Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Some Evidence Against Evolution
Sonic
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 309 (69523)
11-27-2003 12:48 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Rei
11-25-2003 9:45 PM


Ok Rie,
quote:
The larger context for the above statement is the fact that this criticism is specifically directed at the British Museum of Natural History at Teddington. With this said, I ask what museum actually possesses and displays the intermediary missing link bones ?
Rei writes:
Bones of missing links, or fossils that you think should but there but aren't?
There are no fossils that we think should be there but aren't. For example, here is the smooth transition from humans to jawless fish:
) H. Sapiens Sapiens (us) (40kya)
2) H. Sapiens (500kya)
3) H. Erectus (1.8 Mya)
4) H. Habilis (2.5 Mya)
5) A. Africanus (3.0 Mya)
6) A. Afarensus (3.9 Mya)
7) Ardipithecus Ramidus (5.8 Mya)
8) Orrorin Tugenesis (6 Mya)
9) Sahelanthropus tchadensis (7Mya)
10) Kenyapithecus (16 Mya)
11) Dryopithecus (~16Mya)
12) Proconsul Africanus (~20 Mya)
13) Aegyptopithicus (~30 Mya)
14) Parapithecus (~32 Mya)
15) Amphipithecus, Pondaungia (~35 Mya)
16) Pelycodus, etc (~50 Mya)
17) Cantius (~50 Mya)
18) Palaechthon, Purgatorius (~60 Mya)
19) Kennalestes, Asioryctes (~80 Mya)
20) Pariadens kirklandi (95 Mya)
21) Vincelestes neuquenianus (135 Mya)
22) Steropodon galmani (~140 Mya)
23) Kielantherium and Aegialodon (~140 Mya)
24) Endotherium (very latest Jurassic, 147 Ma)
25) Peramus (~155 Mya)
26) Eozostrodon, Morganucodon, Haldanodon (~205 Mya)
27) Kuehneotherium (~205 Mya)
28) Sinoconodon (~208 Mya)
29) Adelobasileus cromptoni (225 Mya)
30) Pachygenelus, Diarthrognathus (earliest Jurassic, 209 Mya)
31) Oligokyphus, Kayentatherium (early Jurassic, 208 Mya)
32) Probelesodon (~225 Mya?)
33) Exaeretodon (239 Mya)
34) Probainognathus (239-235 Mya)
35) Diademodon (240 Mya)
36) Cynognathus (240 Mya)
37) Thrinaxodon (~240 Mya)
38) Dvinia (Permocynodon) (~245 Mya)
39) Procynosuchus (~245 Mya)
40) Biarmosuchia (~255 Mya)
41) Dimetrodon, Sphenacodon (~270 Mya)
42) Varanops (~275 Mya)
43) Haptodus (~290 Mya)
44) Archaeothyris (~315 Mya)
45) Clepsydrops (~325 Mya)
46) Protoclepsydrops haplous (~325 Mya)
47) Paleothyris (~325 Mya)
48) Hylonomus, Paleothyris (~325 Mya)
49) Limnoscelis, Tseajaia (~325 Mya)
50) Proterogyrinus or another early anthracosaur (~335 Mya)
51) Temnospondyls (Pholidogaster) (330 Mya)
52) Labyrinthodonts (eg Pholidogaster, Pteroplax) (~360 Mya)
53) Hynerpeton, Acanthostega, and Ichthyostega (~365 Mya)
54) Obruchevichthys (370 Mya)
55) Panderichthys, Elpistostege (370 Mya)
56) Eusthenopteron, Sterropterygion (~375 Mya)
57) Osteolepis (~385 Mya)
58) Palaeoniscoids (Cheirolepis, Mimia) (~400 Mya)
59) Acanthodians(?) (~420 Mya)
Tell me where you think a "missing link" should be. If you can't name a specific, don't bring up the subject.
You do realize that there is no evidence of this connection besides the morphilogical standpoint right?
quote:
Every museum I have encountered diplays fake bones made of rubber and plaster. These pieces are always surrounded by impressive visual presentations that insert the bones as the missing links.
Rei writes:
Please be more specific. Are you talking about entire skeletons, or just places where part of the skeleton was missing? If you're talking about the latter case, what do you expect, entire skeletons to be miraculously preserved intact? Think about the situation for a second: what happens when you throw a vase? You get some big pieces, some small pieces, and some things pretty much turned to dust. That's the same thing that happens when bones get buried under kilotons of rock under pressure and heat.
Complete skeletons are incredibly rare, and very valuable.
Agreed, Even if they found the entire skeleton, this discovery would not present anymore then a theoretical and morphilogical view that organic evolution occured.
Thank You
Sonic
[This message has been edited by Sonic, 11-27-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Rei, posted 11-25-2003 9:45 PM Rei has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by NosyNed, posted 11-27-2003 1:03 AM Sonic has replied

Sonic
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 309 (69529)
11-27-2003 1:31 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by NosyNed
11-27-2003 1:03 AM


NosyNed writes:
Yes, but what other conclusion would you draw? There are appropriately date sequenced fossils showing various changes leading from one form to another. Just like you would draw conclusions if you say a series of photos showing various stages of some change you would be reasonable to draw conclusions from such a series of fossils. So, again, what other conclusion can you draw?
Common Creator
Thank You
Sonic
[This message has been edited by Sonic, 11-27-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by NosyNed, posted 11-27-2003 1:03 AM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by roxrkool, posted 11-27-2003 1:34 AM Sonic has replied

Sonic
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 309 (69535)
11-27-2003 1:43 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by roxrkool
11-27-2003 1:34 AM


roxrkool writes:
Common creator??? Please explain.
If I were to draw two pictures, between the two pictures there would be similarities. The similarities would be the style which they were drawn. Every artist has their own style and thus is why some people who keep up with art are able to identify art by a glimpse without looking for signiture and date to validate there assumption, they just know from the sight, such as you claim, except there is nothing to validate your claim regarding orgranic evolution. The same idea would apply to the FR. I would Expect to find all life on the earth to be similar in order for there to have been a creation event.
Thank You
Sonic
[This message has been edited by Sonic, 11-27-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by roxrkool, posted 11-27-2003 1:34 AM roxrkool has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by NosyNed, posted 11-27-2003 2:07 AM Sonic has replied

Sonic
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 309 (69540)
11-27-2003 2:17 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by NosyNed
11-27-2003 2:07 AM


quote:
You have somehow managed to miss the point completely.
I have ?
quote:
It is not, at all, just similarities. Over time there are different forms. But the forms are not completely new. They have similarities to forms that are close to them in time. When laid out in date sequence they show steps that lead from one form to another.
The question would be, how valid is the dating methods which where used? From their I would point to the fact that it seems to me that no dating has ever been factual but theoretical only, and to trust something that is theoretical is well, ignorant.
quote:
What conclusion would you draw? If they are created then they have been created and destroyed in a very specific sequence. The sequence when examined in more and more detail keeps looking more and more like one came from previous ones. What conclusion would you draw?
What verifiable evidence do you have, which represents this very idea you are claiming?
Thank You
Sonic
[This message has been edited by Sonic, 11-27-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by NosyNed, posted 11-27-2003 2:07 AM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by NosyNed, posted 11-27-2003 9:49 AM Sonic has not replied

Sonic
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 309 (69546)
11-27-2003 2:45 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by lpetrich
11-27-2003 2:27 AM


lpetrich writes:
However, special creation of organisms has NEVER been observed. Where is the film footage of the initial population of some new species being poofed into existence? By contrast, evolution has been observed under laboratory conditions, even though it's rather small-scale evolution.
Let's look at horse evolution. Did it go like this:
*POOF!* Hyracotherium
*POOF!* Orohippus
*POOF!* Mesohippus
*POOF!* Miohippus
*POOF!* Parahippus
*POOF!* Merychippus
*POOF!* Dinohippus
*POOF!* Equus
?
With each species being an almost exact copy of some earlier species?
Are you confused? Creationist dont need evidence that God created all things, they just believe that God created all things. So asking for evidence that God created all things is rather funny. Yes I agree that Evolution is factual, we all observe moderate changes in our life, and this has no baring on organic evolution and such a claim is also theoretical (i.e. another educated guess might we say).
Thank You
Sonic
[This message has been edited by Sonic, 11-27-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by lpetrich, posted 11-27-2003 2:27 AM lpetrich has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Rand Al'Thor, posted 11-27-2003 4:10 AM Sonic has not replied
 Message 37 by Peter, posted 11-27-2003 7:14 AM Sonic has not replied
 Message 40 by sidelined, posted 11-27-2003 7:23 AM Sonic has not replied
 Message 45 by NosyNed, posted 11-27-2003 9:57 AM Sonic has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024