Creationist - What about Evolution you disagree with?

[newhope101]

You have to forgive Newhope; she has a doctorate in "wrong-ology" so she is pretty good at being wrong.

Ardi Continues to Shake the Human Family Tree


#29: Ardi Continues to Shake the Human Family Tree

Reconstructing human evolution: Achievements, challenges, and opportunities

Reconstructing human evolution: Achievements, challenges, and opportunities


Too bad your researchers equally do not know what they are on about, do not know what they are looking at, can't look at the same evidence and agree, while deluding the public into thinking evolutionary theory is some sort of real science.

Ardi will soon be resident in the garbage bin of delusionary evidence that is now overflowing with your irrefuteable, "only the stupid cannot understand', evidence that was never any more than a straw grabbing delusion in the first place.


Evolutionists are surely a people of faith.

 

[painted wolf]

Gradualism is seen in the fossil record of Forams
JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
ScienceDirect - Marine Micropaleontology : Evolution of early planktic foraminifers

wa:do

*JSTOR link still works.

 

[Oneatatime]

I see you've not bothered to reply to my post again Newhope. Once again your claiming that these articles disprove evolution when all they do is highlight the problems that arise when working with the fossil record and that science progresses through the challenging of theories in light of new evidence.

PW there are examples of gradualism in the fossil record but the absence of a clear lineage doesn't pose a problem for evolutionary theory because species don't following a single evolutionary pathway but rather tangle of branching and merging pathways. Changes don't always need to be particually gradual depending on where mutations occur. Mutations in genes controlling development can result in quite significant changes in form. Equally where selective pressures remain the same for an extended periods of time its not unreasonable to find periods of stasis in the fossil record.

 

[David M]

Your link goes back to citing your own ignorance. Well done!

Thats because I see no need to repeat the content of my posts, unlike yourself.

Darwin:I cannot believe that in a state of nature new species arise from changes in structure in old species so great & sudden as to deserve to be called monstrosities. Had this been so, we should have had monstrosities closely resembling other species of the same genus or family; as it is comparisons are instituted with distant members of the same great order or even class, appearing as if picked out almost by chance. Nor can I believe that structures could arise from any sudden & great change of structure (excepting possibly in the rarest instances) so beautifully adapted as we know them to be, to the extraordinarily complex conditions of existence against which every species has to struggle. Every part of the machinery seems to have been slowly & cautiously modelled to guard against the innumerable contingencies to which it has to be exposed [p. 319, Charles Darwin's Natural Selection, ed. R. C. Stauffer, 1975]

http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2009/10/what-darwin-said-part-6-gradualism-b.php

The sudden appearance of most species in the geologic record and the lack of evidence of substantial gradual change in most species—from their initial appearance until their extinction—has long been noted, including by Charles Darwin who appealed to the imperfection of the record as the favored explanation.[42][43] When presenting his ideas against the prevailing influences of catastrophism and progressive creationism, which envisaged species being supernaturally created at intervals, Darwin needed to forcefully stress the gradual nature of evolution in accordance with the gradualism promoted by his friend Charles Lyell. He privately expressed concern, noting in the margin of his 1844 Essay, "Better begin with this: If species really, after catastrophes, created in showers world over, my theory false."[44]


"In the fifth edition of On the Origin of Species Darwin wrote that "the periods during which species have undergone modification, though long as measured in years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which they retain the same form"

And yet, even with long periods of stasis, Darwins evolution was meant to be gradual so as to not "create monsters"

This reflective rhetoric appears nothing more than an attemp to keep Darwin alive.

Punctuated eqilibrium, should you accept it, refers to stasis and then rapid/accelerated evolution.

Darwin promoted gradualualism, regardless of periods of stasis, and gradualism is NOT found in the fossil record.
​

You really are desparately trying to twist the english language aren't you.

You have just proved that I was correct, Darwin proposed a form of Punctuated equilibrium.

PE does not propose the creation of monsters either, its proposes that accelerated evolution still takes many years, just as Darwin said.

Darwin clearly proposed that evolution was not solely gradual but sometimes slow and sometimes fast, I will also point out that PE does not say that gradual evolution does not exist.

 

[newhope101]

Paintedwolf...Perhaps you should read something a little more recent than 1981 & 1983 This is outdated information that a PHD biology student should not be peddling.

As I said in another thread it is fruitless thrashing one theoretical assertion with an other theoretical assertion. They are all theories, none proven, and none should be taken too seriously.

Phyletic gradualism was long considered to be the dominant pattern of speciation and evolution, but modern[vague] evolutionary biologists have deprecated it in favor of a variety of hypotheses such as punctuated equilibrium, quantum evolution, and punctuated gradualism.

Phyletic gradualism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So you cannot align with either side of the bird ancestry debate. Perhaps you would like to take your choice from the above evolutionary mechanisms. I'll give you time to learn them seeing as you are still stuck in the '80s research era.

Sorry PW, if your reply was meant to be refute, it is very outdated.

 

[painted wolf]

I see you've not bothered to reply to my post again Newhope. Once again your claiming that these articles disprove evolution when all they do is highlight the problems that arise when working with the fossil record and that science progresses through the challenging of theories in light of new evidence.

PW there are examples of gradualism in the fossil record but the absence of a clear lineage doesn't pose a problem for evolutionary theory because species don't following a single evolutionary pathway but rather tangle of branching and merging pathways.

I don't disagree... indeed the foram fossil record demonstrates this beautifully.

Changes don't always need to be particually gradual depending on where mutations occur. Mutations in genes controlling development can result in quite significant changes in form. Equally where selective pressures remain the same for an extended periods of time its not unreasonable to find periods of stasis in the fossil record.

The genetic evidence shows that evolution can work both gradually and quickly depending on circumstances and mutations involved.

However genetics also shows that "stasis" in the fossil record is to some degree, illusion... while skeletal forms may not change quickly, the genetic make up of populations are always changing with each generation. Major changes in a species don't always get reflected in the shape of ones skeleton.

wa:do

 

[search the scriptures]

"Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life."

creationists- origin of life

eveolutionist- history of life

 

[Oneatatime]

I don't disagree... indeed the foram fossil record demonstrates this beautifully.

The genetic evidence shows that evolution can work both gradually and quickly depending on circumstances and mutations involved.

However genetics also shows that "stasis" in the fossil record is to some degree, illusion... while skeletal forms may not change quickly, the genetic make up of populations are always changing with each generation. Major changes in a species don't always get reflected in the shape of ones skeleton.

wa:do

Exactly but as we're dealing with the fossil record I didn't think it relevent to mention those changes which aren't recorded in fossils. Its unfortunate that Goulds ideas were highjacked by creationists and missinterpreted as evidence against evolution.

 

[painted wolf]

Paintedwolf...Perhaps you should read something a little more recent than 1981 & 1983 This is outdated information that a PHD biology student should not be peddling.

As I said in another thread it is fruitless thrashing one theoretical assertion with an other theoretical assertion. They are all theories, none proven, and none should be taken too seriously.

Phyletic gradualism was long considered to be the dominant pattern of speciation and evolution, but modern[vague] evolutionary biologists have deprecated it in favor of a variety of hypotheses such as punctuated equilibrium, quantum evolution, and punctuated gradualism.

Phyletic gradualism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So you cannot align with either side of the bird ancestry debate. Perhaps you would like to take your choice from the above evolutionary mechanisms. I'll give you time to learn them seeing as you are still stuck in the '80s research era.

Sorry PW, if your reply was meant to be refute, it is very outdated.

Newhope you are pushing Punk Eck... an idea from the 1970's

Do try to keep your silliness at a minimum... complaining about my "old data" that complicates your even older idea is laughter inducing...and my son is trying to take a nap.:beach:

It doesn't help that you can't tell a hypothesis from a theory. Even when you cut-and-paste from your beloved wiki.

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

Exactly but as we're dealing with the fossil record I didn't think it relevent to mention those changes which aren't recorded in fossils.

Well, this thread has bounced around a bit...
We are still wondering what exactly people disagree with the theory of Evolution on... other than vague hand waiving.

Its unfortunate that Goulds ideas were highjacked by creationists and missinterpreted as evidence against evolution.

Agreed. What is even sadder is they pretend to understand it.

wa:do

 

[newhope101]

I see you've not bothered to reply to my post again Newhope. Once again your claiming that these articles disprove evolution when all they do is highlight the problems that arise when working with the fossil record and that science progresses through the challenging of theories in light of new evidence.

PW there are examples of gradualism in the fossil record but the absence of a clear lineage doesn't pose a problem for evolutionary theory because species don't following a single evolutionary pathway but rather tangle of branching and merging pathways. Changes don't always need to be particually gradual depending on where mutations occur. Mutations in genes controlling development can result in quite significant changes in form. Equally where selective pressures remain the same for an extended periods of time its not unreasonable to find periods of stasis in the fossil record.

Perhaps you need to get over yourself a little. I have heard it all before.

I am not here to disprove TOE to evolutionists, my dear.

I am here to illustrate that skepticism is not solely the realm of the uncredentialed. The examples I put forward are to illustrate WHY creationists have ample reason to be skeptical of the claims and assertions that TOE makes.

It is people like you that live in Wonderland, nursing the garbage bin of delusionary, irrefuteable evidence past, with no ability to comprehend what the resulting scene may look like to others.

 

[newhope101]

The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, anthropology, and others.[16][17][18][19][20] One 1987 estimate found that "700 scientists ... (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) ... give credence to creation-science".[21] An expert in the evolution-creationism controversy, professor and author Brian Alters states that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution".[22] A 1991 Gallup poll of Americans found that about 5% of scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists.[23][24]
There is a notable difference between the opinion of scientists and that of the general public in the United States. A 2009 poll by Pew Research Center found that "87% of scientists say that humans and other living things have evolved over time and that evolution is the result of natural processes such as natural selection. Just 32% of the public accepts this as true."[39]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution
　
　


In case your maths is poor 100-87= 13% of scientists disagree in 2009, up 12.1% in just 12 years. Well done!

I doubt preaching would have provided such a wonderful outcome! I’ll let your science do the dirty work, it’s doing a great job already.

 

[LuisDantas]

Do you have anything to offer that is not shameless wishful thinking?

 

[McBell]

You cannot even imagine how much more intelligent this thread is with newhope on ignore.

Seems that she is still pushing her lies.
Not that I am the least bit surprised.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

Ohh man Newhope has devolved into using Fundyfont TM

I think Newhope has been hanging around the flat earth forums too much.

-Q

 

[Im an Atheist]

Facts talk, conjectures walk. Cite a clear example of a new FUNCTION (sight from sightlessness, feathers from scales, etc.) that arose out of a new genetic information created.

All you can do is cite supposed "novel genes", but you can't cite "novel functions" because you say that takes time, well that's speculation, that's blind faith.

To put it really simply, birds did don't evolve from, or evolve into animals with scales. Same goes to going from the sightless to sighted. The evolution of the eye is a very popular piece of evidence. Started with a patch of light sensitive cells, and gradually developing over many generations and adaptations to form the total piece of crap we few the world through now.

 

[David M]

In case your maths is poor 100-87= 13% of scientists disagree in 2009, up 12.1% in just 12 years. Well done!

I doubt preaching would have provided such a wonderful outcome! I’ll let your science do the dirty work, it’s doing a great job already.

I doubt you noticed the difference in the questions, the first would get a yes from theistic evolutionists and the second would get a no (because they had their own response in the Pew poll). The percentage of people in the Pew poll who accept creationism is 2% for scientists and 31% for the public, creationism is slowly fading even in the US.

You other mistake is that the percentage of people who reject creationism and accept evolution includes Theistic Evolutionists. That means that from the Pew poll acceptance of evolution among the US public is 54%.

The difference between the public and the scientists is not as large as you are trying to claim.

You would be correct that preaching doesn't get such a wonderful outcome, thats why the US population is becoming more secular, the younger generation less religious and creationism is being rejected. But that is to be expected when people are preaching falsehoods and deception (as you do) and the side that accepts ToE is showing evidence in accordance with reality.

 

[camanintx]

Darwin promoted gradualualism, regardless of periods of stasis, and gradualism is NOT found in the fossil record.

Darwin promoted gradualism in that we would never see a dog evolve into a cat. While he proposed that one species could gradually change into a similar yet different species, he never said the change would be smooth or constant.

 

[gnostic]

I have nothing against the biblical creation as a story or a myth, because I like myths.

Myths are actually one of my passions in life. I have a collection of mythological literature, from the Sumerian version of Gilgamesh to Thomas Malory's Le Morte d'Arthur, with the Homeric epic - The Odyssey - being my all-time favorite. I would not create Timeless Myths if I didn't like it.

My problem is with creationists. I don't mind them believing their creation myth, because they believe whatever they want. But I do have a problem when they tried to introduce it into school as science.

It is not science, and never will be, despite their attempt to add the word "science" to the creation (creation science). Creationism is a theological subject, and that's where it belong.

I don't know why creationists attempted to disguise as science in order to compete with evolution. Evolution is a subject, part of biology. Creationism don't interfere with other science subjects, like mathematics, physics, chemistry, or even with non-evolutionary biology subject.

They (creationists) used propaganda and misinformation, either to discredit (or distort) evolutionary biology or to promote creationism, and they do a terrible job at it.

Does God value liars like creationists?

Jesus did warn people about being false witnesses, but perhaps these creationists conveniently missed this teaching. It is hypocritical that they can ignore some teachings when it suit them.

If they disagree with evolution or don't believe, then why?

Is because of the level of understanding?

 

[Oneatatime]

Well, this thread has bounced around a bit...
We are still wondering what exactly people disagree with the theory of Evolution on... other than vague hand waiving.


Agreed. What is even sadder is they pretend to understand it.

wa:do

I actually feel sorry for people like Newhope who have been caught up in the political and idealogical crusade of creationist organisations which publish flawed strawmen arguements against evolution in the illogical belief that this constitutes as evidence for creationism. Its no suprised that over the years the arguements made by online creationists have reflected the changing approaches used to push creationism in schools which have been successfully defeated or later overturned.

I'm currently reading Evolution vs Creationism: An Introduction (2nd Edition) by Eugenie C. Scott which gives a pretty good account of both sides and its legal history in the US which is really where the main creationist movement lies.