Evolution courtesy of Darwin ... no longer works for me ... here's why !

page: 6
23
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 08:36 AM
link   
And once again all the probability people are completely ignoring the timeframe




posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 08:55 PM
link   
From another thread on probability and the deck of cards illustration that is being used...



and what is the probability of getting 5 cards without a dealer?


Ponder that one.
As the time frame is truly irrelevant.
edit on 24-1-2011 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
From another thread on probability and the deck of cards illustration that is being used...



and what is the probability of getting 5 cards without a dealer?


Ponder that one.
As the time frame is truly irrelevant.
edit on 24-1-2011 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)


So your evidence for god is that poker requires a dealer...are you serious?? If that's what you're trying to say, sorry...but that's beyond laughable. That's like ooz' "robots require a maker, ergo so do we" pseudo-evidence


Either way, your analogy fails anyway...because if you ever played a homegame, you should know that during most homegames, the players cycle dealer duties...so the players themselves are dealing the cards. Just like evolution happens without divine intervention, the players (aka life forms) are playing
edit on 24-1-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 


Fossil evidence/missing link:

Here's another piece of the puzzle why Darwinian evolution (or for that matter – organic evolution) is seriously flawed right from the start.

The evidence that was used to prove it's truthfulness and accuracy was seriously incomplete and best of all, OPEN to wild assumptions and interpretations. It is also full of “missing links” and an ever growing “gaps” which are getting harder and harder to bridge.

The evidence in questions is the fossil record.

(Which I think is the reason -lately- why a growing number of evolutionists are relying more and more on genetic evidence.)

Now please consider these facts:

Note: I’ll include just a few so as not to make the post long.

OK.

Let me start with Darwin’s own admission (more than a century ago – kinda’ ironic because it was already known way back then):

He asked this question:

“Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?


His answer:

Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.” -- The Origin of Species.

Amazingly, this known fact was ignored by “scientists/evolutionists”, including Darwin himself for obvious reasons (knowingly/unknowingly) imho. Prolly hoping that it will go away or somehow will get resolved in the future.

But the problem persisted. A fact that even notable evolutionists like Prof. G. L. Stebbins had to candidly admit. Notice what he said about the seriousness of the problem:


“Evolutionists are impressed above all with the imperfection of the fossil record for this purpose.” ---- Processes of Organic Evolution, G. L. Stebbins


And because of “the imperfection of the fossil record“, it's understandable why the Prof. said that:


“The fossil record is exactly the wrong kind for evolutionists who wish to learn how the major groups of organisms originated.” ---- Processes of Organic Evolution, G. L. Stebbins.


On this, other evolutionists admitted that:


“The concept of evolution cannot be considered a strong scientific explanation for the presence of the diverse forms of life in space and time. . . . This is because the data must be used circumstantially and no fine analysis . . . of the fossil record can directly support evolution.” —Order: In Life (1972), p. 120. Edmund Samuel, Associate Professor of Biology, Antioch College, Ohio


As mentioned already, this was noted way back then. In fact Darwin made a dire prediction. That is, if it could be shown that groups of living things

“have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution.”


-- The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, Or the Preservation of ...
 By Charles Robert Darwin p 282

(books.google.com... 0be%20fatal%20to%20the%20theory%20of%20evolution&pg=PA282#v=onepage&q&f=false)

Fatal indeed if it could be shown.

So what does the facts/evidence show? Notice this report that I found on fossil record way back in 1967 report. It said that:


“In the 1967 publication, The Fossil Record, . . . jointly sponsored by the Geological Society of London and the Palaeontological Association of England . . . some 120 scientists, all specialists, prepared 30 chapters in a monumental work of over 800 pages to present the fossil record for plants and animals divided into about 2,500 groups. . . .


Then said that:


“A conclusive generalization drawn from these charts is as follows: Each major form or kind of plant and animal is shown to have a separate and distinct history from all the other forms or kinds!!!

“Groups of both plants and animals appear suddenly in the fossil record. . . . Whales, bats, horses, primates, elephants, hares, squirrels, etc., all are as distinct at their first appearance as they are now. There is not a trace of a common ancestor, much less a link with any reptile, the supposed progenitor. . . .
“And proponents of the General Theory of Evolution, who are familiar with the facts of paleontology, admit existence of gaps between all higher categories. They admit that this is an undeniable fact of the fossil record.”


(Note: I got a lot of hits when I googled the statements above but did not find the original 1967 publication)

But the question is - were these evolutionists, paleontologists, scientists wrong/ignorant on their conclusions way back then? What about now that we are the 21st century? Surely this problem should have been resolved now. We should have “mountains of evidence” now (as some claimed) to show that the organic evolution theory is a “fact”.

But is it?


Notice this statement - from the most highly recommended evolution websites (amongst evolutionist): TalkOrigins.org Notice the contributing factors of why the fossil record is unreliable/inaccurate/incomplete.


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.


Compare these statements to Wiki:


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.

----- en.wikipedia.org...

-----Signor-Lipps effect: en.wikipedia.org...


From another evolution website explaining the limitations of the fossil record:


“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]
-- www.suite101.com...

Notice this statement made by National Geographic in 2004. It compared the fossil record as being like:

“a film of evolution from which 999 of every 1,000 frames have been lost on the cutting-room floor.”


Very similar to what is stated at TalkOrigins.org’s website. Notice again:


The fossil record is incomplete. This incompleteness has many contributing factors… 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.


Therefore, because of these “undeniable facts” evolutionists MUST and NEED to rely on another record imho – The Gene Record in order to prop up the organic evolution theory.
In fact today the theory is now known or understood as:


"any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next." --Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974


Used to be known as simpy a “biological change” that is “Organic evolution is descent with change.”

Note: Allele = DNA pairs/gene.

So there you have it, just a few sampling of the many facts out there regarding the inadequacy, inaccuracy and incompleteness of the fossil records and why genetic evidence is now becoming if not the norm.

Now, up to those who wnat to continue believing a theory based on such evidence. But ask yourselves, will you trust your life on a weak theory based on assumptions, interpretations, imaginations, “missing links” and most of all changing opinions/data? Or from someone who know where life came from, why it came to be and where it’s heading? The Creator of Life himself (Gen 1:1, Ps 36:9)!


BTW, if you do a Google this topic (fossil record incomplete/missing link), you’ll be inundated with so much information - showing the incompleteness of the fossil record. Ones I provided are prolly just 0.1% imho of the factual information that are out there.

On the other hand – the fossil record does indeed support something that a lot of people knew already including me, that is, it proves (special) Creation without a doubt.

Ciao,
edmc2

supplemental info dealing with fossil records (I think this website is neutral as far as origins are concern): www.truthinscience.org.uk...



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 11:22 PM
link   
Scientists aren't allowed to gather new evidence and re-assess probability? This notion is like the basic fundamental pedagogy of the scientific method, gather evidence and assess probability.

You outlined the mode of thought in this regard perfectly, that being, because the accumulation and appropriation of fossils is such a delicate and imperfect process, scientists now rely on the more robust system of genetics and molecular biology to uncover new information about the diversity of organisms and the corresponding rate of change. Science is truly a remarkable enterprise. It glares at our innate, incorrigible recalcitrance, to negotiate our drive for knowledge.



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 11:25 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 





“Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?


You do realize that fossils only form under very specific circumstances as we know today...which totally explains why we don't find them everywhere?




“Evolutionists are impressed above all with the imperfection of the fossil record for this purpose.” ---- Processes of Organic Evolution, G. L. Stebbins


...and Dr Stebbins, as great as he was for his time, gave his last real lecture in 1973!!



So what does the facts/evidence show? Notice this report that I found on fossil record way back in 1967 report.


So you're basing your opinion on a report that's almost 45 years old? ARE YOU SERIOUS??

As for the rest, of course they haven't found every single fossil yet...but in the case of humans for example, the record's pretty damn complete. Also, I really hope you realize in the 21st century we don't only have to rely on the fossil record, right? We have other evidence to back it up too...everything taken together paints a VERY clear theory. Which is why it's still a scientific theory and not hypothesis...

And the best for last:



Now, up to those who wnat to continue believing a theory based on such evidence. But ask yourselves, will you trust your life on a weak theory based on assumptions, interpretations, imaginations, “missing links” and most of all changing opinions/data? Or from someone who know where life came from, why it came to be and where it’s heading? The Creator of Life himself (Gen 1:1, Ps 36:9)!


So wait...after your attack on the theory of evolution, criticizing gaps...you then present your viewpoint as the only truth? Even though its only backup is the bible...a book that had several parts debunked over and over again?? ARE YOU SERIOUS??

That's like saying "unicorns did it"...laughable




On the other hand – the fossil record does indeed support something that a lot of people knew already including me, that is, it proves (special) Creation without a doubt.


I don't think you understand what proof is
edit on 24-1-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Do you know that truth is truth no matter how old it is, a fact is a fact no matter how old it is?

But I expected you're gonna say thatt! - old facts/truth is unacceptable - That's why I included these and others:

Notice this statement made by National Geographic in 2004. It compared the fossil record as being like:


“a film of evolution from which 999 of every 1,000 frames have been lost on the cutting-room floor.”



Very similar to what is stated at TalkOrigins.org’s website. Notice again:



The fossil record is incomplete. This incompleteness has many contributing factors… 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.


I can include more latest findings but I'll just leave you the two above and see how you will try to dismiss it (like last time).


Again, because of these “undeniable facts” evolutionists MUST and NEED to rely on another record imho – The Gene Record in order to prop up the organic evolution theory.

On the other hand are you aware that the fossil record does indeed support something that a lot of people knew already including me, that is, it proves (special) Creation without a doubt.


Edit: almost forgot to mention, in response to your statement below:


So wait...after your attack on the theory of evolution, criticizing gaps...you then present your viewpoint as the only truth? Even though its only backup is the bible...a book that had several parts debunked over and over again?? ARE YOU SERIOUS??


i'm almost done with my research on the fact the Creation is factually accurate inside / outside.

new thread pending.



ciao,
edmc2

edit on 25-1-2011 by edmc^2 because: see edit -



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 12:06 AM
link   
Imagine driving down the road, trying to listening to the radio, perhaps NPR or the 24 hour Christian Rock station, and the reception goes in and out, in and out. But instead of just acknowledging that the reception is not perfect, you've reached the unshakable conclusion that the radio no longer exists, and in its place is nothingness and eternity all at once.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 01:02 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





you should know that during most homegames, the players cycle dealer duties...so the players themselves are dealing the cards.


Yes but there is still always an intelligent dealer of cards either yourself or the people you are playing with.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 01:14 AM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 


first, since youve taken so many hits, i will show you where you have gone right with your thinking:


...Sooner or later you simply have to bite the bullet and admit that there must have been any number of primeval proteins coming into existence with no possible forebears to lean on. At that point probability estimates hit you directly between the eyes and you have to wonder how the astronomical odds against these early proteins were beaten by nature. ...


at the very earliest stages of the protogenome, somehow somewhere functionality arose. but at this stage, a membrane-bound cell is not yet necessary. so, to properly calculate the odds of the very first functional biomolecule you will need to consider 10^10 biomolecules per liter multiplied by total liters of the global ocean multiplied by around 1 billion years.

also, keep in mind that "functionality" at this stage is a dubious concept. so nature really doesnt have to work all that hard to come up with some type of functional unit. in fact, there were probably an abundance of such functional units.

at this point we still have not established a causal relationship between DNA and proteins. for the sake of brevity, let us just say that we now have a single functional unit along with its associated DNA sequence and replication, transcription, and translation machinery. voila! okay? (we are still pre-cellular)

now, i will show you exactly where you have gone wrong (mistakes underlined):


...These 153 nucleotides MUST be added by nature to the chromosome in the correct sequence for insulin to be the resulting product....
...if insertions (mutations) are NOT ...blahblahblah...there are times when insertions (mutations) are blahblahblah...


now, even though in the initial stages of development, spontaneous polymerization by the addition of random nucleotides was a plausible mechanism, you must now abandon that thought completely!

above in the quotes, you have equated "insertion" with "mutation". abandon it!

you are totally 100% correct in stating that random insertion of nucleotides into our simple functional sequence from above will NEVER result in anything useful. you have been very busy calculating odds. but i will just go ahead and say NEVER!

rather, you must now consider that mutations arise from random mistakes produced by already functional machinery. these are your new dice (see previous quote from Asyntax). on the raw level, you are still working with A,T,C,G. but you are no longer working exclusively at the raw level. there is now a new, higher level of processing. this higher level of processing is capable of making its own mistakes, and the mistakes that it makes are far more interesting and far more useful than the mistakes at the lower level.

in fact, a simple insertion at the lower raw level will likely disable the proto-gene completely.

 


i hope that is a little more clear to you now. a very good analogy that someone earlier made was concerning the generation of a sentence.

"i am a fancy unicorn."

with random sequential symbol insertion, you will likely NEVER arrive at the above functional sequence. but we do not work at the lower raw level. we work at a higher level of already functional machinery called "words". and the formation of NEW words and concepts comes almost exclusively by the re-combination of already existing words and concepts. "mistakes" of the already functional machinery.

how did the first words come about? this is a very good question. probably lots of grunting and pointing.

but, once a rudimentary language was established, it was not long until the words began to loop backward and perform actions upon themselves. pretty soon there were entire vocabularies.....sentences....conceptual frameworks....lions....tigers....bears.


finally, you might have noticed that people using language is quite an intelligent process. so, by analogy, are the functional processes of the genome intelligent?


YES!


edit on 25-1-2011 by tgidkp because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 01:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by tgidkp


press [print screen] now

great post bro, im going to save this one for later



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 02:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


Ever played poker on a computer? There is not intelligent or personal dealer of cards, just a simple algorithm randomly shuffling them (kinda like mutations). Intelligent dealer is not needed to play poker.

edit on 25/1/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 08:34 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Like I said, the fossil record is only one type of evidence, and only backs up the theory for those species (incl. humans) where the record is fairly complete...for the rest we have to rely on the ton of other evidence we have. But if your argument is "fossil record is incomplete, evolution is wrong"...then well..you're deluding yourself to make creationism "fit" better. Which would be kinda sad



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 





Ever played poker on a computer? There is not intelligent or personal dealer of cards, just a simple algorithm randomly shuffling them (kinda like mutations). Intelligent dealer is not needed to play poker.


And who programed that algorithm into the software?
Who built the hardware that allows the software to function?
Who built and maintains the internet connection that allows the process to take place?

I think you unknowingly just strengthened the case for intelligence behind a very complex system.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 



Like I said, the fossil record is only one type of evidence, and only backs up the theory for those species (incl. humans) where the record is fairly complete...


Since you’re not able to refute the factual evidence provided, that is, that the fossil records are seriously flawed, utterly incomplete due to factual circumstances (time/geology) it does you no good imho to keep insisting that “the record is fairly complete”.

In fact it makes your argument very weak and in disagreement with your fellow evolutionists. Why even your experts admitted it for which I can understand – because they are facts.

But going against them and the facts presented – that I don’t understand (or maybe not) and to still insist that:


...for the rest we have to rely on the ton of other evidence we have.
while the evidence show otherwise - is quite fascinating.

Anyway may I know what “ton of other evidence” are you talking about? Will it prove that your (organic) evolution theory is a “fact”? Is it related to the OP?

Could it be the much touted “genetic evidence”? If it is I would like to know cuz I have a ton of questions that I need answers to (as raised by the OP).


But if your argument is "fossil record is incomplete, evolution is wrong"...then well..you're deluding yourself to make creationism "fit" better. Which would be kinda sad.


Again, I’m not sure if you’ve noticed(?), but the evidence I presented are from evolutionists themselves. I did not make them up. It is the evidence and statements from evolution experts themselves that are pointing to the weakness and flaws of the theory – due to the fact that the “fossil record is incomplete”. I’m merely presenting them to prove my point and what I said before, that is (organic) evolution is founded on very weak evidence and it debunks itself.

As for what you said that I’m somehow ““deluding” myself “to make creationism "fit" better””, well all I can say is this: truth is truth and fact is fact. If the truth and the facts do not agree with the evidence (vise-versa) then they will not “fit” Creation. No need to bend the truth/facts in order to “fit” a theory –like organic evolution theory.

And as demonstrated already, the fossil evidence and I might add the OP show the flaws and weakness of the (organic) evolution theory. A weak theory where you, et al put their trust on for which I find both ironic and puzzling.

On the other hand, my research on the truthfulness and accuracy of Creation are fully back-up / supported by known facts and verifiable evidence (scientific and otherwise)! Which leads to the understanding of the Creator himself? Why he created life and his grand master plan for all eternity!

Ciao,
edmc2

sf for the OP



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 08:51 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 





On the other hand, my research on the truthfulness and accuracy of Creation are fully back-up / supported by known facts and verifiable evidence (scientific and otherwise)! Which leads to the understanding of the Creator himself? Why he created life and his grand master plan for all eternity!



Can't wait for your "scientific" proof



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2
 





On the other hand, my research on the truthfulness and accuracy of Creation are fully back-up / supported by known facts and verifiable evidence (scientific and otherwise)! Which leads to the understanding of the Creator himself? Why he created life and his grand master plan for all eternity!



Can't wait for your "scientific" proof


So I take it that you don't have any answers to my questions and that the "fossil evidence" that's been touted for years as proof of (organic) evolution is not really an evidence, but just assumptions, correct?

As for creation being scientific - here's a very simple logical, scientifically and universally accepted fact. Question is, do you agree with what I'm about to say?

That is: It's scientifically proven and a fact that Life can only come from life!

Agree - no/yes?

ciao,
edmc2

just one of the things that will be explained in the new thread - so as not to derail this thread.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


So I take it that you don't have any answers to my questions and that the "fossil evidence" that's been touted for years as proof of (organic) evolution is not really an evidence, but just assumptions, correct?

Tell me, edmc^2: how many times do you want us to keep debunking the same tired old assertions?

Bring something new to the party, or be ignored.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


life can only come from life?

it is a difficult question to disagree with, but i am going to go with "no".

i read a very compelling article recently (i will find a link if you wish) which argued that life must necessarily have arisen completely spontaneously. conversely, if a living form were ever created, then its livingness would be fundamentally a condition of its creators life. this creates an infinite regression.

take a computer, for example. if somehow by some miracle of technology we are able to generate computer software that is "self-aware", it still probably wouldnt be alive. this is simply because its living-ness would be a sub-set of our own human livingness.

the more-simple and less-obvious answer is that "it just did". no how. no why. no explanation needed.

from a personal perspective it makes sense simply because one of the most pronounced aspects of my own conscious activity is that it seems to be totally spontaneous.


so my final answer is: life came from no-life. there i said it.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
...the fossil records are seriously flawed, utterly incomplete...


What we have of the fossil record is a sample. Using your logic, every poll ever taken and just about every scientific paper written would be "seriously flawed". We work with samples because in most cases, observing the entire population is impossible. However, using samples, we can make accurate predictions and estimates on a population. Using our sample of the fossil record, we can do the same.

The fossil record being incomplete isn't as big of a deal as you make it out to be. It's quite trivial.





new topics
top topics
 
23
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum