What they won't say about Evolution.

page: 23
3
<< 20  21  22   >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 09:43 PM
link   
I submit more evidence for inherent credibility issues wiith evolution. Below are more prime examples of fossil finds that leave evolutionists with more questions than answers. Questions about their own theory (from the scientific journal "Nature"):

A recent discovery of a fossil representative of the stock that might have led from fish to tetra pods, called Tiktaalik roseae, has revealed a significant gap and a lack of fossil evidence for such a transition. Upon further examination it was revealed that “…the origin of major tetrapod features has remained obscure for lack of fossils that document the sequence of evolutionary changes.” *

*(Edward B. Daeschler, Neil H. Shubin, and Farish A. Jenkins, “A Devonian
tetrapod-like fish and the evolution of the tetrapod body plan,” Nature
Vol 440: 757-763 (April 6, 2006)


Jennifer Clack even admits that prior to finding Tiktaalik, the large morphological gap between fish and true tetrapods was "frustratingly wide". I quote her:

"It has long been clear that limbed vertebrates (tetrapods) evolved from osteolepiform lobefinned fishes3, but until recently the morphological gap between the two groups remained frustratingly wide. The gap was bounded at the top by primitive Devonian tetrapods such as Ichthyostega and Acanthostega from Greenland, and at the bottom by Panderichthys, a tetrapod-like predatory fish from the latest Middle Devonian of Latvia." *


* (Jennifer A. Clack & Per Erik Ahlberg, "A firm step from water to land,"
Nature 440:747-749 (April 6, 2006)


Researcher and author Edward Daeschler, et al. echoed the lack of evidence previous fossils provide for a transition, saying:

"Panderichthys possesses relatively few tetrapod synapomorphies, and provides only partial insight into the origin of major features of the skull, limbs and axial skeleton of early tetrapods. In view of the morphological gap between elpistostegalian fish and tetrapods, the phylogenetic framework for the immediate sister group of tetrapods has been incomplete and our understanding of major anatomical transformations at the fish-tetrapod transition has remained limited."

* (Edward B. Daeschler, Neil H. Shubin, and Farish A. Jenkins, “A
Devonian tetrapod-like fish and the evolution of the tetrapod body plan,”
Nature Vol 440: 757-763 (April 6, 2006)

My Point:

The more fossils that are found, the better sense we have of what lived in the past. The number of fossils that have been collected, documented and categorized, has grown tremendously since Darwin’s day [estimates over half a million and growing], so we now have a pretty accurate picture of the earth’s former and present inhabitants. The gradual morphing of one type of creature to another that evolution predicts is nowhere to be found and with the time span, why not in the millions!? There are already fossils under Mt. Saint Helen’s 1980 eruptive ash. So there should have been millions of transitional creatures.

Even the so-called "tree of life" used by evolutionists show enormous gaps in the fossil record, particularly huge between the single-cell creatures and the complex invertebrates (such as snails, jellyfish, trilobites, clams, and sponges), and what evolutionists claim were the first vertebrates, fish. In fact, there are no fossil ancestors at all for complex invertebrates or fish. Why not? So it is the fossil records that are the most condemning to evolution and I will allow the facts to speak for themselves.

These reports certainly are not supportive of the theory, and in fact harm it's credibility. If these are not a credibility problems, then what are? You can't deny that even Darwin himself admitted that it had significant credibility problems (in most of the last chapter). It is quite so obvious that even Darwin saw it.

[edit on 5-9-2008 by Jack Wellman]




posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 09:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Jack Wellman
 


Wow. Read up on the fossil record, and get back to us. Clearly you are not learning about it from scientists.



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 03:54 PM
link   
Clearly, I am learning this from scientists, and one in whom you are so very familiar with. Again I say,Darwin had many doubts (& not in just the last chapter!, his book is on line, in it's entirety, at literature.org and read for your self. Darwin had the same perplexing problem that I and many others have...

Here's Darwin thoughts on his own theory: "The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on Earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."

Yes, I am studied on the fossil records and came to the same conclusion as Darwin and his "gravest objection", that of the lack of fossil evidence. The arecheological evidence of the Cambrian Explosion of fossils certainly throws a monkey wrench this theory.

The definition of science is something that is observable, demonstratable, and repeatable and evolution fails to do all three.



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 04:38 AM
link   
It is very rare that fossils are formed, because they require very specific conditions.

There are plenty of organisms that are clear examples of transitional species: you can't tell me this was designed by anything intelligent, because if so it would clearly be the most hodge-podge design ever.

It's clearly an accumulation of trial-and-error attempts by evolution to get to the state it is in, and shows that it is a springboard for later designs, such as the strong girdle and lungs.

Either that, or a blind watchmaker.



posted on Oct, 23 2010 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Wellman
The conditions have been just right. Why all of the fossils and no "just right" conditions...that had many chances over the supposed millions of years. How do evolutionists explain (short of their circular reasonings) the Cambrian Explosion. Look this up in any dictionary, wikopedia, whatever and look for yourself at the evidence that contradicts evolution. Rather than a gradual increase of species and life appearing generally slowly over millions of years as the process of evolution so clains, there is a veritable explosion of life. Nothing below this strata, no transitional fossils, no smaller, less complicated life forms. NOTHING. Then BAM, an explosion of life. How would the evolutionist explain that!?

The Cambrian Explosion is not a theory (as in evolution's case...still a theory after 150 years!), namely that all the major groups (phyla) of life which we know today appear in the Cambrian strata with no evolutionary ancestors. This is why evolutionists refer to it as an ‘explosion’ of evolution, even though there are no groups which have been identified as ancestral to any of the phyla, and geologically these phyla ‘seem to have appeared suddenly and simultaneously’. The evolutionary conundrum, the deep puzzle to which the Scientific American article refers, is not, however, this absence of ancestors. Each of the phyla represents a basic blueprint, or unique body plan. Evolution’s ‘deepest paradox’, claims Professor Levinton in this article, is that in rock layers above the ‘Cambrian’ NO NEW or different body plans appear.

Why haven’t new animal body plans continued to crawl out of the evolutionary cauldron during the past hundreds of millions of years? According to evolution theory, enormous and radical evolutionary changes have taken place in this time, and evolution has not ceased today. So why no new ‘body plans’ (Grundbäuplane) since the time they all allegedly evolved in the Cambrian? The author of the article in question, Professor of Ecology and Evolution at the State University of New York, wonders, why is it, as evolutionary biologists are still trying to determine, that no new body plans have appeared during the past half a billion years?’ Why indeed?

There's nothing simple about a starfish. It has hundreds of tiny feet which it uses to move along by pumping water through a system of tubes. This is a method we call hydraulics, and which humans use in machinery. But the starfish, still alive today, yet found as fossils in the Cambrian rocks, had it right there in the beginning. There is no evidence the starfish has evolved. When we look at fossils in Cambrian rocks, we find that not only did these animals have no ancestors, but all the main kinds of living creatures were already there. There were animals with backbones (fish), as well as those without backbones, like shellfish, crinoids (sea lilies), and starfish. Some of these Cambrian creatures have died out, but many types are still alive, and have changed little if at all.

Why don't we find fossils of the ancestors of Cambrian animals? Evolutionists often say it is because the creatures they evolved from were too soft to fossilize. But this excuse will not do. Jellyfish are some of the softest creatures of all, and yet they have been found as fossils! The most sensible reason why we don't find transitional fossils of the ancestors of the Cambrian creatures is that they never existed!



[edit on 14-8-2008 by Jack Wellman]


Excellent post. I'm assuming you're familiar with Lloyd Pye / Intervention Theory. (?)



posted on Oct, 23 2010 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by flyby
 
Creationism=Theology=Theory+Ology

Theory of evolution=Well,theory of course.

Both are theory,and everyone knows there are facts here and there to back them both up (kinda sketchy for religion/creationism though).....

But both still theory all the same..



edit on 23-10-2010 by chiponbothshoulders because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2010 @ 10:45 PM
link   
The Big Bang Theory has me perplexed though....

Like,what was it that exploded?,what was there before the big bang?.



posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 04:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by chiponbothshoulders
The Big Bang Theory has me perplexed though....

Like,what was it that exploded?,what was there before the big bang?.


It's no longer the "Big Bang" Theory, rather "Collision" theory. And, it has more to do with interdimensional 'clashing' than physical 'exploding'



posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakko
amantine, silq's posts in this thread (both of them) make him look like a pathetic little kid, unable to argue without trying to insult the other.
I was actually surprised by Thomas' post, usually ignorant types like silq can just type away without anyone telling them what's the case.

As for your post amantine, I think when these people say evolution they mean how one organism evolved into several others, leading to the current amount of species on our planet.
The very start of everything is indeed something else, but in these kinds of topics you can just assume evolution means macro-evolution, since arguing about the very start of everything is rather pointless even though interesting.
Macro evolution has a lot of flaws, and every "proof" for macro-evolution I have read so far is based on assumptions. (ex: let's assume organism A turned into organism B)

Oh and silq, I am just another religion-junkie too brainwashed by my parents to "break out of the system" so don't even bother replying to my post k?

[Edited on 4-5-2004 by Jakko]


Hey let's start with this. Define "macroevolution."



posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Camelop�rdalis

In exactly the same way clay models is a must for modern car designers. The best way to design a new carossery for a car is to model it in clay, then scan it using a decent 3D scanner, put in some parameters into the computer, like engine size, type of engine, interior measures etc, press the OK button, and there you are. All you need to do is basically to go over the CAD drawings the computer made, send it to the steelbender application tool, and you have yourself a new hood for the car. The same way we will one day be able to make new species.



Um...cars aren't made of clay.
edit on 25-10-2010 by Firepac because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2010 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by junglejake
 


I know of rock formations in Arizona that are missing hundred of millions of years of evolution. That is but one example. There are many. We can observe certain forms of evolution, but it is yet to be proven on the scale that Darwin imagined. I'm not sure that one has to "disprove" evolution to prove the world was designed, but it is good and honest when people point out the flaws and don't gloss them over.



posted on Nov, 7 2010 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Raiment
 



Originally posted by Raiment
reply to post by junglejake
 


I know of rock formations in Arizona that are missing hundred of millions of years of evolution.


Proof?



That is but one example. There are many.


Show them.



We can observe certain forms of evolution, but it is yet to be proven on the scale that Darwin imagined.


I hate to break it to you (actually, I hate to repeat this yet again), but evolution on any scale necessarily implies evolution on every scale. It's the same mechanisms operating over longer periods of time.

It's like saying that erosion may not apply to mountains because we only have observed instances of it applying to stones.

And yes, it has been proven. Since you're new here, I'll provide you with some of the links I seem to have to give out constantly. I should copy it into a document for pasting whenever someone new joins.

Link 1 This is about observed speciation.
Link 2 More about observed speciation.
Link 3 This is a general grouping of 29+ evidences for 'macro' evolution.

The next few are videos about phylogeny










And what exactly was the 'scale that Darwin imagined'? I just want to know what you think evolution is supposed to be.



I'm not sure that one has to "disprove" evolution to prove the world was designed,


No, they would have to propose a scientific theory that replaces evolution (along with all the other branches of science design would contradict) and is both more descriptive and predictive of the world we live in.




but it is good and honest when people point out the flaws and don't gloss them over.


...evolution obviously has some flaws, but they're little flaws that don't do anything to disprove the theory. Every theory has some holes in it, but evolution is one of the theories that has very few, very small holes.



posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 01:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by flyby
Did you know that Evolution has more flaws in it than MCI?

This superb, can i add a couple of bits too
Evolution requires an increase in information, thats where it all falls on its face, where the hell does that new info come from and if you say mutation i'm afraid you don't know your own theory because a lifeform can only use (scramble) the information that is already available to it. All observed mutations are damaging none are of benefit, (with the acception of viruses and they are not even life and they have lost complexity in order to survive so they have gone backwards not fowards) So tell me where the new data springs from? Unless you get the first cell off the starting blocks you have nothing to work with and that is beyond impossible. Scientists recently attempted to reverse engineer a cell of 300 genes to see how far back they could go, they got it down to 280 before it was redundant, so forget the elusive "simple cell cop-out"



posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 04:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by jelleepie
This superb, can i add a couple of bits too



Yay, more stale and debunked arguments.
I love it when they throw me slow pitches, it makes it that much easier to knock it out of the park.



Evolution requires an increase in information, thats where it all falls on its face, where the hell does that new info come from and if you say mutation i'm afraid you don't know your own theory because a lifeform can only use (scramble) the information that is already available to it.


Why won't creationists define what an 'increase in information' is?

4 words: Nylon eating bacteria evolved

A bacteria evolved, via a single mutation, to go from eating only sugars to being able to digest a nylon product, something that is purely artificial. This ability would have had to have been an 'increase in information'

As for 'new information', you and I both contain some. We both have about 180ish novel mutations that neither of our parents had. Those are not modifications of genes, but entirely new ones.



All observed mutations are damaging none are of benefit, (with the acception of viruses and they are not even life and they have lost complexity in order to survive so they have gone backwards not fowards)


No, they aren't. Darwin's finches mutated various forms of beaks to survive.
The nylon eating bacteria are another example, and they clearly aren't non-life.

I'm sorry, but I've yet to find any problem with my mutations, neither have you. You and I and everyone on here are a proper debunking of that ignorant statement.



So tell me where the new data springs from?


Mutation.
Again: you, me, nylon eating bacteria, finches.



Unless you get the first cell off the starting blocks you have nothing to work with and that is beyond impossible. Scientists recently attempted to reverse engineer a cell of 300 genes to see how far back they could go, they got it down to 280 before it was redundant, so forget the elusive "simple cell cop-out"


...you can't reverse engineer a cell back to it's pre-life ancestors. The first pre-life would have probably been strands of RNA, then RNA surrounded by lipids. You can't reverse-engineer an existing system backward like that.

This video explains abiogenesis quite well.



And which scientists are these?
You seem to be spouting off a lot of unsourced creationist talking points.



posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by chiponbothshoulders
reply to post by flyby
 
Creationism=Theology=Theory+Ology

Theory of evolution=Well,theory of course.

Both are theory,and everyone knows there are facts here and there to back them both up (kinda sketchy for religion/creationism though).....

But both still theory all the same..



edit on 23-10-2010 by chiponbothshoulders because: (no reason given)


That's what I always thought, even before I began studying the subject. Thank you for expressing it. I also think both evolution and religions involve faith in what is not known. Of course I am speaking outside of a mainstream religion here, just so you know.



posted on Nov, 10 2010 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by chiponbothshoulders
 
Creationism=Theology=Theory+Ology


No, theology is Theos + Ology.
Theos beign god.
Theology is the study of god, it has nothing to do with scientific theories.



Theory of evolution=Well,theory of course.


Yes, it's one of the most well-supported theories in science.



Both are theory,and everyone knows there are facts here and there to back them both up (kinda sketchy for religion/creationism though).....


No, there are no facts that back up creationism.




But both still theory all the same..


No, creationism is a speculative hypothesis.


Originally posted by Raiment
That's what I always thought, even before I began studying the subject. Thank you for expressing it.


Well, that does explain a lot. You seem to both have a misunderstanding of what a 'theory' is.



I also think both evolution and religions involve faith in what is not known.


Where is the faith in evolution?

...I keep asking you these sorts of questions and you never reply.



Of course I am speaking outside of a mainstream religion here, just so you know.


It doesn't make a difference. You're rejecting scientific fact.





new topics
top topics
 
3
<< 20  21  22   >>

log in

join