It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why Fossils May Appear To Support Evolution.

page: 10
19
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 01:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: peter vlar

Philosophical debate that is sincere is not trolling.
Sometimes the reactions can be entertaining as well.


Here is a good article for your thread.


Problem 5: Abrupt Appearance of Species in the Fossil Record Does Not Support Darwinian Evolution

Source

They even get into and debunk the often mentioned Whale land to water scenario cited by evolutionists,


Whale evolution now runs into a severe problem. The fossil record requires that the evolution of whales from small land mammals would have to have taken place in less than 10 million years. That may sound like a long time, but it actually falls dramatically short, especially given that whales have small population sizes and long generation times. Biologist Richard Sternberg has examined the requirements of this transition mathematically and puts it this way: "Too many genetic re-wirings, too little time."


Do you have a source that isn't a creationist propaganda site? Sorry, but that site has been caught lying numerous times, so its credibility is in question.

You don't seem to realize this, but anybody can claim anything on the internet. Just because somebody says so, doesn't make it true.

If you want to claim science is wrong, you need to use science itself to show this, not some guy's personal opinion that is he arrived at using faith. Science uses peer reviewed experiments to determine facts, not just some random guy making claims. I know you do not like this, but it's the way it is.


Go read the article before spewing your biased hatred.
They cite real evolutionist's misgivings that they have uttered in public that you cannot refute.

Even the die hard of your doctrine have their doubts and faithful evolutionists want to ignore when they express those doubts.




posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 02:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
Go read the article before spewing your biased hatred.
They cite real evolutionist's misgivings that they have uttered in public that you cannot refute.

Even the die hard of your doctrine have their doubts and faithful evolutionists want to ignore when they express those doubts.


Biased hatred? I asked you for a valid source. You read the article and blindly believed it hook line and sinker with no scrutiny. Evolutionnews is not a valid scientific site. That's a fact. They've made many lies about evolution and the way it works. Another fact. If you want me to take that source seriously, you need to give me a valid reason to. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. I will not be fooled twice by their unscientific rhetoric.

Plus, I have read that article. In fact I've seen it sourced more than once by science deniers. I'm asking where the scientific research is behind their claims. Where is the research paper and peer review? Do you understand what the appeal to authority fallacy is? Personal opinions of scientists are not scientific facts and in reality nothing that article says legitimately goes against evolution.


edit on 23-4-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 04:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinfoilTP


Go read the article before spewing your biased hatred.


Casey Luskin

Dr Paul D. Brown

and here

Robert Stackpole

Stephen Jay Gould (using a SJG quote from 1980, out of context, without taking into account his later work is cherry-picking to the extreme).

Arthur Strahler is not a palaeontologist. Geomorphology is an entirely separate subdivision of Geology.

Niles Eldredge, along with SJG did/do not support the creationist viewpoint and would be mortified to be associated with it!

Phillip Gingerich would have a similar stand to Eldredge and Gould. Hey, here's an idea. Why don't you email him and ask him to verify your claims?

The "paucity of the fossil record" does not support a Creationist viewpoint. What it does illustrate is the tenuous process of fossilisation and the importance of the fossil record so far, including 'recent' fossils showing a rapid increase/decrease in size, over , hmm, let's say three generations (pers comm Dr Richard Holdaway, regarding Moa fossils).

Jeffrey H. Schwarz would be in the same camp as Eldredge, Gould et.al. Aghast at being associated with Creationism.


This poses a major challenge to Darwinian evolution, including the view that all animals are related through common ancestry.
source

It really doesn't. what it does illustrate is that there is still work to do, but generally, the framework is sound.

Cherry-picking quotes from renowned palaeontologists to try to push a Creationist agenda is laughable, disturbing and deceitful.

I would suggest reading books by Gould (there are a number written in the popular vernacular which you might be able to comprehend) and Eldredge as well as seeking out journal (peer-reviewed) articles by other evolutionary biologists/palaeontologists to actually get a realistic picture of their views and what they are actually saying, rather than some miscontructed Creationist gobbledegook which on the surface, to the uninitiated, appears sound, but does not stand up to scrutiny.



posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 07:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

This is a subject you just can't really grasp is it?

I am pretty sure you understand that the "millions of transitory fossils" (I'm not using the non scientific term 'missing link', as its a load of dingoes kidneys) are not found for a couple of reasons.

(a) Every new generation is a "transitory example". You are a mutant, I am a mutant, we are a species of mutants. Quiet simply sexual reproduction increases the rate of genetic differentiation, which can commonly be called "evolution". Add to that the various actual mutations which occur that can cause an advantage, and its one big ever changing situation. That Mr. Blue_Jay33 is what evolution is.

But lets continue here. Fossils are not going to show all the adaptions, as there will have been soft tissue characteristics which are just not going to be vissible in the fossil. Lets look at Red hair in hominins for an example. Its an advantageous mutation in most situations where you are not getting as much sun as africa (where we originated from). We know Neanderthals had a form of it, and we have a different form. We only know about neanderthalian red hair due to genetic sequencing, and that is how we know its not the same mutation which caused it. Fossils? It only tells you about a few things.

and

(b) Do you understand that for a fossil to survive its pure chance half the time? We had no proof of neanderthal and sapien interbreeding apart from a single skeleton, which was dubious, before we sequenced a neanderthal genome, and compared it to some representitive sapien ones. Similarly a single toe bone, and tooth, have shown that there was a third hominid in europe, the Denisovians. No major fossil proof. Yet lo there they were, and they also breed with us.

Looking at your example, a couple of things to note

(i) The reptile you show actually has not remained unchanged (they sexually reproduce after all), but they are adapted well enough to the area we find them in ... that they seem pretty similar to 40 Million years back

(ii) You and your attacks on radiometric dating. If you understood science, and in particular radioactive decay you'd not make these silly posts. Science never ever says something is 100% accurate nor 100% precise (do you even get the difference between those words?). So indeed a carbon date taken 50 years ago, will likely be different if repeated today, we've calibrated it against things like tree rings, ice cores etc, because we understand it. Similarly when a date is given you will see a range of dates for the age. That is because there is an error involved, hence its in that range (with either a 95% or 99, or 99.9% accuracy).

(iii) You continue to equate what you believe is true, with what the facts and data show. As I've said before, UPG (Unverifiable Personal Gnosis aka beleif) has no place in science. I fully expect you to pull "science is a religion" somewhere in this thread, prove me wrong eh?



posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 08:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

Well my druid neighbor, instead a huge rebuttal post I will just say I agree to disagree with your opinion.

Thanks for your input in this thread.



posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 10:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
. What I don't believe is that non-organic matter spontaneously became organic and then spontaneously became a one celled organism



This is a good, accessible breakdown of abiogenesis.

Here is an unsorted search in Google Scholar.



originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
I have threads on both those topics right now, but this one is on fossils
If that did happen there would be millions of missing link skeletal remains of both species and genders in between.
And what do we have today for the fossil record, not that.


]&af=[]&searchType=SIMPLE&query=&en&pid=diva2%3A689563&aq=[[]]&sf=all&aqe=[ ]&sortOrder=author_sort_asc&onlyFullText=false&noOfRows=50&dswid=-5727]The role of microbes in decay and preservation: a Cambrian Explosion of animals and Lagerstätten.


The abrupt appearance of animals in the early Cambrian has been interpreted either as an explosive biological diversification or, alternatively, as an artefact resulting from a sudden increase in the probability of animal remains becoming fossilised. We attempt to reconcile these competing interpretations in exceptionally-preserved biota, which provide a vital part of our knowledge of the disparity and diversity of the Cambrian fauna. We assess the factors influencing the potential for exceptional fossil preservation using the brine shrimp Artemia salina as our experimental model. Following gut wall rupture, but prior to cuticle failure, internal, gut-derived microbes spread into the body cavity and formed pseudomorphs of tissues. Gut-derived microbes were shown to be the main factor mediating both decay and biofilm replacement and tissue stabilisation. This pattern of preservation is consistent with results from other experimental studies and with the nature of Burgess Shale type fossil remains. Thus, the evolution of a through-gut may have not only underpinned the ecological revolution that bilaterian diversification represents, but also catalysed the exceptional preservation of early bilaterian fossils.


So, you see, the Cambrian Explosion may be due more to the preservation of fossils than an actual sudden emergence of Life.

How fossils formed

How fossils form

Fossilization

These three links are very basic, but might be of use to you?



originally posted by: Blue_Jay33 And even the carbon dating is flawed, it's not 100% accurate.


Rafter Radiocarbon Lab

Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit

However, for anything over c. 50 000 years old +/-, you would need to employ a different form of Radiometric dating

Radiometric dating for Dummies

I realise that I am reiterating what has already been said. this is good information, easily accessible and by no means in depth. It only just scrapes the surface, but given your responses and questions, it seems a good place to start.

This is also a really useful resource, but can contain pitfalls for the uninitiated.
edit on 23-4-2015 by aorAki because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-4-2015 by aorAki because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 11:18 PM
link   
The whole nature of our universe seems to be evolving and I've never understood why some people could ever disagree with the fact that life evolves?
I believe in god but not religion so it's easy for me to imagine a supreme being capable of implementing a very dynamic plane of existence in which life arises through complex chemical reactions. I am not a scientist and just some dude on a pc but I can clearly see how things change from one form to the next and nothing stays the same, including genetic code.



posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 11:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Exactly. With the turtle, crocodile and frogs, nature found a nice organism and they have rarely changed over millions of years.



posted on Apr, 24 2015 @ 01:15 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

Well depends on what your looking at larger mamal's like yes we do if your talking small ones like rodents we hardly have any. So guess it depends on which side of the coin you look at. Want to know horses cows foxes bears lions tigers etc they are almost complete.

The side of the coin doesn't matter.
More recent estimates place the current species number around 9 million, of which we have catalogued roughly 1.5 million.

Fossils are luck of the draw, and are mostly incomplete – mere fragments.

So to correct Krazyshot, no, we do not have fossils for most species on the planet.



posted on Apr, 24 2015 @ 02:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: FearYourMind
Also, why haven't any other apes evolved? If we supposedly came from apes then you would expect other apes would have evolved with us, but not one of them has.


There where other human like species along side of us, some more human some more ape, they died off, or we killed them off.

Apes evolve independently as well. There's no law that says everything must evolve equally, successful change doesn't always happen at the same rate. Some species on earth today are virtually unchanged, living fossils.



posted on Apr, 24 2015 @ 11:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
More recent estimates place the current species number around 9 million, of which we have catalogued roughly 1.5 million.

Fossils are luck of the draw, and are mostly incomplete – mere fragments.

So to correct Krazyshot, no, we do not have fossils for most species on the planet.


Yes, it's true that we do not have most species. However, we have many samples from most major genetic lines. Keep in mind there are over 900 species of shrimp alone and that pattern holds true with many other groups as well. It's more about the genus and family, there's no way you are going to find every species to ever exist, it's impossible, but that doesn't mean we know "next to nothing" about the lineage and evolution.



posted on Apr, 24 2015 @ 11:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Another_Nut

Your information on the Cambrian explosion is wrong. First, quoting science from the 1970's is prehistoric history as far as science is concerned. Second, recent research has shown that evolution occurred in an orderly manner as expected and not an "explosion" as popularized in the layman's media.

Here are two sources:

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

icb.oxfordjournals.org...






posted on Apr, 24 2015 @ 11:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

Noinden, you are correct and I agree with you. If you think "transition", you may as well include today's humans in transition as the evidence points to the fact that evolution of humans is speeding up. We are a transitional species. Brain case measurements of homosapien fossils clearly show evidence of transition.
The "gaps" exist only because fossils in good condition are rare. That's not to say they won't be found. It just says that we haven't unearthed everything yet.



posted on Apr, 24 2015 @ 03:34 PM
link   
I'm glad the OP's not my child's science teacher.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33



posted on Apr, 24 2015 @ 03:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

So essentially THIS



posted on Apr, 24 2015 @ 09:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: JUhrman
a reply to: FearYourMind

It's ironic you would post that since only religious fanatics deny evolution and these people bash religious fanatics.


You are so, SO wrong.

A great many of us have arisen , EVOLVED lol.

And we deny religion AND your ridiculous tiresome "theories".

It is too easy for us to see, that things are not looked upon in a light that is for actually finding the answers.

Constant sabotage, short-sightedness, and lackadaisical research are in abundance.

Frankly the theories of Evolution as so presented are as disgusting, UNLIKELY and BORING as almost every religion, in fact is many ways are worse, they have literally gotten us nowhere, and have uncovered NOTHING.

It is time for something new, a total routing of the common thinking that is being ENFORCED upon us by ludicrous and unimportant theories, that not only decide that things have a natural order, and EVOLVE, but that this natural order appears from nothing "naturally" , and yet is completely random.

Loony bin for the religious, and the controlled Science the both of em.



posted on Apr, 24 2015 @ 09:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: TownCryer
I'm glad the OP's not my child's science teacher.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33




Because science will tell you the truth on these matters, right ??



posted on Apr, 24 2015 @ 09:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: Noinden

Noinden, you are correct and I agree with you. If you think "transition", you may as well include today's humans in transition as the evidence points to the fact that evolution of humans is speeding up. We are a transitional species. Brain case measurements of homosapien fossils clearly show evidence of transition.
The "gaps" exist only because fossils in good condition are rare. That's not to say they won't be found. It just says that we haven't unearthed everything yet.





I LOVE IT, so now you know the secrets of the Universe and somehow KNOW that we are in some sort of system that has nothing controlling it, but has an inevitable outcome.

The "gaps" in logic are astonishing, they constantly leave out SO many possibilities, of course all of which are scoffed at by the theoristic lovers, which by the way ARE religious, they just do not seem to know it



posted on Apr, 24 2015 @ 09:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: ParasuvO

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: Noinden

Noinden, you are correct and I agree with you. If you think "transition", you may as well include today's humans in transition as the evidence points to the fact that evolution of humans is speeding up. We are a transitional species. Brain case measurements of homosapien fossils clearly show evidence of transition.
The "gaps" exist only because fossils in good condition are rare. That's not to say they won't be found. It just says that we haven't unearthed everything yet.





I LOVE IT, so now you know the secrets of the Universe and somehow KNOW that we are in some sort of system that has nothing controlling it, but has an inevitable outcome.

The "gaps" in logic are astonishing, they constantly leave out SO many possibilities, of course all of which are scoffed at by the theoristic lovers, which by the way ARE religious, they just do not seem to know it


Ok reread what he wrote because it's nothing like what you wrote. So your putting words into his mouth and that's wrong.



posted on Apr, 24 2015 @ 10:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: ParasuvO

You are so, SO wrong.

Off target perhaps but SO wrong... not so much. It certainly isn't fair to say that only religious fanatics deny evolution as fanatic is somewhat of an arbitrary descriptor open to interpretation. I know many religious people who believe in evolution


A great many of us have arisen , EVOLVED lol.

And we deny religion AND your ridiculous tiresome "theories".

What exactly is tiresome and ridiculous about Modern Evolutionary Synthesis?

"A great many" is a massive exaggeration. Especially from the standpoint of someone who claims to be against both religion and proven, demonstrable science.


It is too easy for us to see, that things are not looked upon in a light that is for actually finding the answers.
Constant sabotage, short-sightedness, and lackadaisical research are in abundance.

Well if its in such abundance, why do you provide no examples or citations? It should be a cinch right?
Personally, and I'm only speaking for myself because I haven't been to every university in the country, but I was encouraged to question everything about evolution as an undergrad. It was essentially a mandate in one course to actively look for flaws, question them, explore them and look for answers. You make some rather damning accusations about the practices undertaken my people like me but don't support your over generalized blanket statements. It's leaning towards the side of intellectual dishonesty if that's the approach you want to take.



Frankly the theories of Evolution as so presented are as disgusting, UNLIKELY and BORING as almost every religion, in fact is many ways are worse, they have literally gotten us nowhere, and have uncovered NOTHING.


That might be the most ridiculous thing you've stated so far, that nothing has been uncovered. Are you living under a rock? The last couple of decades in Anthropology and Genetics have uncovered am insane amount of new finds and information. Hell, just the last 10 years... finding a new member of the genus Homo that lived at the same time as and bred with H. Sapiens, decoding the Neanderthal genome, being able to see how much of their genetic code lies within modern humans, Homo Floresiensis... this could go on all day to compare one of the most well documented and fact based theories in the history of science to religions is laughable. What religions change how they operate and view the world and their faith when new evidence comes to light that completely alters the paradigm? None. In Anthropology, we are constantly looking for new information. It's about learning the truth and nothing to do with maintaining the status quo. If the facts are there, observable, testable and repeatable then we are forced to add the new pieces to the puzzle. It really is that simple.


It is time for something new, a total routing of the common thinking that is being ENFORCED upon us by ludicrous and unimportant theories, that not only decide that things have a natural order, and EVOLVE, but that this natural order appears from nothing "naturally" , and yet is completely random.

Nothing is being enforced on you at all. Go to school, get a degree in anthropology, paleontology, genetics, biology or evolutionary biology. Then do your own research and demonstrate what is incorrect about the current understanding of Modern Evolutionary Synthesis. Then propose a counter hypothesis and demonstrate why your hypothesis is accurate and true and should merit further exploration. If MES is SOOOOOOOO wrong, this should be a walk in the park for you right?

Also, evolutionary theory does not now nor has it ever, stated that anything appears from nothing. Once again, you make a ludicrous statement as though it is fact and opt not to support it with any sort of citation. I really feel for people like you who rally behind the cry of the falsity of MES while not actually describing what is wrong with the theory, citing anything to support their generalized blanket statements and insist its time for a new alternative without supplying their own. "Evolution is a B.S. "theory" and needs to be replaced but I can't give anything specific about whats wrong with it nor do I have any ideas for a counter hypothesis". Well done old chap!

Loony bin for the religious, and the controlled Science the both of em.


hey, it's a free country. You're entitled to whatever opinion makes you happy. Unless you can support, cite and quantify your thesis however, that's all it is, your opinion because you've got no basis or support for it.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join