EvC Forum: Show one complete lineage in evolution

Email This Thread

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Author

Topic: Show one complete lineage in evolution

coffee_addict

Member (Idle past 498 days)

Posts: 3645

From: Indianapolis, IN

Joined: 03-29-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 52 of 246 (127422)
07-25-2004 4:08 AM

Reply to: Message 51 by SkepticToAll
07-25-2004 3:15 AM

Re: Still problems with evolution.

First of all, I must admit that I have no intention of going to that link of yours.

SkepticToAll writes:

However, biological evolution theory makes some sound arguments but does not support with enough evidence.

Ok... We've beaten this subject to death in the last 3 million threads. But if you say so...

There are many books on evolution that mislead people into believing that here is a complete lineage from ape to man - rubbish!

Actually, your words are as rubbish as it could get. No scientist in his right mind would say that we have a complete record of primate evolution.

In reality the austropoliphiticus IS an ape. and Homo Erectus could very well be a modern human.

First of all, it's australopithecines.

Where are the transitionals between Erectus and the ape?

Again, nobody is saying that we have a complete record of primate, especially homonid/homonoid, evolution.

If you really have such a clear concept of what a transitional fossil should look like, please go to Ned's transitional thread.

You are continuingly dodging giving any specific criteria in the issue and yet you continue to make assertions such as "there's no transitional fossil blah blah blah...."

Show something approximately midway between the two and we can forget about horses and sea shells and stuff - the case is closed.

Again, tell us what you mean by midway? We have plenty of "midway" fossils, but you keep telling us that we don't have them yet. For once, tell us what you mean by transitional or midway! Go to Ned's thread, please.

Now i know you will argue that austropoliphiticus could walk and was a more 'advanced' ape while erectus was a more primitive man. In that case, why are there no fossils in between those two!!! There is something wrong here - this is a gap of millions of years.

So, now you are contradicting yourself.

The 'story' could be: Perhaps a population of austropoliphiticus evolved in a relatively small isolated area into erectus or similar type and then this species was so successfull that it spread all over .. (and that's why we find erectus fossils!)..
Nice story but not too convincing for those who believed that God created Man in his own image. Actually , not too convincing for anyone who does not 'believe' in evolution either.

Your problem is you don't understand the scientific method. If you adhere to science, you are suppose to follow what the evidence tell you, not your original belief. In other words, we don't have to convince you, as a creationist, of anything. When debating science, you are suppose to throw your preconceived (or is it preconcieved?) beliefs aside and look at the evidence objectively. Once you can do that, then we can talk sensibly.

One thing i noticed about whales their tails resemble the tails of large sharks - no? I could be wrong - how could that have evolved?

What the f*ck are you talking about?

Here is a picture of a whale's tail. Notice that it's horizontal... and even on both sides.

Here is a picture of a shark. Notice that the tail is vertical.

To summarize - I think I understand evolutionary theory and how you can visualize these things..Who knows maybe there is another species that might evolve to be far more intellegent than us..Great science fiction but fossil evidence is another story!

I'm sorry, but you really sound like someone that has a high school knowledge of the theory of evolution and thinks that he knows it all. I'll let you in on a little secret. Most books and websites that are out there to tell you about the theory are grossly simplified versions of the theory itself. They were simplified in order for people like you to understand. Don't ever think that you can learn everything about the theory after reading a 20 page book or a 2 page website on the matter.

It's fun to discuss certain subjects on the boards, but please try to be specific for the discussion to go anywhere. You seem to try to state things in the most general terms. It is not the least impressive and it isn't helpful to our discussion.

The first thing you could do that would make me happy (and I'm sure everyone loves to please me whenever they can

) is to go to Ned's difinition of "transitional" thread and specifically tell us what you want to see as a transitional fossil.

The Laminator

For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!

This message is a reply to:
	Message 51 by SkepticToAll, posted 07-25-2004 3:15 AM		SkepticToAll has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 71 by SkepticToAll, posted 07-27-2004 1:16 AM		coffee_addict has replied

coffee_addict

Member (Idle past 498 days)

Posts: 3645

From: Indianapolis, IN

Joined: 03-29-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 54 of 246 (127424)
07-25-2004 4:13 AM

Reply to: Message 53 by crashfrog
07-25-2004 4:10 AM

Ha-ha. I beat you to it

The Laminator

For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!

This message is a reply to:
	Message 53 by crashfrog, posted 07-25-2004 4:10 AM		crashfrog has not replied

coffee_addict

Member (Idle past 498 days)

Posts: 3645

From: Indianapolis, IN

Joined: 03-29-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 56 of 246 (127437)
07-25-2004 6:22 AM

Reply to: Message 55 by Lithodid-Man
07-25-2004 5:52 AM

Re: Snap!

L-M writes:

From an ignorant point of view it might seem that a clam and a snail are the same. But the fact is that they have entirely different organ systems.

Helloooo, honey? We are talking to people that doesn't give a damn about what's behind the outside appearance. They look the same, therefore they must be the same kind.

The Laminator

For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!

This message is a reply to:
	Message 55 by Lithodid-Man, posted 07-25-2004 5:52 AM		Lithodid-Man has not replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 57 by wj, posted 07-25-2004 7:16 AM		coffee_addict has not replied

coffee_addict

Member (Idle past 498 days)

Posts: 3645

From: Indianapolis, IN

Joined: 03-29-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 76 of 246 (127973)
07-27-2004 1:51 AM

Reply to: Message 71 by SkepticToAll
07-27-2004 1:16 AM

Re: Weak case so far...

SkepticToall writes:

Weak case so far...

Ok, it is my conclusion that people like you are sexually attracted to logical fallicies. In this particular case, you are using a strawman approach, claiming that the theory of evolution is based solely on complete lineages.

a. A complete series of horse fossils is not found in any one place in the world arranged in the rock strata in proper evolutionary order from bottom to top. The fossils are found in widely separated places on the earth.

And why is this a problem? The continents used to be connected, drifted apart, came back together, drifted apart again, etc...

c. Hyrocotherium (eohippus), supposedly the earliest, founding member of the horse evolution series, is not connected by intermediate fossils to the condylarths from which it supposedly evolved.30

Let me try to make this clear. The fact that there are missing samples doesn't disprove anything. Moreover, nobody is saying that the horse lineage is the absolute unchangeble truth. I am confident that it will change as the scientific community finds new evidence. You might want to see this more as a model and not the absolute unchangeble truth.

By the way, I am skipping some statements because some are directly connected to others that I am responding to.

d. The first three supposed horse genera, found in rocks classified as Eocene, are named Hyracotherium, Orohippus, and Epihippus, and they are said to have evolved in that order. However, the average size of these creatures, sometimes called "old horses," decreases along the series, which is contradictory to the normal evolutionary rule, and they were all not larger than a fox.31 In view of their similarity, these genera could be considered to be members of an originally created biblical "kind."

Notice the big words. Here is an example of an outright misrepresentation of the theory of evolution. What the heck does "normal evolutionary rule" mean?

e. Between Epihippus and Mesohippus, the next genus in the horse series, there is a considerable gap...

So?

g. According to the theory, in Europe and North America three-toed horses evolved into single-toed horses. It is interesting that fossil horse-like ungulates of South America would seem to tell the opposite story. If one kind of ungulate evolved into another in South America, it would appear from the location of the fossils in the rock strata that the following succession of evolutionary stages occurred: first, the one-toed Thoatherium gave rise to Diadiaphorus having two small extra toes, which then evolved into the three-toed Macrauchenia.33 But perhaps all of these animals were created, rather than evolved.

It is quite obvious what the author's agenda was when he wrote this.

h. In northeastern Oregon the three-toed Neohipparion is found in the same rock formation with the one-toed horse, Pliohippus.34

How the heck does this disproves the theory? Just because one species arises from another species doesn't mean that the parent species must be extinct. This shows the ignorance of the theory on the author's part.

i. There is a mystery about the theory of horse evolution.

So what if there's a mystery? I'm not well versed with horse evolution, but this sounds like this is BS.

Here is an example of why this is BS. There is a mystery to me about you. I don't know what you look like. Therefore, you must not exist.

See anything wrong with this?

j. Dr. Niles Eldridge of the American Museum of Natural History admitted in an interview that the Museum houses a display of alleged horse evolution which is misleading and should be replaced. It has been the model for many similar displays across the country for much of this century.36

This is the beauty of science. It always leaves room for modification of the any model in the theory of evolution. Again, don't take the model as the absolute unchangeble truth.

...There is no need to assume that horses were evolved rather than created....

The author was not being objective at all when he approached the evidence.

So far just two lineages (TWO!!!)- it is one thing for scientists to say that the evidence 'strongly suggests' common descent but to say evolution is a fact like gravity! We observe gravity all the time - not so with evolution....

The theory of evolution does not depend solely on lineages. Please get this fact straight.

Here is an example of what your argument really looks like.

You wake up in the morning and you notice that your tree in the backyard has fallen to the ground. There was a storm the previous night. There are traces of fire burning on the tree trunk. In fact, last night while you were in bed, you heard a lot of lightnings. At this point, the reasonable conclusion is that a lightning struck your tree and it fell to the ground.

However, your neighbor won't believe this. He claims that since you were not there to see it and you can't describe every detail from the lightning struck to the tree hitting the ground. Therefore, he concludes, that god must have made the tree like that over night.

Regarding observation of evolution happening, this topic has been beaten to death so many times on these boards. I, myself, have watched evolution happening in laboratory conditions (used to work in a genetics lab). It is an observable fact.

yet these oversimplistic text books geared for school children are filled with images showing complete lineages for primates, and various other animals. Even if evolution IS a fact - it should not be taught in high school in the current form. It is truly taught as religously antichristian doctrine.

Um, no. I don't think you were paying attention in high school biology class.

Out of curiosity, what did you get for your grade?

The Laminator

For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!

This message is a reply to:
	Message 71 by SkepticToAll, posted 07-27-2004 1:16 AM		SkepticToAll has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 77 by NosyNed, posted 07-27-2004 2:08 AM	coffee_addict has replied
	Message 92 by SkepticToAll, posted 07-27-2004 5:45 PM	coffee_addict has not replied