Just Accidental?

[Deeje]

What proof?

Prophesy can only be fully discerned after the fact. We expected certain things to take place and in hindsight, we can see that they clearly did, but the last remaining events are yet future, so we will have to wait and see how they play out on the world scene....indications are that we will not have to wait much longer.

 

[Sapiens]

The first logical fallacy of evolution is that it ever happened. They have a collection of bones and science has created this imaginary chain linking various creatures whose fossil remains were excavated from the earth, and who existed supposedly with many millions of years between them. But the fact is, they are linking them all together with nothing more than suggestion and supposition. Science cannot prove there ever was a chain to begin with. The first premise is fantasy.

You can't just declare a logical fallacy, to be taken seriously you must make the argument by naming the type of fallacy and then, if nontrivial, showing how it applies. All you have done is croak, "Evolution never happened. Science cannot prove there ever was a chain between excavated fossils to begin with. The first premise is fantasy."

This is, as per usual, in ignorance of all the scientific proof that exists that evolution has occurred and is occurring and the genetic and immunological data that perfectly supports the conclusions that were previously inferred from paleontological and geological findings.

 

[Sapiens]

Prophesy can only be fully discerned after the fact. We expected certain things to take place and in hindsight, we can see that they clearly did, but the last remaining events are yet future, so we will have to wait and see how they play out on the world scene....indications are that we will not have to wait much longer.

Indications are that your "prophesy" is horse puckey: Prophecy blunders of Jehovah's Witness

Remember, the best predictor of the future is past performance.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

The first logical fallacy of evolution is that it ever happened.

Come on. You just quoted the definition of a fallacy and then for the second time in 3 posts say something is a fallacy when it isn't. Do better.

They have a collection of bones and science has created this imaginary chain linking various creatures whose fossil remains were excavated from the earth, and who existed supposedly with many millions of years between them. But the fact is, they are linking them all together with nothing more than suggestion and supposition. Science cannot prove there ever was a chain to begin with. The first premise is fantasy.

You don't consider fossil evidence at all? Even with the supporting DNA evidence? Predictive power and current practical useage? I could link you to untold amounts of evidence. We have sticky thread for links to evolution evidence. But you so easily whisk it aside. What dose it take for you personally to accept the evidence? What blockage or goalpost is required?

 

[Deeje]

You can't have it both ways.
[Creative? No. Just another ignorant comment on your part.

Really?

Pre-domestication color variants including black and spotted have been inferred from cave wall paintings and confirmed by genomic analysis (Pruvost, M.; et al. November 2011. "Genotypes of predomestic horses match phenotypes painted in Paleolithic works of cave art". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 108 (46): 18626–18630. doi:10.1073/pnas.1108982108.].

Now let me get this straight.....cave paintings from primitive humans indicate that horses used to have spots like a deer?
At what period do you assume that humans were painting in caves? I assume that it was not 55 million years ago when Eohippus supposedly roamed the earth......his closest relative in the timeline has no spots.....so where does the caveman get his ideas? Are there not spotted horses to this day? Why not make them all spotted like these guys?

Aren't the spots just a visual ploy to reinforce the "suggestion" that horse ancestors resembled deer?

The above illustration shows a representative sequence, but should not be construed to represent a "straight-line" evolution of the horse. Reconstruction, left forefoot skeleton (third digit emphasized yellow) and longitudinal section of molars of selected prehistoric horses

Of course not....there is nothing straight about evolution. It just gets curiouser and curiouser.....fantasy built on fantasy, masquerading as science.

Skeletal evolution

That is pure assumption. There is nothing linking these animals but similarity, which could be just as easily explained by creation. One Creator, using the same raw materials and using a base design that works in many applications. Doesn't science do the same thing?

You have no evidence of that.

I have as much solid verifiable evidence as you do.

... but a better approach is contemporaneous cave paintings and genetic analysis, too bad your sketchy paleontological, anthropological and zoological backgrounds did not help you out here. Ignorance is not always bliss.

Ah...the old 'I'm smarter than you, let me flash my credentials' defense .....you could well be vastly superior to me in intellect and in academic achievement, but that in itself just makes your position more monumentally flawed in your acceptance of something that is not backed up by true science at all. You "believe" in evolution because you think it makes you appear to be superior to those with less intelligence who accept the fantasy of a Creator. But the truth is, the fantasy you accept actually requires more faith and credulity than mine.

 

[Deeje]

You can't just declare a logical fallacy, to be taken seriously you must make the argument by naming the type of fallacy and then, if nontrivial, showing how it applies. All you have done is croak, "Evolution never happened. Science cannot prove there ever was a chain between excavated fossils to begin with. The first premise is fantasy."

I can and I did. You have no "scientifically verifiable" evidence of a chain of descent, with creatures morphing into other creatures. It is only a chain if it has links.....there are no verifiable links. Adaptation does not provide them.

This is, as per usual, in ignorance of all the scientific proof that exists that evolution has occurred and is occurring and the genetic and immunological data that perfectly supports the conclusions that were previously inferred from paleontological and geological findings.

That is just the point.....all the "scientific proof" is alleged, supposed, imagined....not proven. The conclusions were based more on what was an expected outcome and interpreting the results to fit that presupposition. This is obvious to those looking at evolution from the outside. 'In house', I just see you all being as blind as each other....patting one another on the back and perpetuating your pet theory with nothing but suggestion.

 

[Deeje]

It's past time to put the lie to your underlying claim: "We have as much solid evidence as you do....and that is the point. Where does this air of superiority come from? We have a belief that is backed up by true science, not the theorizing of men with a pre-conceived agenda, interpreting what they find to fit that agenda. Suggestions born of educated guessing does not = facts."

There is a rather simple proof that your claim of having, "as much solid evidence as you do" is (at best) an empty boast and (at worst) a premeditated lie.

First of all there's the matter of you clearly not knowing the solid evidence that we have, you have repeatedly made hideous errors of fact when it comes to basic zoology. Just recently you made the claim "All mammals only have one thing in common.....they suckle their young with milk."

I corrected you: "Once again (surprise, surprise) you reveal that you lack sufficient background to be taken seriously in this discussion. Actually ALL mammals have a bunch more common attributes than you seem to know about, but then we know that your zoological knowledge is very limited. Some attributes are unique and ubiquitous in mammals (hair, auditory ossicles in the middle ear, sweat glands and a whole passel of other specialized skin glands, advanced diaphragm, a jaw joint composed only of the dentary and the squamosal, etc.) some are just unique to mammals though not ubiquitous (placental gestation, lactation, etc.) some are ubiquitous to mammals but shared with a few other groups (warmblooded, 4-chambered heart)."

Yet you repeat a claim that has already been falsified. That's dishonest to the core.

In any case, your previous posts reveal that your biological knowledge is spotty at best. When that is pointed out to you you tell us how you revel in your ignorance, yet now you pretend to know how much solid evidence we have.

You need to get a grip and get your story straight.

But you still didn't answer my question.

Here it is again....

"All mammals only have one thing in common (I didn't suggest it was the only thing, but thanks for the zoology lesson).....they suckle their young with milk. Does this method of feeding their young automatically mean they all had this trait because somewhere way back in the evolutionary line, females somehow began to excrete milk from mammary glands that were previously non existent or non-functional? Do we have evidence of any species who have non-productive mammary glands in the evolutionary chain which somehow sprang into production and then automatically instilled the instinct in their young to suckle?"

Please explain......

 

[Sapiens]

Really?

Yup!

Now let me get this straight.....cave paintings from primitive humans indicate that horses used to have spots like a deer?

Indeed.

At what period do you assume that humans were painting in caves?

A small number of caves, including 25,000-year-old Pech Merle in southern France, feature horses painted white with black spots. Some archaeologists have argued that this leopard-like pattern was fanciful and symbol laden rather than realistic. Indeed, in a 2009 analysis of DNA from the bones of nearly 90 ancient horses dated from about 12,000 to 1,000 years ago, researchers found genetic evidence for bay and black coat colors but no sign of the spotted variety, suggesting that the spotted horse could have been the figment of some artist’s imagination. Although researchers can only speculate on what prehistoric artists were trying to express, hypotheses range from shamanistic and ritualistic activities to attempts to capture the spirit of horses and other animals that ancient humans hunted.

But in a new paper published online today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the same team reports finding that spotted horses did indeed exist around the time that cave artists were doing their best work. The researchers, led by geneticists Arne Ludwig of the Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research in Berlin and Michael Hofreiter of the University of York in the United Kingdom, analyzed DNA from an older sample of 31 prehistoric horses from Siberia as well as Eastern and Western Europe, ranging from about 20,000 to 2,200 years ago. They found that 18 of the horses were bay, seven were black, but six had a genetic variant — called LP — that corresponds to leopard-like spotting in modern horses. Moreover, out of 10 Western European horses estimated to be about 14,000 years old, four had the LP genetic marker, suggesting that spotted horses were not uncommon during the heyday of cave painting.

If so, the team argues, prehistoric artists may have been drawing what they saw rather than creating imaginary creatures. Prehistoric horses came in at least “three coat color"
Ludwig says, “and exactly these three [colors] are also seen in cave paintings. Cave art is more realistic than often suggested.”
(thanks Wired Magazine)

I assume that it was not 55 million years ago when Eohippus supposedly roamed the earth......his closest relative in the timeline has no spots.....so where does the caveman get his ideas? Are there not spotted horses to this day? Why not make them all spotted like these guys?

Aren't the spots just a visual ploy to reinforce the "suggestion" that horse ancestors resembled deer?

We now have horse DNA going back 700,000 years. This now sequenced genome offers a glimpse at the ancient horse and how equine genes have evolved. Genes that are involved in immunity, the sense of smell, and muscle development have all changed significantly since then, color appears to to have been stable, Bay, Black and LP. Does this guarantee that was so 55 million years ago? No, it does not, but this data, combined with the sort of protective adaptation that even you agree with and the guiding principle of uniformitarianism, makes those color schemes very probable.

Of course not....there is nothing straight about evolution. It just gets curiouser and curiouser.....fantasy built on fantasy, masquerading as science.

Now. now. I know how inordinately proud you are of you level of ignorance, but this borders on hubris.

That is pure assumption. There is nothing linking these animals but similarity, which could be just as easily explained by creation. One Creator, using the same raw materials and using a base design that works in many applications. Doesn't science do the same thing?

Clearly the hubris of ignorance.

I have as much solid verifiable evidence as you do.

But we have already determined that you have not the vaguest clue as to the depths of verifiable evidence that I posses and you've stipulated that even if you did you are too biologically ignorant to understand it. YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.

Ah...the old 'I'm smarter than you, let me flash my credentials' defense .....you could well be vastly superior to me in intellect and in academic achievement, but that in itself just makes your position more monumentally flawed in your acceptance of something that is not backed up by true science at all. You "believe" in evolution because you think it makes you appear to be superior to those with less intelligence who accept the fantasy of a Creator. But the truth is, the fantasy you accept actually requires more faith and credulity than mine.

No, I understand evolution and it's processes and I understand the immense weakness of your lack of evidence. I take it on your word that you do not understand evolution and it's processes and that you have no grasp of the fullness of the information that modern science has at it's disposal. I am not resting on my credentials, in fact, I have not (save debunking your "common sense" foolishness) mentioned them,, though I have in the course of this conversation drawn on them to demonstrate the abject weakness of yours. If your Bible study as as weak as your biological study ... would any of your fellow travelers take you seriously? I expect not. Why do you expect us to take you seriously?

I can and I did. You have no "scientifically verifiable" evidence of a chain of descent, with creatures morphing into other creatures. It is only a chain if it has links.....there are no verifiable links. Adaptation does not provide them.

You can bloviate that same phrase till you're blue in the face, but you know what they say ... empty barrels make he most noise.

That is just the point.....all the "scientific proof" is alleged, supposed, imagined....not proven. The conclusions were based more on what was an expected outcome and interpreting the results to fit that presupposition.

Science does not deal in "proof" rather it deals in probabilities.

Misconceptions about the nature and practice of science abound, and are sometimes even held by otherwise respectable practicing scientists themselves. I have dispelled some of them (misconceptions, not scientists) in earlier posts (for example, that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, beauty is only skin-deep, and you can’t judge a book by its cover). Unfortunately, there are many other misconceptions about science. One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.” Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof.

Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.

Proofs have two features that do not exist in science: They are final, and they are binary. Once a theorem is proven, it will forever be true and there will be nothing in the future that will threaten its status as a proven theorem (unless a flaw is discovered in the proof). Apart from a discovery of an error, a proven theorem will forever and always be a proven theorem.

In contrast, all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final. There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science. The currently accepted theory of a phenomenon is simply the best explanation for it among all available alternatives. Its status as the accepted theory is contingent on what other theories are available and might suddenly change tomorrow if there appears a better theory or new evidence that might challenge the accepted theory. No knowledge or theory (which embodies scientific knowledge) is final. That, by the way, is why science is so much fun.

Further, proofs, like pregnancy, are binary; a mathematical proposition is either proven (in which case it becomes a theorem) or not (in which case it remains a conjecture until it is proven). There is nothing in between. A theorem cannot be kind of proven or almost proven. These are the same as unproven.

In contrast, there is no such binary evaluation of scientific theories. Scientific theories are neither absolutely false nor absolutely true. They are always somewhere in between. Some theories are better, more credible, and more accepted than others. There is always more, more credible, and better evidence for some theories than others. It is a matter of more or less, not either/or. For example, experimental evidence is better and more credible than correlational evidence, but even the former cannot prove a theory; it only provides very strong evidence for the theory and against its alternatives.

The knowledge that there is no such thing as a scientific proof should give you a very easy way to tell real scientists from hacks and wannabes. Real scientists never use the words “scientific proofs,” because they know no such thing exists. Anyone who uses the words “proof,” “prove” and “proven” in their discussion of science is not a real scientist.

The creationists and other critics of evolution are absolutely correct when they point out that evolution is “just a theory” and it is not “proven.” What they neglect to mention is that everything in science is just a theory and is never proven. Unlike the Prime Number Theorem, which will absolutely and forever be true, it is still possible, albeit very, very, very, very, very unlikely, that the theory of evolution by natural and sexual selection may one day turn out to be false. But then again, it is also possible, albeit very, very, very, very, very unlikely, that monkeys will fly out of my *** tomorrow. In my judgment, both events are about equally likely.

(thanks, Satoshi Kanazawa writing in Psychology Today)

This is obvious to those looking at evolution from the outside. 'In house', I just see you all being as blind as each other....patting one another on the back and perpetuating your pet theory with nothing but suggestion.

That is simply because you do not understand, as you demonstrate with each post, how science works, you are criticizing a saw because it makes a lousy hammer. You'd do better to equip your tool kit with both a saw and a hammer.

 

[Sapiens]

But you still didn't answer my question.

Here it is again....

"All mammals only have one thing in common (I didn't suggest it was the only thing, but thanks for the zoology lesson).....they suckle their young with milk. Does this method of feeding their young automatically mean they all had this trait because somewhere way back in the evolutionary line, females somehow began to excrete milk from mammary glands that were previously non existent or non-functional? Do we have evidence of any species who have non-productive mammary glands in the evolutionary chain which somehow sprang into production and then automatically instilled the instinct in their young to suckle?"

Please explain......

Do you not speak English?

You said: "All mammals only have one thing in common" but now you claim you "didn't suggest it was the only thing." What does "only have one thing in common" mean?

It means the "only" thing.

As I keep telling you, you can't have things both ways, you need to get a grip on yourself.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I wrote and I quote: "Just pretend that the Theory of Evolution didn't exist. What arguments do you have that might convince me that 1. A god exists. 2. That this god created anything?"

Try again?

How about the Bible itself?

Evidences of an Intelligent Source:

1)Moses' getting it right regarding the 10 steps of Creation? (And science agrees with those basic steps! You know the odds of getting that right?)

2)The ratios used in building Noah's Ark? (6-to-1 length-to-width, and 10-to-1 length-to-height (with 3 decks to provide added stability). Later shipbuilders would learn only by hard experience that such a ratio for a floating, non-power-driven 'boat' can accommodate these stresses. But how did Moses know that, way back then?

3)The Mosaic Law's commands on cleanlines, and quarantining those who handle the dead? (Only began to be appreciated in the latter part of the 19th century, with Pasteur and others; again, how did Moses know?)

4)Job 26:7? (Proven in the 1950's. How did Moses know?)

5)Isaiah 40:22? (How did Isaiah know?)

Can you even appreciate the wisdom in the counsel for people to avoid fornication? I do!

I really could go on and on, but this is sufficient. I feel it would be a waste of my time.

 

[Sapiens]

How about the Bible itself?

Only a true zealot would suggest that, all others would say that religion is not authoritative on matters of science.

“If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.” ― Dalai Lama XIV, The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality.

Evidences of an Intelligent Source:

1)Moses' getting it right regarding the 10 steps of Creation? (And science agrees with those basic steps! You know the odds of getting that right?)

No, science disagrees (e.g., plants before sunlight)

2)The ratios used in building Noah's Ark? (6-to-1 length-to-width, and 10-to-1 length-to-height (with 3 decks to provide added stability). Later shipbuilders would learn only by hard experience that such a ratio for a floating, non-power-driven 'boat' can accommodate these stresses. But how did Moses know that, way back then?

A wooden ark built to those ratios and the biblical dimensions would have come apart in a light wind.

3)The Mosaic Law's commands on cleanlines, and quarantining those who handle the dead? (Only began to be appreciated in the latter part of the 19th century, with Pasteur and others; again, how did Moses know?)

Chalk that up to good early scientific method and observation.

4)Job 26:7? (Proven in the 1950's. How did Moses know?)

He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing. Complete crap, what about the southern skies and the Eastern skies and the western skys, what were they suspended over?

5)Isaiah 40:22? (How did Isaiah know?)

He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in. - all wrong.

fornication
Can you even appreciate the wisdom in the counsel for people to avoid fornication? I do!

That's nice.

Fornication is defined as sexual intercourse between people not married to each other (1). Biblically, fornication has a little wider definition. It can refer to prostitution or promiscuous behavior or indulging in unlawful lust by either sex. It can also reer figuratively to committing idolatry (2) (2 Chronicles 21:11; Isaiah 23:15-17; Revelation 17:2).

But irrelevant do to lack of clarity.

I really could go on and on, but this is sufficient. I feel it would be a waste of my time.

I agree, Bible study for any reason other than literary appreciation is a waste of time.

 

[Deeje]

What dose it take for you personally to accept the evidence?

What does it take?....actual evidence that the "suggestions" made by science are true. The "evidence" is interpreted by biased minds who have a pet theory to validate.....they are going to jump to all the right conclusions because they must, not because the evidence actually telling them anything, but because the evidence is so loose that it allows for gross error in the interpretation.

Where are all the transitional species linking these fossils? If they are separated by millions of years, shouldn't there be many transitional species in between, seen to be heading in the right direction? Why is the fossil record not saying what scientists would like it to?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

What does it take?....actual evidence that the "suggestions" made by science are true. The "evidence" is interpreted by biased minds who have a pet theory to validate.....they are going to jump to all the right conclusions because they must, not because the evidence actually telling them anything, but because the evidence is so loose that it allows for gross error in the interpretation.

Where are all the transitional species linking these fossils? If they are separated by millions of years, shouldn't there be many transitional species in between, seen to be heading in the right direction? Why is the fossil record not saying what scientists would like it to?

We do have transitional species. We have nearly a dozen between ourselves and our common ancestor with apes. How many transitional forms do you need between any two points? The horse example you brought up earlier was another good one when looking a the fossils to see several intermediary forms.

 

[Sapiens]

What does it take?....actual evidence that the "suggestions" made by science are true. The "evidence" is interpreted by biased minds who have a pet theory to validate.....they are going to jump to all the right conclusions because they must, not because the evidence actually telling them anything, but because the evidence is so loose that it allows for gross error in the interpretation.

Where are all the transitional species linking these fossils? If they are separated by millions of years, shouldn't there be many transitional species in between, seen to be heading in the right direction? Why is the fossil record not saying what scientists would like it to?

First, as I've told you before, you need to get over the Platonic Idealism of "kinds" and "species" (the Hebrew in the OT is "Min" which also means "nation" and "group") and see the continuum of life as it is and was. Normally, species inter-grade, one to another over time, ring species permit you to see that over space. Besides, fossilization is an uncommonn event.

Claim CC200.1:
Given all the species that exist and have existed, there should be billions of transitional fossils in the fossil record; we should have found tens of thousands at least.
Source:
Gish, Duane T., 1994. When is a whale a whale? Impact 250 (Apr.). http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=379
Response:

1. Some important factors prevent the formation of fossils from being common:
   • Fossilization itself is not a particularly common event. It requires conditions that preserve the fossil before it becomes scavenged or decayed. Such conditions are common only in a very few habitats, such as river deltas, peat bogs, and tar pits. Organisms that do not live in or near these habitats will be preserved only rarely.
     
     
   • Many types of animals are fragile and do not preserve well.
     
     
   • Many species have small ranges. Their chance of fossilization will be proportionally small.
     
     
   • The evolution of new species probably is fairly rapid in geological terms, so the transitions between species will be uncommon.
   
   Passenger pigeons, once numbered in the billions, went extinct less than 200 years ago. How many passenger pigeon fossils can you find? If they are hard to find, why should we expect to find fossils that are likely from smaller populations and have been subject to millions of years of potential erosion?
   
   
2. Other processes destroy fossils. Erosion (and/or lack of deposition in the first place) often destroys hundreds of millions of years or more of the geological record, so the geological record at any place usually has long gaps. Fossils can also be destroyed by heat or pressure when buried deep underground.
   
   
3. As rare as fossils are, fossil discovery is still rarer. For the most part, we find only fossils that have been exposed by erosion, and only if the exposure is recent enough that the fossils themselves do not erode.
   
   As climates change, species will move, so we cannot expect a transition to occur all at one spot. Fossils often must be collected from all over a continent to find the transitions.
   
   Only Europe and North America have been well explored for fossils because that is where most of the paleontologists lived. Furthermore, regional politics interfere with collecting fossils. Some fabulous fossils have been found in China only recently because before then the politics prevented most paleontology there.
   
   
4. The shortage is not just in fossils but in paleontologists and taxonomists. Preparing and analyzing the material for just one lineage can take a decade of work. There are likely hundreds of transitional fossils sitting in museum drawers, unknown because nobody knowledgeable has examined them.
   
   
5. Description of fossils is often limited to professional literature and does not get popularized. This is especially true of marine microfossils, which have the best record.
   
   
6. If fossilization were so prevalent and young-earth creationism were true, we should find indications in the fossil record of animals migrating from the Ark to other continents.

Links:
Hunt, Kathleen. 1997. Transitional vertebrate fossils FAQ, part 1A. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html#gaps
Further Reading:
Kidwell, S. M. and S. M. Holland. 2002. The quality of the fossil record: Implications for evolutionary analyses. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 33: 561-588. (technical)

Claim CC201:
If evolution proceeds via the accumulation of small steps, we should see a smooth continuum of creatures across the fossil record. Instead, we see long periods where species do not change, and there are gaps between the changes.
Source:
Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pg. 78.
Johnson, Phillip E., 1990. Evolution as dogma: The establishment of naturalism. First Things no. 6, p. 15-22, http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/pjdogma1.htm
Response:

1. The idea that gradual change should appear throughout the fossil record is called phyletic gradualism. It is based on the following tenets:
   1. New species arise by the transformation of an ancestral population into its modified descendants.
   2. The transformation is even and slow.
   3. The transformation involves most or all of the ancestral population.
   4. The transformation occurs over most or all of the ancestral species' geographic range.
   
   However, all but the first of these is false far more often that not. Studies of modern populations and incipient species show that new species arise mostly from the splitting of a small part of the original species into a new geographical area. The population genetics of small populations allow this new species to evolve relatively quickly. Its evolution may allow it to spread into new geographical areas. Since the actual transitions occur relatively quickly and in a relatively small area, the transitions do not often show up in the fossil record. Sudden appearance in the fossil record often simply reflects that an existing species moved into a new region.
   
   Once species are well adapted to an environment, selective pressures tend to keep them that way. A change in the environment that alters the selective pressure would then end the "stasis" (or lead to extinction).
   
   It should be noted that even Darwin did not expect the rate of evolutionary change to be constant.[N]atural selection will generally act very slowly, only at long intervals of time, and only on a few of the inhabitants of the same region. I further believe that these slow, intermittent results accord well with what geology tells us of the rate and manner at which the inhabitants of the world have changed (Darwin 1872, 140-141, chap. 4)."But I must here remark that I do not suppose that the process ever goes on so regularly as is represented in the diagram, though in itself made somewhat irregular, nor that it goes on continuously; it is far more probable that each form remains for long periods unaltered, and then again undergoes modification (Darwin 1872, 152).It is a more important consideration . . . that the period during which each species underwent modification, though long as measured by years, was probably short in comparison with that during which it remained without undergoing any change (Darwin 1872, 428, chap. 10)."it might require a long succession of ages to adapt an organism to some new and peculiar line of life, for instance, to fly through the air; and consequently that the transitional forms would often long remain confined to some one region; but that, when this adaptation had once been effected, and a few species had thus acquired a great advantage over other organisms, a comparatively short time would be necessary to produce many divergent forms, which would spread rapidly and widely throughout the world (Darwin 1872, 433).
   
   
2. The imperfection of the fossil record (due to erosion and periods unfavorable to fossil preservation) also causes gaps, although it probably cannot account for all of them.
   
   
3. Some transitional sequences exist, which, despite an uneven rate of change, still show a gradual continuum of forms.
   
   
4. The fossil record still shows a great deal of change over time. The creationists who make note of the many gaps almost never admit the logical conclusion: If they are due to creation, then there have been hundreds, perhaps even millions, of separate creation events scattered through time.

Links:
Elsberry, Wesley R. 1996. Punctuated equilibria. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html
References:

1. Darwin, C. 1872. The Origin of Species, 6th Edition. Senate, London. http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species-6th-edition/index.html

 

[Sapiens]

Claim CC201.1:
The theory of punctuated equilibrium was proposed ad hoc to explain away the embarrassing gaps in the fossil record.
Source:
Yahya, Harun, 2003. Darwinism Refuted, The invalidity of punctuated equilibrium. http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/equilibrium.html
Response:

1. The theory of punctuated equilibrium is based on positive evidence, including extensive studies of living and extinct species groups (Eldredge and Gould 1972).
   
   
2. The idea of phyletic gradualism, which is invoked to justify a lack of gaps, fails to fit the evidence of population biology.
   
   
3. There is nothing wrong with proposing theories to fit the data.

Links:
Elsberry, Wesley, 1996. Punctuated equilibria. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html
References:

1. Eldredge, N. and S. J. Gould, 1972. Punctuated equilibria: An alternative to phyletic gradualism. In: Models In Paleobiology (T. J. M. Schopf, ed.), San Francisco: Freeman, Cooper & Co., 82-115.

Further Reading:
Gould, Stephen J. 1983. Evolution as fact and theory. In Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, pp. 253-262. http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html

Claim CC216.2:
The fossil record does not show a gradual development from a small animal to the large modern horse. The horse family tree is not simple and direct; some scientists say Eohippus was not an ancestor of the modern horse; and the different types of fossils show stability, not gradual change.
Source:
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pp. 66-67.
Response:

1. The fossil record does not show a gradual, linear progression from Hyracotherium (Eohippus) to Equus. Nor is there any reason to think it should. The fossil record of equids shows that various lineages split into several branches. Evolution was not smooth and gradual; traits evolved at different rates and occasionally reversed. Some species arose gradually, others suddenly. All of this is in accord with the messiness we expect from evolution and from biology in general.
   
   
2. Some creationists consider all the species in the horse family to be the same "kind." They accept "microevolution" from Hyracotherium at the time of the Flood, to modern horses and donkeys first recorded less than four hundred years later (Wood and Cavanaugh 2003). This rate of change is far greater than biologists accept.

Links:
FLMNH, n.d. Fossil horses in hyperspace. http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/natsci/vertpaleo/fhc/fhc.htm

Hunt, Kathleen, 1995. Horse evolution. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html
References:

1. Wood, T. C. and D. P. Cavanaugh, 2003. An evaluation of lineages and trajectories as baraminological membership criteria. Occas. Papers of the BSG 2: 1-6. http://www.bryancore.org/bsg/opbsg/002.html

Further Reading:
Gould, Stephen J., 1991. Life's little joke. In: Bully for Brontosaurus, New York: W.W. Norton, pp. 168-181.

(thanks to http://www.talkorigins.org/ )

 

[Cateau]

It's called "sexual selection", Deeje. It's been known about since Darwin's time, but apparently it's still news to you. Google is your friend here. That is, if you have any honest desire to become informed of that which you blindly condemn.

Soooooo ugly ppl.......r accidents of nature lol. Why do these ugly genes continue to pass on and excessively

 

[Deeje]

A small number of caves, including 25,000-year-old Pech Merle in southern France, feature horses painted white with black spots. Some archaeologists have argued that this leopard-like pattern was fanciful and symbol laden rather than realistic. Indeed, in a 2009 analysis of DNA from the bones of nearly 90 ancient horses dated from about 12,000 to 1,000 years ago, researchers found genetic evidence for bay and black coat colors but no sign of the spotted variety, suggesting that the spotted horse could have been the figment of some artist’s imagination. Although researchers can only speculate on what prehistoric artists were trying to express, hypotheses range from shamanistic and ritualistic activities to attempts to capture the spirit of horses and other animals that ancient humans hunted.

But in a new paper published online today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the same team reports finding that spotted horses did indeed exist around the time that cave artists were doing their best work. The researchers, led by geneticists Arne Ludwig of the Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research in Berlin and Michael Hofreiter of the University of York in the United Kingdom, analyzed DNA from an older sample of 31 prehistoric horses from Siberia as well as Eastern and Western Europe, ranging from about 20,000 to 2,200 years ago. They found that 18 of the horses were bay, seven were black, but six had a genetic variant — called LP — that corresponds to leopard-like spotting in modern horses. Moreover, out of 10 Western European horses estimated to be about 14,000 years old, four had the LP genetic marker, suggesting that spotted horses were not uncommon during the heyday of cave painting.

If so, the team argues, prehistoric artists may have been drawing what they saw rather than creating imaginary creatures. Prehistoric horses came in at least “three coat color"
Ludwig says, “and exactly these three [colors] are also seen in cave paintings. Cave art is more realistic than often suggested.”
(thanks Wired Magazine)

Wasn't it you who posted this....?

Pre-domestication color variants including black and spotted have been inferred from cave wall paintings and confirmed by genomic analysis (Pruvost, M.; et al. November 2011. "Genotypes of predomestic horses match phenotypes painted in Paleolithic works of cave art". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 108 (46): 18626–18630. doi:10.1073/pnas.1108982108.].

What does this have to do with Eohippus looking suspiciously like a deer? Not "suggestion posing as a fact" or anything....?

We now have horse DNA going back 700,000 years. This now sequenced genome offers a glimpse at the ancient horse and how equine genes have evolved. Genes that are involved in immunity, the sense of smell, and muscle development have all changed significantly since then, color appears to to have been stable, Bay, Black and LP. Does this guarantee that was so 55 million years ago? No, it does not, but this data, combined with the sort of protective adaptation that even you agree with and the guiding principle of uniformitarianism, makes those color schemes very probable.
Now. now. I know how inordinately proud you are of you level of ignorance, but this borders on hubris.

But of course there is no hubris on your part, is there?

But we have already determined that you have not the vaguest clue as to the depths of verifiable evidence that I posses and you've stipulated that even if you did you are too biologically ignorant to understand it. YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.

Can't have what both ways? A degree in biology doesn't make an arrogant person right.

No, I understand evolution and it's processes and I understand the immense weakness of your lack of evidence. I take it on your word that you do not understand evolution and it's processes and that you have no grasp of the fullness of the information that modern science has at it's disposal. I am not resting on my credentials, in fact, I have not (save debunking your "common sense" foolishness) mentioned them,, though I have in the course of this conversation drawn on them to demonstrate the abject weakness of yours. If your Bible study as as weak as your biological study ... would any of your fellow travelers take you seriously? I expect not. Why do you expect us to take you seriously?

It doesn't stop, does it? The downgrading and the resorting to humiliation to elevate your education. The fact is, if the people who educated you were wrong, then everything you've learned will be wrong too.

My Bible study has imparted knowledge to me that no science degree could ever match.

You can bloviate that same phrase till you're blue in the face, but you know what they say ... empty barrels make he most noise.

Actually its empty vessels, but who cares.

Science does not deal in "proof" rather it deals in probabilities.

Thank you...this is what I have been saying all along.

One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.” Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof.

Thank you again.....I rest my case your honor...the witness has confessed.

The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.

I know....you don't have to keep reminding us....we get it. There is no proof and never has been.

In contrast, all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final. There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science.

Oh, stop it! You are just digging a bigger hole to bury evolutionary science in.

The currently accepted theory of a phenomenon is simply the best explanation for it among all available alternatives. Its status as the accepted theory is contingent on what other theories are available and might suddenly change tomorrow if there appears a better theory or new evidence that might challenge the accepted theory. No knowledge or theory (which embodies scientific knowledge) is final.

How many posts did it take for this confession? Haven't I said all along that science is an unproven theory and should be taught as such? I have no problem with theories, as long as they are not sold to the masses as facts.

That, by the way, is why science is so much fun.

In contrast, there is no such binary evaluation of scientific theories. Scientific theories are neither absolutely false nor absolutely true. They are always somewhere in between. Some theories are better, more credible, and more accepted than others. There is always more, more credible, and better evidence for some theories than others. It is a matter of more or less, not either/or. For example, experimental evidence is better and more credible than correlational evidence, but even the former cannot prove a theory; it only provides very strong evidence for the theory and against its alternatives.

Yes! and this is all I needed to confirm all that has been said on this thread up to now.

The creationists and other critics of evolution are absolutely correct when they point out that evolution is “just a theory” and it is not “proven.” What they neglect to mention is that everything in science is just a theory and is never proven. Unlike the Prime Number Theorem, which will absolutely and forever be true, it is still possible, albeit very, very, very, very, very unlikely, that the theory of evolution by natural and sexual selection may one day turn out to be false. But then again, it is also possible, albeit very, very, very, very, very unlikely, that monkeys will fly out of my *** tomorrow. In my judgment, both events are about equally likely.

(thanks, Satoshi Kanazawa writing in Psychology Today)

Like I have said all along.....neither camp has "proof" that what they believe is true because there is no science that can "prove" either one.....so thank you for your honesty in clearing that up.

That is simply because you do not understand, as you demonstrate with each post, how science works, you are criticizing a saw because it makes a lousy hammer. You'd do better to equip your tool kit with both a saw and a hammer.

You just described beautifully "how science works".

But perhaps its more like a blind person disputing over the color red? If you had no vision, what would it matter? Disputing over how living things changed really never answers the more important question of how life began....does it?

There is more than one way to be blind. I recall Jesus speaking about 'the blind leading the blind'.....and 'both falling into a hole'. I hear that the excavation is huge!

 

[Deeje]

We do have transitional species. We have nearly a dozen between ourselves and our common ancestor with apes. How many transitional forms do you need between any two points? The horse example you brought up earlier was another good one when looking a the fossils to see several intermediary forms.

No you don't. There is not a shred of actual evidence for a chain of evolutionary descent between any of them...it is assumed....suggested and theorized, but there is nothing real to back that up. You could just as easily be looking at a variety of ape species all created by the same power, out of the same raw materials. We know that many species came and went before the creation of man, so our "beliefs" are just as valid as yours. Variety and similarity do not = evolution.

 

[Deeje]

Some important factors prevent the formation of fossils from being common:

• Fossilization itself is not a particularly common event. It requires conditions that preserve the fossil before it becomes scavenged or decayed. Such conditions are common only in a very few habitats, such as river deltas, peat bogs, and tar pits. Organisms that do not live in or near these habitats will be preserved only rarely.
  
  
• Many types of animals are fragile and do not preserve well.
  
  
• Many species have small ranges. Their chance of fossilization will be proportionally small.
  
  
• The evolution of new species probably is fairly rapid in geological terms, so the transitions between species will be uncommon.

So this is an admission that fossils are a poor source of information. The "excuses" offered are rather pathetic given that the fossil record is so often referred to as evidence for macro-evolution. Flimsy stuff.

The shortage is not just in fossils but in paleontologists and taxonomists. Preparing and analyzing the material for just one lineage can take a decade of work. There are likely hundreds of transitional fossils sitting in museum drawers, unknown because nobody knowledgeable has examined them.

And this means that all that "evidence" "sitting in museum drawers" is yelling out loudly, but no one has evolved ears to hear them yet?

The theory of punctuated equilibrium was proposed ad hoc to explain away the embarrassing gaps in the fossil record.

There is nothing wrong with proposing theories to fit the data.

Nothing at all.

The fossil record does not show a gradual development from a small animal to the large modern horse. The horse family tree is not simple and direct; some scientists say Eohippus was not an ancestor of the modern horse; and the different types of fossils show stability, not gradual change.

Horses have always been horses for as long as man has lived on earth. Large and small horses still exist.

How does that gel with evolution and common ancestry. Both are obviously horses. They did not evolve from any other "kind".

Evolution was not smooth and gradual; traits evolved at different rates and occasionally reversed. Some species arose gradually, others suddenly. All of this is in accord with the messiness we expect from evolution and from biology in general.

Sure it is....all very "scientific".

 

[Hockeycowboy]

all others would say that religion is not authoritative on matters of science.

The Bible is not religion. It's a book on which many religions claim they are based, like 43,000 of them (the vast majority professing Christianity), each with their own view!! Yet, the Bible only has one set of teachings, not 43,000 different ones.

No, science disagrees (e.g., plants before sunlight)

Genesis 1:3 comes before Genesis 1:11. So, it agrees. (If you're wrong on this, maybe you're wrong on your other assessments?)

A wooden ark built to those ratios and the biblical dimensions would have come apart in a light wind.

You forget, it was covered inside and out with tar. Plus the three decks provided interior support. The resinous wood also made it waterproof.

Your comment does nothing to discredit the dimensions.

(I'm sure that Jehovah, who made the sun and brought the Flood, could protect a boat! No doubt He did.)

He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing. Complete crap, what about the southern skies and the Eastern skies and the western skys, what were they suspended over?

It says "Earth", not "sky".

He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in. - all wrong.

Oh, the Earth isn't a circle? News to me! (The Hebrew word there -- "chug" -- can mean sphere.)

Fornication is defined as sexual intercourse between people not married to each other (1). Biblically, fornication has a little wider definition. It can refer to prostitution or promiscuous behavior or indulging in unlawful lust by either sex. It can also reer figuratively to committing idolatry (2) (2 Chronicles 21:11; Isaiah 23:15-17; Revelation 17:2).

Good Scriptures! James 4:4, too. Fornication can include bestiality also. But forbidding the wider definition wouldnt allow for committing the narrower one.

Bible study for any reason other than literary appreciation is a waste of time.

What a sad conclusion!