Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
10 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why Darwinism is wrong
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 265 of 305 (227405)
07-29-2005 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by Mr. Creationist
07-29-2005 7:44 AM


you are right on no transitions in the fossil record
Don't let the term "transitional forms" used by evolutionists fool you. The truth is everything is, by definition, transitional according to the ToE.
The so-called transitional forms between taxa are pretty much bogus, but a more powerful argument is realizing that the fossil record does not show the transitions at all.
Evolutionists want to categorize types of species in a manner to fit them into an evolutionary chain, but what they are tacitly admitting to is that the chain itself is not shown.
When we see a species in the fossil record, we don't see the immediate predecessors, all the small changes going back.
Evolutionists counter that is just arguing the God of the gaps, but that's a bogus argument since the onus is on them to prove the theory, not to demand others disprove it.
The fact is these are not "gaps." The differences between species are called "gaps" by evolutionists because a priori they assume the species all evolved via naturalistic means.
But if we were to look at the numbers of mutations necessary, and adaptive changes to create one chain along just one of these so-called "gaps", the sheer numbers are astonishing.
The idea is very small changes, things we can observe, can add up to these macro-level changes, but we just don't see all those small changes in the fossil record.
Perhaps the correct reason as to why we don't see all those thousands of changes needed to fill the gaps is because they did not occur?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by Mr. Creationist, posted 07-29-2005 7:44 AM Mr. Creationist has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by Chiroptera, posted 07-29-2005 2:00 PM randman has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 267 of 305 (227423)
07-29-2005 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by Chiroptera
07-29-2005 2:00 PM


Re: you are right on no transitions in the fossil record
I've checked it out. I suggest you check out what critics say about this, and think for yourself about how data is used.
The fact that reptiles and mammals have jaws, and thus a similar pattern, is not the strong evidence for evolution you guys claim.
Plus, it is based on a faulty assumption, namely that similarities are the product of common descent passing those traits down.
Even with evolutionary theory, we see exact same similarities, or as exact as what you are pointing to here, arise convergently, such as the mammalian ear-bones. Evolutionists now posit that the same 3 ear bones arose convergently in at least 2 different evolutionary paths in mammals, and was not passed on.
Now, it could be that they did not evolve from earlier forms, but just were created that way. For sake of argument though, let's assume they evolved convergently. if such similarities can occur without being passed on from a mutual ancestor, then it becomes quite clear stitching together a bunch of pics showing jaws between reptiles and mammals, and insisting that because reptiles had jaws with similar traits to mammals, that this indicates reptiles evolved into mammals, well, that is quite absurd on the face of it.
You can claim you think this happened, but in no way does the data indicate that unless you assume first it had to happen that way. The similarities in jaws means absolutely nothing provable in context since such similarities don't mean they had to be the result of common ancestry passing the similarities on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Chiroptera, posted 07-29-2005 2:00 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by Chiroptera, posted 07-29-2005 2:32 PM randman has replied
 Message 274 by deerbreh, posted 07-29-2005 3:18 PM randman has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 269 of 305 (227436)
07-29-2005 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by Chiroptera
07-29-2005 2:32 PM


Re: Oh, this is going to be fun.
Uh huh? Sorry, but all that is just one big rant with no substance.
The issue is how the data is interpreted.
You are making claims that similarities discovered are the result of common ancestry, no?
If that is correct, one falsification would be to find even more detailed similarities that arose without being passed on by common ancestry.
I have shown you an example with the 3 mammal ear bones. Since they arose independently, the idea that lesser similarities indicate a developmental pathway is highly dubious.
Deal with it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by Chiroptera, posted 07-29-2005 2:32 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by Chiroptera, posted 07-29-2005 2:56 PM randman has replied
 Message 271 by mark24, posted 07-29-2005 2:58 PM randman has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 272 of 305 (227443)
07-29-2005 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by Chiroptera
07-29-2005 2:56 PM


Re: Oh, this is going to be fun.
Are you being honest here chiropetra?
quote:
You are making claims that similarities discovered are the result of common ancestry, no?
No.
You are making that claim. You are claiming that reptile jaws evolved into mammal jaws, are you not?
quote:
I have shown you an example with the 3 mammal ear bones.
If you are referring to what I think you are, that paper is fairly recent, and the conclusions still need to be scrutinized.
It really does not matter since the assumption that it is possible is not in question. So assuming that because 2 species share a similar trait, that they inherited that trait from a common ancestor is a wrong assumption in this discussion. You claim that the data indicates changes in some reptile species towards structures more similar to mammals and thus were precursors to mammals.
But it could well be that there is some sort of predisposition or environmental factor causing that similarity to arise independently, or alternatively it could be the result of special creation.
But either way, the assumption that these represent an evolutionary path is a wholly unproven assumption, and this data does not show that.
It may be congruent with that, but no more than other alternative explanations, such as convergency moving forms for jaws into greater similarity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by Chiroptera, posted 07-29-2005 2:56 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by Chiroptera, posted 07-29-2005 3:30 PM randman has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 273 of 305 (227447)
07-29-2005 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 271 by mark24
07-29-2005 2:58 PM


Re: Oh, this is going to be fun.
It was discussed in depth on several other threads recently. I will do a google and post one of the first references to it, but I think you should do more research and look into the references a little more on your own, and I think that is a reasonable request on my part.
[following theory was rocked] As mammalian jaws evolved to be simplermammals now have only one jawbone, the dentarythe three accessory jawbones eventually shifted to the ear to become the malleus, which fuses two bones, and the eardrum. The mammalian auditory system is a complex chain of bones from the eardrum to the inner ear. Because of this, scientists believed that this adaptation occurred in one single ancestor, who passed it on to humans and other mammals.
This theory was rocked when Hopson, on a trip to Australia in 2002, was presented with fossilized jaw of an early monotreme found in an earlier dig on the coast Melbourne by a team of researchers, including Hopson’s colleague, Thomas Rich of Museum Victoria in Melbourne. The specimen, Teinlophos trusleri, interested Hopson because the primitive mammal’s jaw had a large groove, or trough, which suggested that the smaller jaw bones had not developed into the ear.
I was just amazed when I recognized the significance of this trough, Hopson said. Only this specimenhas the trough, which indicates that these bones were still attached to the jaw in this specimen.
In Hopson’s paper, co-written by Rich and the other Australian researchers for the February 11 issue of Science, the two most detailed specimens were adult or adolescent, with most of their teeth and jawbones fully developed. While the nature of all the bones in the Teinolophos are not known, the structure of the mandibular trough suggests that it housed a rod of accessory jaw bones similar to the angular, articular and prearticular group found in the mammal-like reptiles.
If this is true, it would mean that the two branches of mammalsthe group that gave rise to placentals and marsupials and the precursor group to monotremesevolved their acute hearing systems independently of one another, an example of convergent evolution in the development of mammals.
http://maroon.uchicago.edu/...02/22/professor_makes_ears.php

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by mark24, posted 07-29-2005 2:58 PM mark24 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by Jazzns, posted 07-29-2005 5:01 PM randman has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 276 of 305 (227457)
07-29-2005 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by deerbreh
07-29-2005 3:18 PM


Re: you are right on no transitions in the fossil record
Actually convergent characters are predicted by (and therefore a strength of) evolutionary theory and is a big problem for special creation.
Not really. No one predicted convergent evolution would produce something like the 3 inner ear bones idependently. Furthermore, most evolutionists seem blissfully unaware that if convergent evolution can produce similarities, that always assuming similarities are via common ancestry unless strong evidence that could not be, means they are utilyzing a false assumption in their models and claims.
(Why use several ways to solve the same "problem" when one way is probably superior?) It is the some of the Rube Goldberg like results of evolution that is the best evidence for it. One would expect a designer to design the perfect structure for each function and then simply repeat it over and over.
Actually, one would expect an Intelligent Designer in which humans were made in the image of, to do the opposite. To use some common designs but to vary them, much like an artist would do.
If your claim was correct, we would expect homes to all be the same. Their great diversity in design, even when one owner has multiple homes and designs multiple homes, indicates that it is likely a designer would want variation in the design.
Your claim is just wrong here. Everything we know about creativity and design points in the opposite direction of your claim.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by deerbreh, posted 07-29-2005 3:18 PM deerbreh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by deerbreh, posted 07-29-2005 4:16 PM randman has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 278 of 305 (227464)
07-29-2005 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by Chiroptera
07-29-2005 3:30 PM


Re: Oh, this is going to be fun.
Let me tell you a true falsification of evolution: intermediaries between bats and bird. Direct intermediaries between whales and fish.
That's just a lie on your part. If there were theorized intemediaries between whales and fish, all evolutionists would do is claim whales evolved from fish and then land mammals from whales or some such, and you would insist that if intermediaries showed otherwise it would falsify evolution, but that's be another bogus claim.
Evolution is pretty well-nigh falsifiable. All you have to do is change everything around. There is a great deal of evidence inconsistent with evolutionary theories, but evolutionists can just insist their are right, and no fact can falsify their claims because they essentially have never set up a falsifiable theory.
Let's say, we discover how to materialize things, to bring a design into direct creation, poof.
Would that falsify and prove creation? I think it would, but evolutionists would never accept that. They'd just move the goal-posts and even though you would have discovered a mechanism of direct creation, an evolutionist could just find some other excuse, some way to rewrite their myth and insist on it.
I mean just look at the nonsense you posted.
Why would god create intermediaries between whales and artiodactyls and whales but leave out intermediaries between whales and fish? Why are all the intermediaries that have been found consistent with evolution?
They are not necessarily intemediaries. You insist they are intermediaries and then demand why would God make them as evidence? Totally whacked logic on your part.
All of the theorized intermediaries are not consistent with evolution actually because they don't appear in the fossil record in the manner that evolution predicted. PE tries to solve some of that, but the bottom line is there is not the regular, gradual appearance of change in the fossil record.
As far as positing common descent as the means to which "order" appears, it's not a verifiable option either. You cannot verify common descent from a sinle ancestor.
It could well be a Common Designer, or a Common Designer and some evolution at work, and convergent evolution, common environment, DNA programmed to mutate according to certain predispositions, etc, etc,....
There are a number of commonalities that could be at work to produce similarities. There is no evidence that proves common descent should be the only commonality considered since there is significant evidence, namely the fossil record, that questions the exclusive role of common descent since there is a great lack of uniform changes, geologically speaking, exhibited, assuming evolutionist models of geology.
This message has been edited by randman, 07-29-2005 03:47 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by Chiroptera, posted 07-29-2005 3:30 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by Chiroptera, posted 07-29-2005 4:12 PM randman has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 280 of 305 (227470)
07-29-2005 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by Chiroptera
07-29-2005 3:35 PM


Re: you are right on no transitions in the fossil record
So?
Did I say evolutionists were in mood to re-examine their fundamental assumptions? I said the opposite, but my point is the verified nonetheless. Convergent evolution was not thought to be able to produce something like this functional change that was non-surface, etc,...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by Chiroptera, posted 07-29-2005 3:35 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by Chiroptera, posted 07-29-2005 4:17 PM randman has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 281 of 305 (227474)
07-29-2005 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by deerbreh
07-29-2005 3:48 PM


Re: you are right on no transitions in the fossil record
First off, you assume convergent evolution. It's not a fact.
But my point is made by the fact that evolutionists only consider convergent evolution to be plausible, until recently, for the changes you refer to here, but now we see that in reality, convergent evolution, if evolution is true, can account for just about any similarity.
So calling similarities exclusive evidence for common ancestry has effectively been proven wrong. Maybe it's common ancestry or maybe some other commonality is at work.
This message has been edited by randman, 07-29-2005 03:56 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by deerbreh, posted 07-29-2005 3:48 PM deerbreh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by deerbreh, posted 07-29-2005 4:44 PM randman has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 285 of 305 (227508)
07-29-2005 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 283 by deerbreh
07-29-2005 4:16 PM


Re: you are right on no transitions in the fossil record
Well, first of all, most houses are pretty similar in design (in spite of having many designers). They are mostly variations of a rectangular box (or boxes) with a pitched roof.
In other words, designed systems such as the housing system for humans appear to be very much like biological systems (life), with certain basic similarities and many differences within those.
Biology reflects what we know and is fully congruent with what we know of design, and thus all the evidence supports the theory of Intelligent Design. There is no fact that disagrees with Intelligent Design.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by deerbreh, posted 07-29-2005 4:16 PM deerbreh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by robinrohan, posted 07-29-2005 4:48 PM randman has not replied
 Message 289 by deerbreh, posted 07-29-2005 4:53 PM randman has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 288 of 305 (227518)
07-29-2005 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 282 by Chiroptera
07-29-2005 4:12 PM


Re: Oh, this is going to be fun.
I explained one way to falsify evolution.
Except that does not falsify evolution. All that would change is the proposed path of evolution, and that sort of thing has happened a lot.
Why would it prove creation?
It would be a duplicatable, hard evidence proof of the creation process.
No one can "prove" technically anything in science, but it would be very strong evidence for creation, and it's a prediction of mine.
ID predicts the discovery, or my form of ID does, of direct engineering processes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by Chiroptera, posted 07-29-2005 4:12 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by Chiroptera, posted 07-29-2005 5:09 PM randman has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 290 of 305 (227523)
07-29-2005 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by deerbreh
07-29-2005 4:44 PM


Re: you are right on no transitions in the fossil record
The point is it is entirely an unproven assumption that similarities in different species are the result of prior species with similarities evolving into those species.
That is a total assumption with no direct observation of that.
That assumption governs nearly all of the interpretation of the data in the fossil record and otherwise, but even within ToE, there is acknowledgement that similarities could also arise independently.
The fact evolutionists say it is more likely that they arose via common ancestry is somewhat meaningless since evolution is the exploration of a concept which is extremely unlikely, but is considered plausible due to the vast periods of time involved, so that extremely unlikely and rare events could work.
Well, considering that none of it is "likely", except granting 100s of millions of years, the notion that is safe to assume common ancestry rather than convergent evolution for individual instances of similarity strikes me as highly dubious.
In fact, we know similar environmental pressures exert a continous pressure on species to select for traits that emerge within that genome. It would not be surprising then for various reptile "kinds" for lack of a better term to exhibit some convergent traits over a long period of time, assuming the time exists.
It is also likely that mammals with a similar structure, a jaw, would exhibit the same convergent tendencies brought on by the environment.
However, the idea that the reptile can mutate into a mammal is really not supported by the data. We don't actually see that change. We see bits and pieces, so-called snapshots, but the snapshots and data are so far apart, we could well be talking about just about anything.
The claims of evolutionists here are just not substantiated.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by deerbreh, posted 07-29-2005 4:44 PM deerbreh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by deerbreh, posted 07-29-2005 5:03 PM randman has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 294 of 305 (227532)
07-29-2005 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 291 by Jazzns
07-29-2005 5:01 PM


Re: Oh, this is going to be fun.
You find it funny for me to show you guys your own inconsistency using your own theory, eh?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by Jazzns, posted 07-29-2005 5:01 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by Jazzns, posted 07-29-2005 5:34 PM randman has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 295 of 305 (227533)
07-29-2005 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 293 by Chiroptera
07-29-2005 5:09 PM


Re: Oh, this is going to be fun.
Imo, it seems like you are misreading or misunderstanding the concept of "hierarchical classification."
It is my understanding that evolution is thought of as not directional. So species could evolve backwards if environmental pressures dictated that, correct?
So there is no goal which governs the nested heirarchy, correct?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by Chiroptera, posted 07-29-2005 5:09 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by Chiroptera, posted 07-29-2005 5:26 PM randman has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 296 of 305 (227536)
07-29-2005 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 292 by deerbreh
07-29-2005 5:03 PM


Re: you are right on no transitions in the fossil record
Because I see no reason if macro-evolution could occur, that it would not produce the same similarities across a wide range of species, and thus the data would be interpreted as common ancestry perhaps when it was just micro or macro-evolution producing convergent similarities.
So the base assumption that these similarities can only be explained as common ancestry is false. It can at least be explained via convergent evolution, and it can also be explaine, imo, by a Common Creator.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by deerbreh, posted 07-29-2005 5:03 PM deerbreh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by deerbreh, posted 07-30-2005 1:17 AM randman has not replied
 Message 302 by mark24, posted 07-30-2005 6:56 AM randman has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024