the lawyer had with the research was that he didn't assume a creator who created lots of nearly identical creations?
I would hardly call one article from an armchair scientist a rigorous challenge. Particularly one who doesn't address the actual science.
I love the fact that the other quotes you mine to 'back up' your pasting predate the research by at least five years. Well done.
Can't resist this one...
I'm not sure who writes:
There are many intermediate species that have become extinct through one of two processes: (1) they evolved into later species or (2) they were outcompeted by other species.
Oh, riiiiiight they evolved to other species so that's why we don't see sub humans or they got outcompeted by other species.
Scientific evidence please?
Oh, good answer. Really intelligent. Bravo.
Here's an example of the process of this sort of natural selection in progress today. Note that this is actual evidence...
Two types of frogs in Australia the green and gold bell frog and the striped marsh frog. They share similar habits and habitat. One notable difference is that the bell frog shows a preference for areas with more undergrowth near the water while the marsh frog is more flexible in this regard.
In the areas where water bodies have been stripped of undergrowth i.e. urban areas, the bell frogs are dying out while the marsh frogs are abundant. They are competing for the same resources in a changed environment and the ones who suit the new conditions are more successful and may soon lead to the demise of the other.
I know you will say that these are frogs and not hominids but the principle is the same. When in direct competition the species which can adapt to the current conditions most successfully will tend to displace its competition. In the case of the hominids, it seems to me that our development owes much to the adaptability that comes with our intelligence. We outcompeted our cousins because we could adapt to a changing world better than them.
I'm not going to sift through this whole pile, so I'll just try and find your 'responses' to my comment from now on.
quote:But if there is no new scientific evidence that contradicts it then the 'old' evidence is still valid. I have yet to read or hear any scientists recently who say the fossil record supports gradual evolution.
The very first thing you referred to in your post was new evidence. Since most of your references were written, a lot of new evidence was found.
I believe I have already done so. Please reread my response and tell me why I haven't proven it - show us your evidence.
I believe you haven't.
I wouldn't give a rabid pack of weasels what you believe if you can't back it up. This is in the science forums and I believe the protocol is to present actual evidence of your claims. Pasting random quote mines from creationist/ID websites doesn't cut it here.
Once again - prove me wrong. Please.
quote:What scientists endorses it? Is there a consensus among scientists of the interpretations of relationships of the fossils to one other? How do we know there are not hoaxes? Evolutionists have a history of presenting hoaxes as the 'missing link'?
I challenge you to find a single genuine hoax that was uncovered by a creationist. Scientists have uncovered every hoax we know about and many of these were never accepted by the scientific community to start with.
quote:I just go by what evolutionists have said and they say in essence the hominid fossil record is horrible and open to many different interpretations. That's not hard scientific evidence.
No you don't.
You go by what creationists say that evolutionists have said and you're even mixing a lot of that up.
If you want to know what scientists think, find articles by the scientists in stead of articles by creationists about what scientists think. Maybe start by finding the articles you quote mined and actually read them.
This is the core of your argument as best I can get to it though all of the copypasta...
quote:The explanation is just that... an explanation. Where is the scientific evidence to back it up?
The explanation is the one that best fits the real evidence we have. Simple. If you want all of the scientific evidence, all you have to do is google and you can begin. I do have some suggestions for you though...
If religion and evolution are both part of the same site, you can guarantee that it is going to have a lot of misinformation trying to 'destroy' evolution.
Check your sources.
Check their sources.
Actually read the articles.
Use what millions of your ancestors fought so hard to pass on and actually think about what you are reading.