Challenge to Evolutionsts

[supersport]

So, are you willing to admit that punctuated equilibrium is a valid competing theory to gradualism?

I don't think any creature can evolve into another kind of creature. No evidence in the fossil record suggests otherwise. Nor is there any mechanism proven to be able to accomplish it. No one has yet shown me a mutation that can add a beneficial novelty. Neither can you show me a scientifically-validated case of natural selection. Without these you're simply sunk.

 

[supersport]

So many unsupported claims, so little time. Why do you guys keep wasting your time with this person?

the only unsupported claim is your original claim that those silly skulls you lined up were all descended from each other to form a nice little, pretty sequence. You have absolutely zilch evidence that any of these individuals were descended from the other. And you're darn right I'm raising the bar: if you're going to claim that these creatures are somehow related or descended from each other, you better be able to show me by prensenting a little more of them than just their skulls. You can't count evidence that you don't have. Put up their skeletons and let's compare.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

On what grounds do you deem your interpretation of the fossil evidence superior to the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community?

 

[supersport]

On what grounds do you deem your interpretation of the fossil evidence superior to the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community?

On what grounds do you think evolution could happen without mutations adding beneficial morphological novelties?

 

[supersport]

Don't you think at this point if the evidence was just incredibly clear and obvious for ape-to-human evolution that some highly qualified guy wouldn't come along and and change everything around 180 degrees? This guy is now telling us that instead of humans evolving from apes it's the other way around -- apes evolved from humans.


All the "mountains of evidence" all the "facts" all the "journals" all the "peer reivew" -- in the trash:


http://www.amazon.com/dp/1564149331?...&link_code=as3

The Upright Ape: A New Origin of the Species (Hardcover)
by Aaron G. Filler (Author), David Pilbeam (Foreword)

The story of the evolution of the spine is one of the great untold narratives in the history of science. In The Upright Ape: A New Origin of the Species, internationally known and respected biologist and neurosurgeon Dr. Aaron G. Filler explains how the spine came into being across evolutionary time and how it was molded into human form. He traces the fascination the spinal column has held with biologists, poets, and philosophers alike, and how they have viewed it across the centuries.

Most importantly, the author explores--and some would say resolves--a 200-year-long controversy surrounding the origin of species. Drawing on such diverse antecedents as history, myth, and religion (including Egyptian myth, Christian iconography, and the Hindu Veda), as well as modern developments in biology and genetics, the author bravely questions and rejects the reigning scientific orthodoxy and shows how humans and apes may have had a common upright ancestor--an "upright ape" --that walked on two legs much as we do now. He makes the bold and compelling argument that, at least from the point of view of posture, apes evolved from humans.

Based on the most rigorous modern science--and its deep and mysterious connection to the worlds of myth, religion, and archetype--Dr. Filler's theories force a total reassessment of some of the central aspects of our interpretation of human origins. By pulling together in one text all of these remarkable stories--the spine in myth, the spine in evolutionary theory, and the spine in human origins--Dr. Filler offers the opportunity to look behind the commonplace and explore a stunning series of developments about who we are and how we came to be. This work will forever change how we see evolution, the world we live in, and ultimately, our place in it.

from one of the reviewers: He explains in detail how the human spine evolved and how the modern ape is actually a descendant of humans.....The Upright Ape: A New Origin of the Species is a compelling and well-presented analysis of the story of life. With an in-depth examination of evolutionary pioneers and their influences on today's research, Dr. Aaron Filler presents a convincing theory of evolution that will educate, stimulate, and challenge our perceptions of the history of life.


Another new theory to learn! For so long evolutionists tried to make us think we evolved from knucklewalkers.....now I guess we can forget trying to make that little mental miracle happen since the knucle-walkers evolved from us. Of course if we split from our common ancestor 10.5 million years ago, we were surely in the trees then -- so how did we swing from branch to branch with our current bone structure?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

On what grounds do you think evolution could happen without mutations adding beneficial morphological novelties?

Was there a reason you chose not to answer my question?

 

[Sunstone]

On what grounds do you deem your interpretation of the fossil evidence superior to the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community?

I think Jay's question is legitimate, Supersport. Could you please answer it?

 

[UnTheist]

Was there a reason you chose not to answer my question?

He couldn't answer it.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

He couldn't answer it.

Actually, I'm sure he can. I'm just not sure he will.

 

[supersport]

On what grounds do you deem your interpretation of the fossil evidence superior to the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community?

I deny your premise. Please show me some examples of evolutionists (paleontogists, specifically) who proclaim that the fossil record sports phyletic gradualism and then we'll talk about "consensus." I think this consensus is in your head. I'll be waiting.

 

[supersport]

STEPHEN J. Gould: "Every paleontologist knows that most species don't change. That's bothersome....brings terrible distress. ....They may get a little bigger or bumpier but they remain the same species and that's not due to imperfection and gaps but stasis. And yet this remarkable stasis has generally been ignored as no data. If they don't change, its not evolution so you don't talk about it."

David M. Raup: "The evidence we find in the geologic record is not nearly as compatible with darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be. Darwin was completely aware of this. He was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn't look the way he predicted it would.... Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. ....ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as the result of more detailed information."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

STEPHEN J. Gould: "Every paleontologist knows that most species don't change. That's bothersome....brings terrible distress. ....They may get a little bigger or bumpier but they remain the same species and that's not due to imperfection and gaps but stasis. And yet this remarkable stasis has generally been ignored as no data. If they don't change, its not evolution so you don't talk about it."

Evolution is adaptation: changes in species, which are selected for when they are advantageous in their immediate environment. When the environment is generally static, you would expect species to stay generally static; the probability is very low that a mutation in a well-adapted species will be beneficial. When the environment changes, the likelihood of a mutation being advantageous goes up. This results in periods of slow change or stasis interspersed with rapid change. I don't see why this presents any conceptual difficulties for you.

It's also what Gould was going on about, if you were to bother to actually read his writing rather than just quote him out-of-context.

 

[painted wolf]

Trilobites show gradual evolution. Changes in size and overall morphology can be and were traced in the genus Olenus and in the genus Ogygiocarella and Cnemidopyge.
Peter Sheldon and Ken McNamara both published excellent works on the evoltuion of these critters.
That is the wonderfull thing about Trilobites, they were common, easily fossilized and they lasted for over 250 million years. They are some of the best support for gradualistic evolution.

Please show me some examples of evolutionists (paleontogists, specifically) who proclaim that the fossil record sports phyletic gradualism and then we'll talk about "consensus." I think this consensus is in your head. I'll be waiting.

Richard Fortey, Ken McNamara, Peter Sheldon, Tom Holtz, Paul Sereno and so on...

Misquoting Stephen J. Gould isn't a good stratagy... Punc. Ecc. isn't against evoltuion, its just another meccanism. Species can arise quickly given the right circumstances.
So what?

You still haven't answered my questions by the way.

wa:do

ps. you obviously havn't actually read the Upright Ape, don't jump to any crazy conclusions based on what a publisher put on the back of the book. All the book suggests is that the common ancestor of Chimps and Humans walked in a manner more like an Orangutan or Human than a Chimp or Gorilla.
Natually this hypothosis still has a lot of work to do before it gains a lot of support.

 

[painted wolf]

How about a real quote from Stephen J. Gould.

the argument that the literal story of Genesis can qualify as science collapses on three major grounds:

• The creationists' need to invoke miracles in order to compress the events of the earth's history into the biblical span of a few thousand years;
• their unwillingness to abandon claims clearly disproved, including the assertion that all fossils are products of Noah's flood; and
• their reliance upon distortion, misquote, half-quote, and citation out of context to characterize the ideas of their opponents.

Stephen J. Gould. 1987/1988. The Verdict on Creationism. The Skeptical Inquirer Winter 87/88, pg. 186

wa:do

 

[supersport]

How about a real quote from Stephen J. Gould.
wa:do

how about you quote me something from gould or any paleontologist regarding the gradualistic changes in the fossil record. I'm still waiting on this.

 

[supersport]

I'm still waiting on this so-called "consensus" that the fossil record shows gradualism:

Pitt professor contends biological underpinnings

Jeffrey H. Schwartz, University of Pittsburgh professor of anthropology in the School of Arts and Sciences, is working to debunk a major tenet of Darwinian evolution. Schwartz believes that evolutionary changes occur suddenly as opposed to the Darwinian model of evolution, which is characterized by gradual and constant change. Among other scientific observations, gaps in the fossil record could bolster Schwartz's theory because, for Schwartz, there is no "missing link."

The question then becomes, if the fossil record does not show gradualism, then why are you people sugesting evolution (aka change over time) happens by way of beneficial random mutations, which are so incredibly rare that they almost never happen? The reason the fossil record does not show gradualism is because change happens very quickly by way of individual adaptations to environmental changes.

 

[painted wolf]

To see "evolution in action" is rather rare. This rather mundane truth has been missapropriated by creation"scientists" as eviedence that "fossils don't provide support for evolution"-which is not the same thing at all. In fact, the order of appearance of trilobites is certenly consistent with evolution:"

Richard Fortey Trilobite

Where gradualistic change had been observed in other fossil examples it was usually plankton that displayed it.

Richard Fortey Trilobite
There are more, but I'm sure that will do for tonight.

and I'm still waiting for the answer to my origional question.

wa:do

 

[supersport]

Richard Fortey Trilobite
Richard Fortey Trilobite
There are more, but I'm sure that will do for tonight.

and I'm still waiting for the answer to my origional question.

wa:do

no, that does nothing. I need to see quotes from paleontologists who say publicly that the fossil record shows phyletic/gradual change. Please show me this....so I can verify that the consensus is indeed that.

Here was Jay's question:

On what grounds do you deem your interpretation of the fossil evidence superior to the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community?

I deny the premise that paleontologists claim gradualism in the fossil record.

 

[Valjean]

There is both gradual change and rapid, "punctuated" change. There is more than one mechanism of biological change.

 

[camanintx]

Evolutionists say only populations evolve. I say individuals evolve:

sorry can't post a link at the moment (not enough posts) but search for "DNA is Not Destiny" in the Yahoo search window...you will find a site and an article about epigenetics: (pg. 2)

"To the surprise of scientists, many environmentally induced changes turn out to be heritable. When exposed to predators, Daphnia water fleas grow defensive spines (right). The effect can last for several generations."

This has nothing to do with mutations....instead it's just an epigenetic phenomenon whereby the developing embryo adjusts to his outside world. This is probably done by way of released hormones by the mother during development. Life is wonderful, miraculous, and unexplainable. Evolutionists insist selection adapts populations, reality however shows that individuals adapt themselves.

If individuals adapt themselves to their surroundings and genetics has no role in determining morphology, then how come an embryo from an Indian donor implanted in a Caucasian woman produced an Indian offspring?