Animals appearing whole - ie anti-evolution

a reply to: LuXiferGriM

Remember evolution is a phenomena of the local environment. So at the top of the food chain you have fewer and newer species. Few environments can sustain that many apex predators. But as you go down the food chain the species stick around for longer and become more various. At the insect level there species that predate the dinosaurs sharing their environment with species that didn't come about till the age of mammals. Even moreso at the microscopic level. Blue-green algae is still with us. And that's one of the oldest forms of life on the planet.

Fossils only form in very unique conditions. So the fossil record is not complete. But there's no glaring evolutionary impossibilities. And you'd expect that if spontaneous creation were true.

But the better question is: If creationists are correct why are there any intermediate forms at all, either living or extinct? Other the God as puzzle master theory I suggested up thread, it doesn't fit with spontaneous creation.

originally posted by: LuXiferGriM

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: FinalCountdown

2. Transitional forms have been posted up many times. You have access to google, there's no exscuse for such ignorance.

Humor us, would you please? And by the way, I'm not asking for a singular example of it, like say an Archaeopteryx. Evolution, by definition mind you, demands a comprehensive timeline.

In fact, there should be as many if not more transitional fossils than "finished product" fossils.

On second thought, the entire proposition seems silly. Following logic, all fossils should be transitional fossils, by Evolution's definition.

Yes, all fossils are transitional fossils. Humans in their current form are in transition to something else. We will continue to evolve, just like everything else on the planet. Why is that a silly concept?

But really, this thread is assuming that evolution is false. Where is the proof of animals appearing whole on the planet when god decides to create a new species? At least evolution has fossils to show for its claims. I want to see an example of a species of animal just appearing completely whole and made up like evolution deniers claim.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: FinalCountdown
a reply to: GetHyped

Funny.
Let's see,
We evolved, right, from apes, correct?
Rather quickly in my opionion, no?
Evolved from a creature that could live in the world as is, covered with protective fur and tough skin, right? We evolved into a fur free "advanced" creature that requires some form of clothing just to survive the worst I the elements, right?
Suddenly we're building fires and counting stars with piles of gold, right?
Flash forward from not having electricity to 100 years later talking about cloning man and the next shuttle mission.
Yeah right.
We had help.
Modern man did not "poof" "evolve" into such a fragile and mentally complex creature in the short timespan that evolution dictates.
We had help.
Creationism

What created this supposed alien intelligence that tampered with our DNA?

Some sort of God, who else?
I thought this thread was about the theory of evolution vs creationism.
God (or something like a god) is responsible for everything.

I'm saying that we did not "evolve" from apes as per the current theory of evolution.
I'm saying that we were "updated" into modern man through genetic manipulation and cloning.

Still, God is behind all theories, no?

a reply to: Moresby

I actually appreciate that answer.

a reply to: GetHyped

"Any creature that successfully reproduces is a transitional form."

I suppose you could also describe (define?) a successfully reproducing set of creatures as a "species". Its how this species turns into another one that is the problem:

Geographical separation? Definitely, I've certainly seen plants on different sides of a mountain range, say, which have gone their separate ways. However, they often hybridise when re-introduced together thanks to our human interference, even after millions of years of being separated.

Horizontal Gene Transfer This might speed things up a bit with recent studies suggesting it could even be possible in mammals. Essentially genes are transferred in 'real time' between members of a population so that any sudden genetic advances which might be favorable could be passed on through a population very quickly. Could this stimulate enough of a genetic 'jump' to create a new species? Open question.

Has it ever been observed, even amongst fossils? No.

One thing I find very interesting is that different species which seem to fill a specific niche on different sides of the planet look remarkably similar. So for example, an Oxalis leaf from Europe will look almost identical (to the point of being almost indistinguishable to the naked eye) to a native Australian Oxalis leaf even though they have evolved (or been created) separately millions of years ago.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Snarl
a reply to: Krazysh0t

If evolution isn't true, then that must mean that God creates animal species whole and just deposits them onto the planet, correct?

Let's just put the habeus stoppus with the oversight in your logic. If creationism is the answer ... then God is real. If God is real, it is possible for him to do any damn thing he wants. I want new animal species ... voila!!

The evolution/creationism argument has 'always' been about denying the existence of God. I am not fooled by this, are you?

No it isn't about denying god. Using the very same logic that you just employed, if God is real, it is possible for him to do any damn thing he wants, which means he could use evolution as a tool to develop life throughout the universe.

Exactly.

But why did you start this thread?

You alluded to what I represented in your OP with:

So my question for the Creationists is, if evolution isn't true and God just magics species whole onto the planet, where is the evidence of this occurring? Why has no one seen this happen?

YOU are asking for evidence of divine influence ... not me. Maybe someone has seen this happen ... and just didn't feel it was important to tell anyone about it. LOL

I think pretty much everyone can agree on the 99% species extinction thingy. However ... comma ... there is not one living soul on this planet who has EVER witnessed evolution ... except the dazed and confused who believe evolution and mutation are synonymous (even though they're obviously spelled differently).

a reply to: FinalCountdown

Ok, if evolution isn't true, how do new species of lifeforms appear on the planet?

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Krazysh0t
..
Why does he do that? Apparently it's fatal to see Him face to face. But you can look at His backside.

THAT was amazing!
Didn't know that part of the bible and I loved it. "stiffnecked".. "see my back".. GREAT. Guys, if you read that and won't laugh, I don't know.. Just amazing.

a reply to: FinalCountdown

I tend to want to agree with your assessment, considering no one has adequately answered the question of how we came to be where we are in a short period of time (5,000 years compared to the entirety of the evolutionary timeline.)

And speaking back to the lack of a complete fossil record, one could certainly argue that this supports the OP's question. Animals were placed into existence. And that explains the lack of a fossil record.

What's silly is that evolution differentiates transitional fossils from "finished product" (for lack of a better term) fossils.

My point is this, I see all of these viewpoints as having equal merit. And each belief system does in fact take a measure of faith.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: FinalCountdown

Ok, if evolution isn't true, how do new species of lifeforms appear on the planet?

Ummm......... Creation was finished quite a while ago.
New lifeforms don't appear....
They are found.

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Snarl
a reply to: Krazysh0t

If evolution isn't true, then that must mean that God creates animal species whole and just deposits them onto the planet, correct?

Let's just put the habeus stoppus with the oversight in your logic. If creationism is the answer ... then God is real. If God is real, it is possible for him to do any damn thing he wants. I want new animal species ... voila!!

The evolution/creationism argument has 'always' been about denying the existence of God. I am not fooled by this, are you?

No it isn't about denying god. Using the very same logic that you just employed, if God is real, it is possible for him to do any damn thing he wants, which means he could use evolution as a tool to develop life throughout the universe.

Exactly.

But why did you start this thread?

I created this thread because I'm tired of evolution deniers creating thread after thread demanding evidence for evolution, which we supply, but never supply any evidence for what they believe. Turn around is fair play.

You alluded to what I represented in your OP with:

So my question for the Creationists is, if evolution isn't true and God just magics species whole onto the planet, where is the evidence of this occurring? Why has no one seen this happen?

YOU are asking for evidence of divine influence ... not me. Maybe someone has seen this happen ... and just didn't feel it was important to tell anyone about it. LOL

Yeah right. Do you honestly even believe that someone wouldn't report such an event? And even if 1 person didn't say anything, there are enough animals on the planet that this should be occurring all the time. There should be more than one person witnessing these events.

I think pretty much everyone can agree on the 99% species extinction thingy. However ... comma ... there is not one living soul on this planet who has EVER witnessed evolution ... except the dazed and confused who believe evolution and mutation are synonymous (even though they're obviously spelled differently).

This is a misrepresentation of evolution, but I'm not here to defend evolution today. I want the proof that the counterargument, that god created the species whole and deposited them on the planet is true. Where are the witnesses to these events?

originally posted by: Quadrivium

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: FinalCountdown

Ok, if evolution isn't true, how do new species of lifeforms appear on the planet?

Ummm......... Creation was finished quite a while ago.
New lifeforms don't appear....
They are found.

So since 99% of all species on the planet are extinct, you are suggesting that the earth, back when it was first created was exponentially more diverse than it is today? Keep in mind that the fossil record should bare that out. There should be more and more fossils the deeper we dig, but that isn't the case. Not to mention we can show that different species lived at different points in earth's past. Where is your evidence?

Within the species DNA can grow/mix into new species hence ancient man and modern man humanoid vessels. Diversity within Dominant and Recessive genes. all data present within first growth group till now and beyond.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Quadrivium

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: FinalCountdown

Ok, if evolution isn't true, how do new species of lifeforms appear on the planet?

Ummm......... Creation was finished quite a while ago.
New lifeforms don't appear....
They are found.

So since 99% of all species on the planet are extinct, you are suggesting that the earth, back when it was first created was exponentially more diverse than it is today? Keep in mind that the fossil record should bare that out. There should be more and more fossils the deeper we dig, but that isn't the case. Not to mention we can show that different species lived at different points in earth's past. Where is your evidence?

Where did I suggest this?
Speciation indeed happens......
Within Genus/family/kind.

The problem many people have is with the assumption that one genus can speciate into a new genus.

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Snarl
a reply to: Krazysh0t

If evolution isn't true, then that must mean that God creates animal species whole and just deposits them onto the planet, correct?

Let's just put the habeus stoppus with the oversight in your logic. If creationism is the answer ... then God is real. If God is real, it is possible for him to do any damn thing he wants. I want new animal species ... voila!!

The evolution/creationism argument has 'always' been about denying the existence of God. I am not fooled by this, are you?

No it isn't about denying god. Using the very same logic that you just employed, if God is real, it is possible for him to do any damn thing he wants, which means he could use evolution as a tool to develop life throughout the universe.

Exactly.

But why did you start this thread?

You alluded to what I represented in your OP with:

So my question for the Creationists is, if evolution isn't true and God just magics species whole onto the planet, where is the evidence of this occurring? Why has no one seen this happen?

YOU are asking for evidence of divine influence ... not me. Maybe someone has seen this happen ... and just didn't feel it was important to tell anyone about it. LOL

I think pretty much everyone can agree on the 99% species extinction thingy. However ... comma ... there is not one living soul on this planet who has EVER witnessed evolution ... except the dazed and confused who believe evolution and mutation are synonymous (even though they're obviously spelled differently).

We watch evolution constantly. He'll look at wolves and a toy poodle. We evolved wolves into that poodle. In medicine we watch viruses evolve constantly because there generations are so short.


There is no difference in micro and macro evolution. Micro evolution is just a still picture of macro evolution, but there the same thing.

a reply to: FinalCountdown

I see. An argument from personal incredulity.

What did I honestly expect?

originally posted by: Quadrivium

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Quadrivium

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: FinalCountdown

Ok, if evolution isn't true, how do new species of lifeforms appear on the planet?

Ummm......... Creation was finished quite a while ago.
New lifeforms don't appear....
They are found.

So since 99% of all species on the planet are extinct, you are suggesting that the earth, back when it was first created was exponentially more diverse than it is today? Keep in mind that the fossil record should bare that out. There should be more and more fossils the deeper we dig, but that isn't the case. Not to mention we can show that different species lived at different points in earth's past. Where is your evidence?

Where did I suggest this?
Speciation indeed happens......
Within Genus/family/kind.

The problem many people have is with the assumption that one genus can speciate into a new genus.

The problem with that saying is that we have evidence that different species existed at different points in earth's past. Where did these species come from? For instance, the dinosaurs we have clear evidence that they existed for a certain period of time that was after the first life appeared on the planet and WAY before humans appeared on the planet. Not to mention, just like the dinosaurs there are whole OTHER species of animal, plant, micro-organisms dying out as well. The Earth WOULD have to be VASTLY more diverse in life if all life was created at once. It's not like you or I see Tyrannosaurus' speciating into different types of t-rexes.

We have evidence of FIVE major extinction events. Where did all the new life come from after these extinction events happened?

a reply to: Krazysh0t
And the point about the first single celled life form appearing on Earth? You don't mention that.

Actually, people do tend to assume someone referred to as a creationist believes in all of the theories associated with it - you used the term creationist so I'm afraid if you must use labels you have to take that into consideration whether you mean to or not.

There is no difference in micro and macro evolution. Micro evolution is just a still picture of macro evolution, but there the same thing.

This is fundamentally flawed and misleading. Micro-evolution does not result in new species. If it does, the fossil record should show this. Geologic strata should be packed with a bevvy of intermediate specimens, so much that you couldn't tell one from the other.

The only theory that explains around this is Gould's theory of Punctuated Equilibrium.

I concede nothing. This is going to be the best debate I've entered on this site.

I do want to address this though. Sorry ... but I'm off to bed shortly.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

This is a misrepresentation of evolution, ...

No, it is not. You will lose all credibility with me if I catch you moving the goalposts (explained further below in bold).

You see, anyone can look at the definition of 'evolution' and not feel like they understand it absolutely. That is because the words used to describe it are as soft as the science itself.

I want the proof that the counterargument, that god created the species whole and deposited them on the planet is true. Where are the witnesses to these events?

Easy enough. I'll get him to sign up for an account in the next five minutes on one condition. Please provide me the phone number for that guy who survived the last mass extinction.

You want real truth? Here you go.
Q: Is God responsible for periodically replacing species on the planet?
A: I don't know. No one knows. One would need faith in the existence of God to answer the question.

Q: Is evolution responsible for the variety of species which exist and have existed as evidenced in the sparse fossil record?
A: I don't know. No one knows. One would need faith in soft science to answer the question. You might need extraordinary faith ... considering scientists will happily enter a hoax into evidence (e.g. Piltdown Man) to win the debate in the court of public opinion.

You asked for witnesses to these events. Do you not consider religious texts to be a proper accounting of the truth? Tell me ... are there more fossils 'in the record' than there are religious texts? Would you care to 'weigh' the evidence with me? LOL