Evolutionist I can prove to you that what you believe (evolution) is based on illogical reasoning, i

page: 33
26
<< 30  31  32    34 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2
 


And once again you're trying to group abiogenesis with evolution


once again, you missed the point - I only want to know if the video is accurate re/presentation of evolution. It's not my video. If you hate the abiogenesis portion of the video - ignore it please.

So if you concentrate (very carefuly) on the evolution portion - is it an accurate explenation of the theory of evolution? That's all I want to know - nothing more nothing less.

btw, if i have the sw to edit the yt video I would do it for your sake, but as it turns out I don't have the tools plus I don't want to be accused of doctor edit.

OK,

ciao,
ednc2




posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 12:08 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


It's not an acceptable presentation of the ENTIRE Theory of Evolution. Those presentations only deal with the evolutionary time line in layman's terms. Though as far as I can tell, they're pretty accurate descriptions of the time line based on what we know.
edit on 8-1-2011 by PieKeeper because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by PieKeeper
reply to post by edmc^2
 


It's not an acceptable presentation of the ENTIRE Theory of Evolution. Those presentations only deal with the evolutionary time line in layman's terms. Though as far as I can tell, they're pretty accurate descriptions of the time line based on what we know.
edit on 8-1-2011 by PieKeeper because: (no reason given)


OK - thanks for the reply but I'm still not sure which vid your reffering to. So let me please clarify further:

Is this episode of the 2005 docu-animation presented by BBC an accurate depiction of the theory of evolution?



If not why not?

here's another version (a bit longer):




If not why not?
Which part is not accurate?


And as for its entirety, is this video by the late Dr. Sagan an accurate depiction/explenation of the theory of evolution? Including "abiogenesis of course.




If not why not?
Which part is not accurate?

Just wanted to know so as not to mistate the positions/tenets of proponents of the evolution theory.

And lastly, I can't help but ask for your clarification on the terminology "species"?

I assume you have an accurate discription/definition of it.

This way also I'll avoid being accused of giving a "poorly written original statement".

You see, I'm on the same boat as these guys:


2.0 Species Definitions
A discussion of speciation requires a definition of what constitutes a species. This is a topic of considerable debate within the biological community. Three recent reviews in the Journal of Phycology give some idea of the scope of the debate (Castenholz 1992, Manhart and McCourt 1992, Wood and Leatham 1992). There are a variety of different species concept currently in use by biologists. These include folk, biological, morphological, genetic, paleontological, evolutionary, phylogenetic and biosystematic definitions. In the interest of brevity, I'll only discuss four of these -- folk, biological, morphological and phylogenetic. A good review of species definitions is given in Stuessy 1990.
-- TalkOrigins.



Difficulty of defining "species" and identifying particular speciesMain article: Species problem

The Greenish Warbler demonstrates the concept of a ring species.It is surprisingly difficult to define the word "species" in a way that applies to all naturally occurring organisms, and the debate among biologists about how to define "species" and how to identify actual species is called the species problem. Over two dozen distinct definitions of "species" are in use amongst biologists.[6]

Most textbooks follow Ernst Mayr's definition of a species as "groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations, which are reproductively isolated from other such groups".[5]
en.wikipedia.org...

ciao,
edmc2

btw, by any chance, are you a biologist?



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
OK - thanks for the reply but I'm still not sure which vid your reffering to. So let me please clarify further:


I'm referring to each of the videos. They roughly deal with the time line of diversification among organisms. The Theory of Evolution deals with a lot more than just a timeline though; population genetics, mutation, different forms of selection, etc. It's a lot more complex than "fish developed gills," but in layman's terms (explaining it in simple understandable terms for the general public) the videos are pretty accurate descriptions of the time line based on what we know.



Originally posted by edmc^2
And lastly, I can't help but ask for your clarification on the terminology "species"?

I assume you have an accurate discription/definition of it.

This way also I'll avoid being accused of giving a "poorly written original statement".


The species question is difficult. One of my professors has told us is that how we (as a class) are going to define a species is something like "the population can regularly identify each other as potential mates in the wild and also produce fertile offspring." Generally, a subsection of the scientific community or even individual researchers will explain the definition of a species that they use for the sake of communication between each other.

Someone might have a better explanation than I do, but as of right now this is how I understand it.


Originally posted by edmc^2
btw, by any chance, are you a biologist?


I'm currently studying Wildlife Biology. So eventually yes. Right now, I'm just a student.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 10:22 PM
link   
reply to post by PieKeeper
 


OK – thanks for the clarification/confirmation. Now since that is established I would like to sum it up as I understand it (in layman’s term i.e. The Theory of Evolution).

So in a nutshell – skipping the “abiogenesis” part (for now) – the time line / branch / line of descent of the human evolution (per Dr. Sagan / et al) started this way:

Note: I’ve added scientific names [ ] as reference and will try my best to explain it as a “layman” can since the lines of descents are very confusing.

1) ... from a polyp...
2) ... descendants of humans evolved into “a free swimming 'adults?' with something like a backbone”. – [P. Gracilens]

3) ... then around 500 myl this “something like a backbone” ancestors evolved into a “jawless filter feeding fish...like lamprays”. [Ostracoderms?]

4) ...then “gradually” (this “jawless filter feeding fish...like lamprays”) evolved “eyes and jaws”
[“Eusthenopteron / Agnatha”?]
...but “during the summer some swamps and lakes dried up so some of this 'fish' evolved a primitive lung to breath air” - [“emergence of tetrapods - Panderichthys /Acanthostega / Ichthyostega / Hynerton”?].

5) ... while their “brains were getting bigger”... they then somehow evolved into amphibians but “still with a fish like tail”. They lay their eggs in water...where they are easily eaten... [Acanthostega / Ichthyostega ?]

6) ... so evolution splendidly came up with “a new invention” -- a “hard shelled egg laid on the land” [Hylonomus?]

7) ... and from these eggs - "reptiles” and dinosaurs emerged but then evolved / branch off into different species / claids, some of these “developed" feathers. [Phthinnosuchus?]

8) ... meanwhile some of the “forerunners dinosaurs” evolved along another branch, and from this line came “small scurrying creatures with their young growing inside their bodies”.

9) ... from these came the “marsupials" - like the wombat.

10) ... and from this line of descent - came the mammals - from which “something like a shrew” evolved and became the ancestors of the all the mammals. [Repenonamus?]

11) ... one line of these mammals “took to the tree” (98mya?) - some became “baboon”...chimps...etc...
… (it is claimed that one or some mammals branched off as primates) where they “took to the tree” of which one became a “lemur like species”. [Carpolestes simpsoni?]

12) … it is claimed that from this “lemur like species” came the common ancestor of humans. [Darwinius masillae?]

13) ... and from this common ancestor came the “great apes” and other “clades”.
14) … then branched off further into different / new species known as “…cus/…pus. [Sahelanthropus tchadensis/ Australopithecus afarensis, etc…]

15) … then, from these latest ancestors, came / evolved the different Homo’s [Homo habilis / Homo erectus / Homo heidelbergensis, ..etc]

16) … and finally Homo sapiens to modern man.

17) … but it's being said that man will continue to evolve (into what who knows - cyborg maybe).


Am I correct so far? (i left out details to make it short as I can and added scientific names as a marker - my time line might be off)

For the references, I’m not sure how much trust you put on Wiki but I've included it here since I sourced it for the scientific names of the species in relation to time lines: en.wikipedia.org...

Also, I know that majority if not all proponents of the evolution theory believed that this is the way life came to be on earth (with some degree of variation). And that it is as claimed is well supported by “mountains of evidence” in the “fossil records” as well as “genetic records”.

Am I correct so far?

But do you agree though that besides the “scientific methodology” used to produce these “mountains of evidence”, other methods were also used and are still being used?

These are:

1) Interpretations (of data).
2) Assumptions / presumptions
3) Imaginations (of what it should be / have been)
4) Leap (of faith)

I might also add:

Data manipulations.


Ciao,
edmc2




BTW,
How old must a report / study be in order to be considered old and unacceptable? Does a study written in the 50's, 70's, 80's or even 90's be considered old and rendered unacceptable?

Reason is, whenever I provide studies / findings done by the same recognized scientist/biologist I get the following response:

here's just one.

Originally posted by iamcamouflage

Is there a reason that most of the sources in your posts above are from the early 80s?
You do realize that the early 80s were about 30 years ago. Are you aware that we have made scientific progress since then?
Maybe you should look for some more current sources. You can find several in this thread alone.
I must warn you. Some of them will go against what you want to believe.
Correction: Some of your sources are from the mid to late 70s and I saw one from the late 50s.


yet majority of the references quoted by ‘evolutionist’ that i read are from the same time line. Some even way older.

Notice the dates of the ff references: (just a few)
TalkOrigins.org


Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905)
Digby (1912)
Owenby (1950)
Karpchenko (1927, 1928)
Clausen et al. (1945)
Butters 1941
Butters and Tryon 1948
Lokki and Saura 1980; Bullini and Nascetti 1990; Vrijenhoek 1994
Pasterniani (1969)
Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971)
Thoday and Gibson (1962)
Rice 1985, Rice and Salt 1988 and Rice and Salt 1990
Ahearn, J. N. 1980. Evolution of behavioral reproductive isolation in a laboratory stock of Drosophila silvestris. Experientia. 36:63-64.
Barton, N. H., J. S. Jones and J. Mallet. 1988. No barriers to speciation. Nature. 336:13-14.
Baum, D. 1992. Phylogenetic species concepts. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 7:1-3.
Boraas, M. E. 1983. Predator induced evolution in chemostat culture. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. 64:1102.
Breeuwer, J. A. J. and J. H. Werren. 1990. Microorganisms associated with chromosome destruction and reproductive isolation between two insect species. Nature. 346:558-560.
Budd, A. F. and B. D. Mishler. 1990. Species and evolution in clonal organisms -- a summary and discussion. Systematic Botany 15:166-171.
Bullini, L. and G. Nascetti. 1990. Speciation by hybridization in phasmids and other insects. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 68:1747-1760.
Butters, F. K. 1941. Hybrid Woodsias in Minnesota. Amer. Fern. J. 31:15-21.
Butters, F. K. and R. M. Tryon, jr. 1948. A fertile mutant of a Woodsia hybrid. American Journal of Botany. 35:138.
Brock, T. D. and M. T. Madigan. 1988. Biology of Microorganisms (5th edition). Prentice Hall, Englewood, NJ.
Callaghan, C. A. 1987. Instances of observed speciation. The American Biology Teacher. 49:3436.
Castenholz, R. W. 1992. Species usage, concept, and evolution in the cyanobacteria (blue-green algae). ...etc...etc



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 





These are:

1) Interpretations (of data).
2) Assumptions / presumptions
3) Imaginations (of what it should be / have been)
4) Leap (of faith)

I might also add:

Data manipulations.


Actually, no. To remain a valid theory, the interpretation of data needs to be OBJECTIVE, the assumptions backed up by evidence, and imagination/leaps of faith aren't allowed. Scientific method doesn't allow for leaps of faith as you call it. It requires solid evidence to back up its claims, and hundreds of scientists are actively shooting holes into hypotheses. Only very few make it to being called a theory


When it comes to evolution, the evidence is incredibly strong and in over 150 years no one has debunked evolution or found something that wouldn't fit the theory.

All this is a good example of why science differentiates from religion. It doesn't allow for leaps of faith, and inconsistencies and mistakes get weeded out quickly as science allows for peer review, something religion doesn't...



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
BTW,
How old must a report / study be in order to be considered old and unacceptable? Does a study written in the 50's, 70's, 80's or even 90's be considered old and rendered unacceptable?


As long as the piece is scientifically viable and hasn't been refuted or rejected, it's still relevant.

I don't agree with the complaint in the instance you mentioned, age is not necessarily an indication of faulty data.
edit on 14-1-2011 by PieKeeper because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by PieKeeper
As long as the piece is scientifically viable and hasn't been refuted or rejected, it's still relevant.

I don't agree with the complaint in the instance you mentioned, age is not necessarily an indication of faulty data.
edit on 14-1-2011 by PieKeeper because: (no reason given)


So instead of having an accurate curriculum in schools and letting each person learn what they wish, the schools are set with a government specified curriculum. Which has many "relevant" studies.

Of course that just means we learn things that don't actually pertain to anything we may do and are full of theory and thoughts, rather than fact.

I'm sure theory sure helps history when you wanna know the past.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Fossil evidence:


When it comes to evolution, the evidence is incredibly strong and in over 150 years no one has debunked evolution or found something that wouldn't fit the theory.”


Of course it’s been disproved many times over now, but since the (tptb) majority of “scientists” as well as the academia fully support and fund the theory how else can these evidences be accepted? Besides who wants to lose “credibility” and funding or for that matter be ridiculed?

Anyway, per your statement above (as well as others) I take it that you’re fully convinced that the “fossil records” provides strong evidence of evolution and that it “fit the theory” very well. Correct?

If so, then there should be no problem providing us a clear evidence to support the theory - beyond any reasonable doubt.

In other words, the fossil records should provide us clear evidence of for example the “transitional ancestors” of species in the evolutionary tree. Correct?

So if we take for example the line of descent in my last post:

that is:

***********
4) ...then “gradually” (this “jawless filter feeding fish...like lamprays”) evolved “eyes and jaws”
[“Eusthenopteron / Agnatha”?]
...but “during the summer some swamps and lakes dried up so some of this 'fish' evolved a primitive lung to breath air” - [“emergence of tetrapods - Panderichthys /Acanthostega / Ichthyostega / Hynerton”?].

5) ... while their “brains were getting bigger”... they then somehow evolved into amphibians but “still with a fish like tail”. They lay their eggs in water...where they are easily eaten... [Acanthostega / Ichthyostega ?]
************

the evidence should readily be available. There should be a transitional fossil evidence between the “ Eusthenopteron / Agnatha” species and the “Panderichthys /Acanthostega / Ichthyostega / Hynerton” species for the theory to be believable / on solid ground. Am I correct?

So the question is:

Does it exist?

If it does – can a “layman” interpret it correctly as such? Or does it need to be interpreted by an “expert”?

As for the “mountain of evidence” if you honestly look at them w/o any preconceived ideas you will come to the same conclusions as I did. That is, the evidence don't support the theory very well. Thus one must use other methods in order to “fit the theory”.

Here are just some of what I found during my research on fossil records.

Interestingly on top of the list is this statement made by your favorite evolution sites: TalkOrigins:

Notice:

2. The Problem of Paleospecies


The fossil record is incomplete. This incompleteness has many contributing factors. Geological processes may cause to confusion or error, as sedimentary deposition rates may vary, erosion may erase some strata, compression may turn possible fossils into unrecognizable junk, and various other means by which the local fossil record can be turned into the equivalent of a partially burned book, which is then unbound, pages perhaps shuffled, and from which a few pages are retrieved. Beyond geology, there remains taphonomy -- the study of how organisms come to be preserved as fossils. Here, there are further issues to be addressed. Hard parts of organisms fossilize preferentially. The conditions under which even those parts may become fossilized are fairly specialized. All this results in a heavily skewed distribution of even what parts of organisms become fossilized, and that affects which features of morphology are available for use in classification. The issue of geography enters into all this, as a consequence of the fact that living lineages occupy ecological niches, and those niches are bound to certain features of geography.


Any idea why the statements?

Here's my interpretation. Whether Paleospecies/transitional species/intermediate species – the fossil record cannot provide clear evidence due to circumstances explained above. There’s no way around it.

So to get the 'ball rolling' so to speak – much of the evidence are interpreted into what I call “circumstantial fossil evidence”. An interpretation that is widely open to different opinions / wild assumptions / wild imaginations / data manipulations. Of course if one wants not to be considered 'ignoramus' or 'against science, old fashioned', a religious nut, etc, one must accept the interpretation.

But ask yourself this, if:

"The fossil record is incomplete...the equivalent of a partially burned book...from which a few pages are retrieved”
how solid or incredibly strong then is the evidence?

And speaking of “books”, my hs teacher used to remind me of this salient truth – that is, “not to judge a book by its cover” or as I put it “not to judge a book by a few pages” or else you’ll arrive at the wrong conclusion.

Is it possible that these “mountains of evidence” are/can be interpreted in such a way that they appear to be “facts” and not real facts (transitional ancestors)?

Case in point: Ida – proclaimed as the “Missing Link”.


Here's another interesting/telling statement – whether it's an accidental admission or not it's quite fascinating (btw, this site was provided to me to support evolution)

Here’s what the author said>


“one of the interesting things about evolution and paleontology is that its sometimes nearly impossible to tell whether you're looking at two different kinds of animals, or just two different version of the same thing. Because the way evolution works, everything can be described as another version of anything else you want to put next to it.” Read the rest here> locolobo.org...


So if “everything can be described as another version of anything else you want to put next to it” in evolution theory, then how solid is the evidence?

Reason why this so is very obvious imho:


The fossil record is incomplete.


Since this is a fact, the findings / studies are then based on either a:

1) single jaw bone,
2) a single tooth,
3) couple of teeth,
4) part of a skull, a leg bone, etc, etc...

Then interpreted in way that to disagree means that you're ignorant on the subject.

Here are some examples of hundreds of accepted evidence:

The Evolution of Lamnoid Sharks


The lamnoids (order Lamniformes) include many of the most famous and instantly-recognizable of sharks. The Goblin Shark, Sandtiger, threshers, Megamouth, Basking, and the Great White are all members of this group. From the dim depths of prehistory, these sharks have left a rich fossil record.


Any idea how rich this fossil record is/was?

Continuing...


As a group, lamnoids are characterized by heavily-built, solid teeth that have proven durable against the onslaught of erosion over geological time. As a result, their ancestors have left many beautiful and highly informative fossil teeth. In addition, the lamnoids have heavily calcified but fragile vertebral centra which are also sometimes preserved. Beyond these structural basics, only a few assorted fossilized bits and pieces survive - some of them squirreled away in private collections, where their true value remains hidden from paleontologists.”



So based on fossilized teeth one can conclude how sharks evolved and construct how it supposed to look liked? Is it possible that the tooth/teeth found is a variety of the shark family instead of purely evolving from one form to another shark form? These reminds again of the finch family?

Here’s another:



“Solenodonsaurus janenschi is a transitional species between basal anthracosaurs and their apparently non-amphibious descendants.
.

This evidence is based on what?

Continuing...


Known from a single, incomplete fossil, it shows loss of the lateral line on the head, which was present in amphibians, but still has the single sacral vertebra of the amphibian. Two other specimens known from the early Pennsylvanian period, (Hylonomus and Paleothyris) also show the sort of half-amphibian / half-reptile features which anti-evolutionists keep saying could not exist.



As for assumptions, is it easy to tell where the facts stops and where assumptions begins in the statements below?



Haptodus (late Pennsylvanian) -- One of the first known sphenacodonts, had several skeletal features becoming more mammalian, particularly in the teeth, which began to show the first true rooted canines, and not the sort of fangs snakes have. Subsequent species lost the last vestiges of strictly-reptilian bones, and developed the ear drum, another exclusively mammalian trait. Throughout this sequence, we also see an improvement in the ligaments and muscularity to show a steady progression from very primitive lizard-like things to more advanced and adaptive "reptiles" that were also arguably mammals of one sort or another at the same time. In fact, there were several of these which blur the line between reptiles and mammals so much that in some cases, its difficult to state which class these things should belong to. Procynosuchus (latest Permian) the first cynodont, was already a sort of dog-like pseudo-lizard which quickly begat some very lizard-like primitive quasi-mammals, like thrinaxodon. These early Triassic cynodonts had very definite canine teeth and are considered by many to be one of the first mammals, even though they weren't quite complete mammals, and still bore some vaguely-reptilian vestigial traits. These were also among the very few mammal-like semi-reptiles to survive the Permian extinction, an event even more devastating than that which later brought on the demise of the dinosaurs. By the time we get to things like Cynognathus (early Triassic, but suspected to have existed even earlier) we have a nearly complete mammal with just the slightest reptilian traits, like the as-yet undistinguished uniform reptilian-style cheek teeth behind the definitely mammalian canines.


So again based on teeth – an entire species is constructed by assumptions / interpretations to support a preconceived idea or a theory.


On Lagomorphs:


Barunlestes (see above) The possible Asian rodent/lagomorph ancestor.
Mimotoma (Paleocene) -- A rabbit-like animal, similar to Barunlestes, but with a rabbit dental formula, changes in the facial bones, and only one layer of enamel on the incisors (unlike the rodents). Like rabbits, it had two upper incisors, but the second incisor is still large and functional, while in modern rabbits it is tiny. Chuankuei-Li et al. (1987; also see Szalay et al., 1993) think this is the actual ancestor of Mimolagus, next.
Mimolagus (late Eocene) -- Possesses several more lagomorph-like characters, such as a special enamel layer, possible double upper incisors, and large premolars.
Lushilagus (mid-late Eocene) -- First true lagomorph. Teeth very similar to Mimotoma, and modern rabbit & hare teeth could easily have been derived from these teeth.
After this, the first modern rabbits appeared in the Oligocene.



interpretation and assumptions based only on few clues and incomplete specimen! Presented as FACTS!

Here's some more:

en.wikipedia.org...


The sparseness of the fossil record means that organisms usually exist long before they are found in the fossil record – this is known as the Signor-Lipps effect.[27]



Deducing the events of half a billion years ago is difficult, as evidence comes exclusively from biological and chemical signatures in rocks and very sparse fossils.


Again, from an evolution site explaining the limitations of the fossil record.
www.suite101.com...



“The fossil record is an important source for scientists when tracing the evolutionary history of organisms. However, because of limitations inherent in the record, there are not fine scales of intermediate forms between related groups of species. This lack of continuous fossils in the record is a major limitation in tracing the descent of biological groups. Furthermore, there are also much larger gaps between major evolutionary lineages. When transitional fossils are found that show intermediate forms in what had previously been a gap in knowledge, they are often popularly referred to as "missing links".
There is a gap of about 100 million years between the beginning of the Cambrian period and the end of the Ordovician period. The early Cambrian period was the period from which numerous fossils of sponges, cnidarians (e.g., jellyfish), echinoderms (e.g., eocrinoids), molluscs (e.g., snails) and arthropods (e.g., trilobites) are found. The first animal that possessed the typical features of vertebrates, the Arandaspis, was dated to have existed in the later Ordovician period. Thus few, if any, fossils of an intermediate type between invertebrates and vertebrates have been found, although likely candidates include the Burgess Shale animal, Pikaia gracilens, and its Maotianshan shales relatives, Myllokunmingia, Yunnanozoon, Haikouella lanceolata, and Haikouichthys.[citation needed]



Again these “mountain of evidence” - when you looked at them closely and honestly they turn out to be just mere “mole hills” imho.

As for “imaginations” was the ancestors of elephant shown in the picture below based of scientific facts or pure imagination of an artist's pure interpretations (feed to him/her)?




Now, please don't get me wrong as others have – my intention in providing these glaring facts is not to bash the theory or as some say against science. No but to show why I'm not convinced of the sweeping proclamation by believers that the evolution theory is a “fact, fact!”. And that those who don't believe it are idiots.

Now as for the “Leap” (of faith).

Do these statements factually accurate or do they require a leap of faith to believe that they indeed happen?

“he may not look like you or I but this odd fish is becoming a blueprint for our own bodies”

“evolution starts to give them weapons to fight back”

“with these four limbs designed our ancestors finally haul themselves out of water onto land”

“they evolved a hard water proof casing which protects the young inside from the drying sun so they can be laid on land”

– excerpts from Walking with Monsters.

Dr. Sagan's version:

“ ... a splendidly new invention came along -- a “hard shelled egg laid on the land”

I guess this is to be understood as the link between amphibians and reptiles.”

side note:

That some molecules crossed a critical threshold from inanimate to animate is widely assumed by evolutionary biologists, but four billion intervening years have erased the details of this passage.
-- www.wired.com...


Predictably, because of the inherent problems with the “fossil records” another method/concept must be found. Thus “organic evolution based on gene evidence”” was devised / invented in order to prop up the theory. This one has gained much support in the scientific community.


And lately, anything that has the ability to change/adapt is now considered evolution “happening right in front of us”

Such a leap from 'it happened millions of years ago' to 'happening right now' – and if you don't believe it you are considered ignorant.

On the other hand – Creation is factually accurate and agrees fully with known scientific facts. Next thread will show this to be so.

Ciao,
edmc2



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


I agree with you !
Evolution I guess is possible depends on how the creator created certain organisms.

Most don’t buy a creator, some do as long as they can make the creator how they see fit. And most read books wrote by other people and take it as gospel , while putting others down for reading a bible and taking that as gospel.


God created everything out of nothing “OR” scientists say: a big bang, a pea size ball of everything just exploded out of nothingness. That sounds exactly the same doesn’t it? (besides replacing God with Pea size matter.
So its up to the person to choose to use that ability to reason.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Xen0m0rpH
 



Originally posted by Xen0m0rpH
So instead of having an accurate curriculum in schools and letting each person learn what they wish,


Problem: science isn't about what you wish, it's about what is demonstrated by the evidence.

You can have your own beliefs, but you don't get your own facts.



the schools are set with a government specified curriculum. Which has many "relevant" studies.


Yes, it does. Though it would be great if we had some sort of federal standards to prevent Texas from controlling the text books.



Of course that just means we learn things that don't actually pertain to anything we may do and are full of theory and thoughts, rather than fact.


...in science, theories are facts. Circuit theory is integral in the function of the computer you're currently using when you're reading this post.



I'm sure theory sure helps history when you wanna know the past.


It actually does. Radioactive decay helps us understand a lot when it comes to archeology. Germ theory and evolution help explain why the Native Americans were so susceptible to European disease.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


The fossil record is only incomplete if you do your research on that pseudo-scientist website Talkorigins



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2
 


The fossil record is only incomplete if you do your research on that pseudo-scientist website Talkorigins


That's funny. Are you sure about that? Cuz it's a highly recommended website by evolutioonist. TalkOrigins.org that is.

As a matter of fact - if you do a search here at ATS - it's all over the place. It's somehow held as an authority when it comes to evolution theory. But anyway, are you able to locate/provide the transitional ancestors between the species that I mentioned?

ciao,
edmc2



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


I think you meant answersingenesis. Talkorigins is a great scientific resource that actually supports the scientific consensus and provides the evidence. The only problem with it is that it could be updated more regularly.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2
 


The fossil record is only incomplete if you do your research on that pseudo-scientist website Talkorigins


Actually the fossil record is very incomplete. After all, not every organism fossilized - it's entirely possible that the overwhelming majority of all life on earth has never left any fossil evidence. Even if they had, there is next to no chance we'll ever find them; the world is huge, and cities cover some large swaths (can you imagine trying to dig up a chunk of Jerusalem to find dinosaur bones?)

However, fossils are simply icing on the evolution cake. They're extra. Even if there were NO fossils at all, we would still have plenty of evidence for evolution. That being the case, the handful of fossils we do have are all fantastic examples of evolution. Even with the odds stacked so high against fossilization to start with, we've still managed to find several very-near complete family trees of all sorts of organisms.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


I honestly get the two confused sometimes as well.


TalkOrigins is a really great resource. Like madness said, it could be updated a bit (at least the format, the current one is, IMO, horrible.)



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 





I don't mean to stop the fun, but here are some observed instances of speciation, the changing of one species into another. There are more that can be found here.



The Russian cytologist Karpchenko (1927, 1928) crossed the radish, Raphanus sativus, with the cabbage



Cabbage crossbred by scientists?

This is your overwhelming evidence?

Are these "observations" or manipulations?

Your data proves one thing.

There is an observable intelligence driving hybridization in higher life forms in these experiments.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


Star witness:

You said straightforward that:


Actually the fossil record is very incomplete. After all, not every organism fossilized - it's entirely possible that the overwhelming majority of all life on earth has never left any fossil evidence. Even if they had, there is next to no chance we'll ever find them; the world is huge, and cities cover some large swaths (can you imagine trying to dig up a chunk of Jerusalem to find dinosaur bones?)


I say you hit the nail on the head. Like what I and others had been saying, the fact does not support the assumption that there's “mountains of evidence” when it comes to the fossil records. That is why other methods was needed in order to make these sparse fossil evidence appear to “fit the theory”. Sad part is, these methodology although unscientific are prominent in producing the final outcome of what is presented to the public. And anyone who don't subscribe to the conclusions are accused of either ignorant or idiots.

But then a back flip, a justification:


However, fossils are simply icing on the evolution cake. They're extra. Even if there were NO fossils at all, we would still have plenty of evidence for evolution.


So I say on/to the contrary – fossil IS the “evolution cake” not “simply [the] icing on the evolution cake” – or as some put it the witness of all witness – the star witness if you will. In fact it's the main leg if not one of the legs that the theory stands on.

Notice these statements that I found in my research (I have a lot – apologies for the long quote, needed to do it so as not to be accused of quote mining/misquoting):

but to stay current here's a statement from wiki (often sourced by evolutionists)

Notice the prominence / importance of the fossil records:


“Charles Darwin's publication of the On the Origin of Species in 1859 was a watershed event in all the life sciences, especially paleontology. Fossils had played a role in the development of Darwin's theory. In particular he had been impressed by fossils he had collected in South America during the voyage of the Beagle of giant armadillos, giant sloths, and what at the time he thought were giant llamas that seemed to be related to species still living on the continent in modern times.[44] The scientific debate that started immediately after the publication of Origin led to a concerted effort to look for transitional fossils and other evidence of evolution in the fossil record. There were two areas where early success attracted considerable public attention, the transition between reptiles and birds, and the evolution of the modern single-toed horse.[45] In 1861 the first specimen of Archaeopteryx, an animal with both teeth and feathers and a mix of other reptilian and avian features, was discovered in a limestone quarry in Bavaria and described by Richard Owen. Another would be found in the late 1870s and put on display at a Museum in Berlin in 1881. Other primitive toothed birds were found by Othniel Marsh in Kansas in 1872. Marsh also discovered fossils of several primitive horses in the Western United States that helped trace the evolution of the horse from the small 5-toed Hyracotherium of the Eocene to the much larger single-toed modern horses of the genus Equus. Thomas Huxley would make extensive use of both the horse and bird fossils in his advocacy of evolution. Acceptance of evolution occurred rapidly in scientific circles, but acceptance of Darwin's proposed mechanism of natural selection as the driving force behind it was much less universal. In particular some paleontologists such as Edward Drinker Cope and Henry Fairfield Osborn preferred alternatives such as neo-Lamarckism, the inheritance of characteristics acquired during life, and orthogenesis, an innate drive to change in a particular direction, to explain what they perceived as linear trends in evolution.[46]


This diagram by O.C. Marsh of the evolution of horse feet and teeth over time was reproduced in T.H Huxley's 1876 book, Professor Huxley in America.There was also great interest in human evolution. Neanderthal fossils were discovered in 1856, but at the time it was not clear that they represented a different species from modern humans. Eugene Dubois created a sensation with his discovery of Java Man, the first fossil evidence of a species that seemed clearly intermediate between humans and apes, in 1891.


continuing...


Throughout the 20th century new fossil finds continued to contribute to understanding the paths taken by evolution. Examples include major taxonomic transitions such as finds in Greenland, starting in the 1930s (with more major finds in the 1980s), of fossils illustrating the evolution of tetrapods from fish, and fossils in China during the 1990s that shed light on the dinosaur-bird relationship. Other events that have attracted considerable attention have included the discovery of a series of fossils in Pakistan that have shed light on whale evolution, and most famously of all a series of finds throughout the 20th century in Africa (starting with Taung child in 1924[51]) and elsewhere have helped illuminate the course of human evolution. Increasingly, at the end of the century, the results of paleontology and molecular biology were being brought together to reveal detailed phylogenetic trees.

The results of paleontology have also contributed to the development of evolutionary theory. In 1944 George Gaylord Simpson published Tempo and Mode in Evolution, which used quantitative analysis to show that the fossil record was consistent with the branching, non-directional, patterns predicted by the advocates of evolution driven by natural selection and genetic drift rather than the linear trends predicted by earlier advocates of neo-Lamarckism and orthogenesis. This integrated paleontology into the modern evolutionary synthesis.[52] In 1972 Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould used fossil evidence to advocate the theory of punctuated equilibrium, which maintains that evolution is characterized by long periods of relative stasis and much shorter periods of relatively rapid change.[53]


en.wikipedia.org...

So you see – like what others had said, and I'm also saying, the fossil record IS the star witness not the “extra” witness. It's the corner stone that made evolution theory what it is imho. This is what is taught in the academia and prominent in all books and publications.

But this one blows my mind. I wonder what would the “evolution community” will say if you tell them that “... if there were NO fossils at all, we would still have plenty of evidence for evolution.”?

Now I'm not sure if you are aware of it, but do you have any idea of what you just said? – without fossil remains/records, no transitional ancestors - which means no evolution.

But since you're so confident that even if there “were NO fossils at all, we would still have plenty of evidence for evolution.”

Will you please explain how evolution occurred millions years ago (per evo theory) w/o the aid of the fossil records? This I'd like to see (although I already have an idea the direction you're going - still I would like to see your evidence).

As for these statements:


That being the case, the handful of fossils we do have are all fantastic examples of evolution. Even with the odds stacked so high against fossilization to start with, we've still managed to find several very-near complete family trees of all sorts of organisms”



Funny thing is based on the replies by other believers of the evolution theory and other evolution sites – they confidently state that there's “mountain of evidence” - especially when it comes to the fossil record.

But of course upon closer look – it's not really a “mountain of evidence” but as you said a “ handful of fossils” as evidence, a "mole hill". Which agrees with the facts – as evidenced by any honest research.

Now the following is interesting imho. Since the fossil evidence is just a “handful”, can you then please explain how “the handful of fossils [that] we do have are all fantastic examples of evolution.”?

Specifically which “handful of fossils we do have are all fantastic examples of evolution.”?

Specifically which “very-near complete family trees of all sorts of organisms” exist to prove evolution? I'd like to know.

But to further support the fact that the fossil record is “very incomplete” here are some more statements from TalkOrigins.org:


tratigraphic gaps
The first and most major reason for gaps is "stratigraphic discontinuities", meaning that fossil-bearing strata are not at all continuous. There are often large time breaks from one stratum to the next, and there are even some times for which no fossil strata have been found. For instance, the Aalenian (mid-Jurassic) has shown no known tetrapod fossils anywhere in the world, and other stratigraphic stages in the Carboniferous, Jurassic, and Cretaceous have produced only a few mangled tetrapods. Most other strata have produced at least one fossil from between 50% and 100% of the vertebrate families that we know had already arisen by then (Benton, 1989) -- so the vertebrate record at the family level is only about 75% complete, and much less complete at the genus or species level. (One study estimated that we may have fossils from as little as 3% of the species that existed in the Eocene!) This, obviously, is the major reason for a break in a general lineage. To further complicate the picture, certain types of animals tend not to get fossilized -- terrestrial animals, small animals, fragile animals, and forest-dwellers are worst. And finally, fossils from very early times just don't survive the passage of eons very well, what with all the folding, crushing, and melting that goes on. Due to these facts of life and death, there will always be some major breaks in the fossil record.


Imagine that! “we may have fossils from as little as 3% of the species that existed in the Eocene!” Yet the Eocene “is marked by the emergence of the first modern mammals.” – wiki
Any idea how large this GAPS are? And can they be bridge?

Again the facts shows that the gaps are so wide that it's impossible to bridge them (especially through the fossil records).

Going back to my line of descent post - here are question that I've be trying to find an answer to: (please pardon my ignorance). Hopefully evolution experts like you should be able to answer them.

These are;
1) When the “lamprays” or the “(darwin) fish" were evolving into different species - should we expect/predict/assume that only a) few evolved or b) millions of these species evolved into transitional species? Also, was the speciation c) gradual or d) sudden?

Expanding further:

a) If few evolved - what’s the chance of their survival if they were below the food chain? Unless they were on top of the food chain - eating other species. But as it turns out, according to evolution theory, other species were also evolving (parallel/convergent) into different species, even higher species were evolving while these “lamprays” were evolving.

b) If millions, then there should be millions of “transitional fossils” in the strata. Correct?
But as it turns out – the evidence is just a “handful” - that is if they are truly evidence.

c) If gradual - what’s the chance of survival from those that are on top of the food chain (besides other deadly factors such diseases/parasites/environment effects, etc...?

d) If sudden / rapid - what’s the time frame? That is, how fast was the transition stage – less than a hundred years, thousands or millions?

2) Also, while these species of “fish/lamprays” were in the process of evolving/transitioning into amphibians, am I correct to “assume” they are on a very vulnerable stage - unable to defend themselves from other highly evolved species? The only defense as explained (in the docu-animie) is to flee. So if this was the case then I would assume that a lot of these species died or got eaten by higher species (that is if they survived the other deadly factors).

But if there's thousands or millions escaped becoming sushi/other factors, then would it be correct to assume that there should be millions if not billions of these transitional species exist in order to continue existing? If so this should lead us to a “mountain of complete fossilized evidence”. Correct?

But again what does the fossil record say? Only a handful found, that is, if these “handful” fossils found are truly transitional ancestors.

Again TalkOrigins:

"The fossil record is incomplete...the equivalent of a partially burned book...from which a few pages are retrieved”


So why do the evolution community still hold to this highly inaccurate baseless idea/assumption of “mountains of evidence” then?

3) Then there’s also the length of life - how long did these species lived in order to evolved successfully from species to species? My assumption is less than hundred years based on similar current /existing species, unless you believe that their lifespan is in the millions.

If so (in millions), how could this be biologically possible – no aging or even a symptom of aging?
Was it all pure luck? Whad u think? If so that would be the most illogical reasoning concocted besides being unscientific – pseudo science indeed!

Now some had suggested that the answer for continued survival was sexual reproduction but if this was so what was the point of evolution then? In other words, it's going backwards as the goal of evolution is to move forward, that is, improve the species not reproduce the same inferior kind of species.

Where's the (scientific) logic in that?

Anyway I await your reply if you can.

Ciao,
edmc2



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Fossils may have played a role in Darwin's formation of the theory but, newsflash, science progresses.
These days, if logic is assumed, "Evolution" has three fundamental legs that it stands on:

1)Living stuff is variable

2)Variability is heritable

3) Not all living stuff has the same number of babies.

Evolution by natural selection, which is what Darwin was really interested on, requires a fourth leg:

4) You have less babies if you get eaten.


Fossil records and genetics aren't the legs that evolution stands on. The evolutionary hypotheses, the little stories we have to explain what evolution's done so far, use fossils and genetics and so forth as their diving boards into the great pool of scientific understanding, but that's all.


EDIT to add: By the way, lampreys aren't really fish. They're very basal vertebrates. It was sarcopterygian fish (today represented by the tetrapoda, coelocanths and lungfish) that, so far as we can tell, gave rise to amphibians.

Interestingly, Hagfish - visually very difficult to distinguish from lampreys - aren't even vertebrates. They're basal cephalochordates. For more on life's pedigree, visit The Tree of Life Web Project

edit on 17/1/2011 by TheWill because: (no reason given)
edit on 17/1/2011 by TheWill because: (no reason given)
edit on 17/1/2011 by TheWill because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWill
 


Can you please explain further the "evolution" legs you are referrring to? I just need to make sure that it's the same as I understand them.

ciao,
edmc2

edit: OK - thanks for the link - I'll check them out.

be back later ...
edit on 17-1-2011 by edmc^2 because: see edit





new topics
top topics
 
26
<< 30  31  32    34 >>

log in

join