What does the fossil record say?

[Autodidact]

Demonstrate, please.

Wrong question! HOW so?

These "laws" - where did they come from?

Where did the matter come from for the shirt, the room, the vapor?

You seem to miss the FACT that these experiments are done by someone who utilizes laws that he did not make.
Chemical affinity and electromagnetic attraction were not invented by men. To understand them, one must be properly educated.
You're not selling me that bill of goods! Self-organization is a myth!

Fossils? Evolution? Anything on that subject at all?

Sorry, Charlie! Natural things do not just "happen." They are controlled by laws and forces beyond the understanding of men. Nothing orderly ever arranges itself. Water freezes at a given temperature. The water did not set the temperature. A snowflake is the result of temperature, gravity, etc.

That's right. God doesn't cut each one out individually.

There you go with that "happen" song again! Nothing exists that was not made!What is the purpose of stars and planets? Do you think they are useless because you think they made themselves? What forces could men unleash if they managed to move one of them out of their assigned orbits? Don't tell me their orbits are random. Their precision rules that out.

If you put a magnet close to a nail, something "happens" But that is only because somebody put those things in close proximnity to each other. Nothing "happens" if you don't. Tell me - what happens if those stars do not cool down? How does your finger know when to stop growing? There is a blueprint - drawn by someone else.

Start a thread. You're in the wrong thread. You're off topic. You're not discussing the thread topic.

You're joking - right? There is no such thing as a "primitive" cell.

They are all of a very complex nature. Nothing reproduces itself.

That's the same old Darwinian "survival of the fittest" hokey. That situation does not exist in nature.

Your position is that the fittest don't survive?

Either a will exists or it doesn't. And it cannot exist without a personality.

Knock, knock, wilson. You seem really interested in arguing for the existence of God. Why don't you start a thread and do that? It has no place in this one.

FOSSILS? EVOLUTION?

 

[DeistPrimate]

Religion: Natural Rationalism
Title:Facts not Faith
I believe in the theory of evolution myself, but I responded the way I did because of the religiosity of outhouse's response. Proclaiming that evolution is a fact and that there is no debate is something I would expect a religious person to say. I am always interested in learning more about evolution because it does fascinates me.

There is some debate within scientific fields concerning the truth of the theory itself even though only a tiny minority within relevant fields disbelieve in it. Most of the debate concerning the theory is happening outside the scientific community and this thread is evidence of that.

Dan your posts do smack to me as somewhat intellectually dishonest. You say you "believe in the theory of evolution" which is not something a person who relies on 'rationalism' and 'facts not faith' would say. Someone who actually understands the scientific process and how the scientific community isn't out to exclude any falsifying information to any theory knows belief doesn't enter into it would also understand one doesn't believe in a theory of science - it either has strong predictive powers (reliability) or doesn't and no falsifying data (validity) or it does and is thus falsified.

If you "believe" in evolution yet are asking people for evidence this position makes no rational sense. If you don't know about the evidence why do you "believe" in it? Examples of the observational evidence the Theory of Evolution explains is splattered all over these forums and all over the internet and in Biology 101 courses where ever fine high schools abound. Some folks right here on this thread have already reiterated good examples of the evidence.

As someone else already pointed out, likely the most compelling juxtaposing of compelling evidence for me is the agreement between the genetic evidence and fossil evidence. This demonstrates the grand predictive power of the theory.

These kinds of threads are not examples of real scientific debates outside the mainstream scientific community. Everyone who has stated there is no real scientific debate about evolution being a fact is correct. Evolution is as observable a fact as are atoms, just because there's an atomic theory doesn't mean there's a serious argument atoms don't exist.

You know there's a small but vocal group of racists with some historic training who claim they're being shut out of history courses because they claim there's no evidence the holocaust happened. Should we allow them in history classes to repeat their nonsense ignoring hard evidence falsifying their claims and representing to students their arguments as equal to valid historic study?

"Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" evolutionary biologist and Russian Orthodox Christian Theodosius Dobzhansky 1973

 

[Dan4reason]

Dan your posts do smack to me as somewhat intellectually dishonest. You say you "believe in the theory of evolution" which is not something a person who relies on 'rationalism' and 'facts not faith' would say. Someone who actually understands the scientific process and how the scientific community isn't out to exclude any falsifying information to any theory knows belief doesn't enter into it would also understand one doesn't believe in a theory of science - it either has strong predictive powers (reliability) or doesn't and no falsifying data (validity) or it does and is thus falsified.

If you "believe" in evolution yet are asking people for evidence this position makes no rational sense. If you don't know about the evidence why do you "believe" in it? Examples of the observational evidence the Theory of Evolution explains is splattered all over these forums and all over the internet and in Biology 101 courses where ever fine high schools abound. Some folks right here on this thread have already reiterated good examples of the evidence.

As someone else already pointed out, likely the most compelling juxtaposing of compelling evidence for me is the agreement between the genetic evidence and fossil evidence. This demonstrates the grand predictive power of the theory.

These kinds of threads are not examples of real scientific debates outside the mainstream scientific community. Everyone who has stated there is no real scientific debate about evolution being a fact is correct. Evolution is as observable a fact as are atoms, just because there's an atomic theory doesn't mean there's a serious argument atoms don't exist.

You know there's a small but vocal group of racists with some historic training who claim they're being shut out of history courses because they claim there's no evidence the holocaust happened. Should we allow them in history classes to repeat their nonsense ignoring hard evidence falsifying their claims and representing to students their arguments as equal to valid historic study?

"Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" evolutionary biologist and Russian Orthodox Christian Theodosius Dobzhansky 1973

In my opinion, proclaiming that evolution is a fact and there is no debate is giving something I believe a bad name. If you have to declare with confidence that something is a fact without doubt in a debate forum I would expect you to provide at least some evidence in the same post. Whether you are talking about something I agree or disagree with is irrelevant.

I have to correct you in a few places. I have actually taken biology courses and they assume that evolution is true as a theory but are not out to prove it. The topic that does provide a large amount of evidence for evolution is physical anthropology but the same cannot be said for most other courses.

 

[Dan4reason]

IMO the most compelling evidence is the nested hierarchy of all living things. To me, this single set (consisting of millions of pieces) of evidence is compelling, without looking at a single fossil.

I have never understood why many evolutionists consider this to be evidence. Sure evolution could not be true if there were no diversity but this does not seem to prove evolution and disprove creationism. If hypothetically, all creatures were created by a designer then you would expect for some creatures to be similar to others and we could categorize them.

Next would be the precise patterns of homologies. Again, it is persuasive in itself. It's like a diagram of evolutionary relationship. The fact that it matches up with the DNA evidence pretty much seals it up.

I like that part too. For example, apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes, humans have 23. If we are related to apes then either our last common ancestor had 23 chromosomes and so the ape genome changed in some way, or the LCA had 24 chromosome so only humans changed, or it had some other number so that both humans and apes changed.

It is easiest to assume that only humans changed in this respect so the question is, what happened to the human genome to bring it down from 24 to 23 chromosomes? The only plausible answer is that there was a gene fusion a long time ago. If this is so, then we should be able to compare the human and chimpanzee genome and find this fusion.

Chromosomes have telomereres on the tips and if they fused the resulting chromosomes should have telomeres in the center. Indeed we find this irregularity in chromosome #2. Scientists even know the exact place where these genes fused. I don't know if you are already aware of this but here is a video I got it from.
[youtube]zi8FfMBYCkk[/youtube]
YouTube - Ken Miller on Human Evolution

 

[Dan4reason]

That's the same old Darwinian "survival of the fittest" hokey. That situation does not exist in nature.

Reading this, I am starting to understand why outhouse got so annoyed. Whether you are a creationist or evolutionist, nature is rough and in general fit animals tend to survive. There is extreme selection with most animals dying before adulthood, and the ones with superior hearing, strength, speed, sight, reflexes, and intelligence will have a higher probability of survival.

 

[jarofthoughts]

I have never understood why many evolutionists consider this to be evidence. Sure evolution could not be true if there were no diversity but this does not seem to prove evolution and disprove creationism. If hypothetically, all creatures were created by a designer then you would expect for some creatures to be similar to others and we could categorize them.

I don't think you understood the evidence that Auto was referring to either.

I like that part too. For example, apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes, humans have 23. <snipped>I don't know if you are already aware of this but here is a video I got it from.

We are. Or, at least, I am.

 

[wilsoncole]

Fossils? Evolution? Anything on that subject at all?

That's right. God doesn't cut each one out individually.

Start a thread. You're in the wrong thread. You're off topic. You're not discussing the thread topic.

What does this picture prove? There's no such thing as a "primitive" cell. Their complicated nature is mind-boggling!
"The instructions within the DNA of the cell, "if written out, would fill a thousand 600-page books," explains National Geographic. "Each cell is a world brimming with as many as two hundred trillion tiny groups of atoms called molecules. .&#12288;.&#12288;. Our 46 chromosome &#8216;threads&#8217; linked together would measure more than six feet. Yet the nucleus that contains them is less than four ten-thousandths of an inch in diameter."

Newsweek magazine uses an illustration to give an idea of the cell&#8217;s activities: "Each of those 100 trillion cells functions like a walled city. Power plants generate the cell&#8217;s energy. Factories produce proteins, vital units of chemical commerce. Complex transportation systems guide specific chemicals from point to point within the cell and beyond. Sentries at the barricades control the export and import markets, and monitor the outside world for signs of danger. Disciplined biological armies stand ready to grapple with invaders. A centralized genetic government maintains order." (Creation ch. 4 p.48)

http://www.biologycorner.com/resources/cell04.jpg
I know about cell-division. You miss the point of the statement entirely:
Nothing reproduces ITSELF! Only copies.
If #1 and #6 are the same, then when #1 dies, #6 dies too because they are the same. The picture proves nothing! NOTHING reproduces itself.

Your position is that the fittest don't survive?

My position is that even the "unfit" survive! It is claimed that the Giraffe survived only by growing a long neck. Yet, the sheep survived. Swift deer live alongside slower ones. Do you think the carrier pidgeon is extinct because it was unfit to survive? In mating season, one bull moose proves itself more fit than another; yet it keeps happening - year after year. By now, no "unfit" moose should appear. The one who reproduces dies, just the same as the one who does not get to mate. And the moose kind continues.....just as Genesis says: "Let every living thing produce after its own kind." (Genesis 1:24)

Knock, knock, wilson. You seem really interested in arguing for the existence of God. Why don't you start a thread and do that? It has no place in this one.

You seem to be arguing for the non-existence of God.
That puts us on an even plane.

 

[outhouse]

.just as Genesis says

genesis is not a history book or a science book. Its fiction wilson we know this to be true.

there was 5 differet authors. The fables were talked about over a campfire for 300-500 years before they were written down into different books by many different jewish people. Then later they put two of the books together thats why you see two different creation accounts that contradict each other. its shamefull you feel this way. Then when they put the two books together they find theres 3 authors and then the church starts writting a little THEN a redactor steps in a and edits freely. There are parts that may have moses saying or a chapter they can trace back to moses but he wasnt named as a author until almost a 1000 years after his death.

Gods hand is not present in these fables and jews will tell you NOT to read it litterally that it MUST be read allegorically.

wisloncole evolution is real and creation was OUTLAWED from schools in a country that is ran by mostly christians and in a country where only %40 believe in evolution..

Theres a reason, thats because its observable facts have been see over and over. there is no biology without evolution. There are no biomechanics without evolution. The whole biotech inductry would fail and die tomorrow if evolution didnt happen.

 

[outhouse]

flood never happened.
adam didnt live over 900 years
noah didnt live over 800 years
there was no worldwide flood
the sun doesnt revolve around a flat earth

it goes on and on and on. fiction is all I can say to you

 

[painted wolf]

Why would anyone think that bacteria that have been evolving for billions of years would be "primitive"?

Nothing modern is "primitive".

wa:do

 

[DeistPrimate]

In my opinion, proclaiming that evolution is a fact and there is no debate is giving something I believe a bad name. If you have to declare with confidence that something is a fact without doubt in a debate forum I would expect you to provide at least some evidence in the same post. Whether you are talking about something I agree or disagree with is irrelevant.
I have to correct you in a few places. I have actually taken biology courses and they assume that evolution is true as a theory but are not out to prove it. The topic that does provide a large amount of evidence for evolution is physical anthropology but the same cannot be said for most other courses.

Where did you correct me again? I missed it. I'm glad you have taken Biology courses, I have a B.S. minor in Biology so I've taken a few too. I did provide you with an example of hard evidence, did you not see it? not understand it?

Still I'd have to ask, since you've stated you "believe" in evolution why do you? Apparently it isn't due to an examination of the evidence because you continue to claim you don't know of any.

 

[DeistPrimate]

Why would anyone think that bacteria that have been evolving for billions of years would be "primitive"?

Nothing modern is "primitive".

wa:do

I was actually going to post this very point, glad I saw you'd already done so.

Exactly, just because a lifeform is a microbe doesn't mean it too doesn't have a 4 billion year evolutionary history. There is strong evidence organelles in protozoans and other unicellular life developed through symbiosis.

Geez creationists, read a book (no besides that one).

 

[Big_TJ]

You're skirting around the issue, just like every other atheist. Try dealing with it directly.
Do you want me to show you what journals respected by evolutionists say about that "spontaneous" beginning?

Why would I want to speak about spontaneous beginning in this thread?? This is a thread about fossil records and evolution. What about this statement you can't understand: EVOLUTION DOES NOT CARE ABOUT HOW THINGS STARTED; IT DEALS WITH HOW WE GOT WERE WE ARE!!!!!

BTW - Who is Kent Hovind?

A Young Earth Creationist whose arguments against evolution are practically the same as the ones you are using. You can read more about his dissertation (for his "PHD" degree) here:

The Dissertation Kent Hovind Doesn't Want You to Read
Kent Hovind's Doctoral Dissertation : Pharyngula

 

[Dan4reason]

Where did you correct me again? I missed it. I'm glad you have taken Biology courses, I have a B.S. minor in Biology so I've taken a few too. I did provide you with an example of hard evidence, did you not see it? not understand it?

Still I'd have to ask, since you've stated you "believe" in evolution why do you? Apparently it isn't due to an examination of the evidence because you continue to claim you don't know of any.

I never said I didn't know any evidence, I simply stated that the basic biology courses I took did not provide much evidence for evolution. That makes sense because they are not out to prove evolution just like my english class is not out to prove that english is indeed from England. I also said that the class that does provide a good quantity of evidence is a physical anthropology class I took. Lucy is one of the pieces of evidence and she had the ability to walk.

 

[RedOne77]

Why would anyone think that bacteria that have been evolving for billions of years would be "primitive"?

Nothing modern is "primitive".

wa:do

But modern organisms can have "primitive" or basal traits.

 

[wilsoncole]

Why would anyone think that bacteria that have been evolving for billions of years would be "primitive"?

Nothing modern is "primitive".

wa:do

This has to be directed to Autodidact - right?

 

[wilsoncole]

Why would I want to speak about spontaneous beginning in this thread??

I don't know! I asked you nothing and I will keep it that way.

A Young Earth Creationist whose arguments against evolution are practically the same as the ones you are using. You can read more about his dissertation (for his "PHD" degree) here:

The Dissertation Kent Hovind Doesn't Want You to Read
Kent Hovind's Doctoral Dissertation : Pharyngula[/quote]

I have read nothing written by Kent Hovind (whoever that is) and I have no desire to speak about him or his dissertation.

 

[Autodidact]

I have never understood why many evolutionists consider this to be evidence.

I'll explain. According to ToE, every new species branches off from an existing species. They never arise sort of out there by themselves from nothing. So ToE predicts that every single species on earth will be related to every other species in a pattern like an enormous, gigantic, incredibly detailed tree, with millions of leaves. If we trace the pattern, it should resemble a tree, with a trunk, huge limbs, branches, twigs, etc. Because even an entire Order or Family or whatever started out as a single species branching off from an existing species, just as an enormous limb of a tree started out as a twig growing off another branch. So even if we find a new species of beetle in Brazil, a new fish in the bottom of the arctic ocean, or a new slime mold in your fridge, we should be able to find an existing species that it is related to in just this way, and no other.

And that is exactly what we do find. Every species on earth is related to every other species in just this exact, very specific pattern, and no other:

So there you have millions, literally millions of predictions, and every one of them conforms to ToE.

That alone is huge confirmatory evidence, to me.

To me, it's never helpful to say, "God could have created them that way." If you believe in God, then God did create them that way. The only question is, how? Did he separately magically zap all of these species into existence, and by wild coincidence they just happen to fall into the only pattern that evolution could possibly have created? If you start accepting magic zapping, then each and every piece of evidence you find is consistent with it, as well as all the evidence you don't find. It's not falsifiable. God could have magically poofed all the species to look as if they had evolved, or he could have zapped them in a way that each one was completely different, or in a linear pattern, or any way at all. After all, God is all-powerful and mysterious. So that takes you out of the realm of science, where knowledge is not possible and evidence is not useful.

 

[painted wolf]

This has to be directed to Autodidact - right?

No. to both of you.

wa:do

 

[wilsoncole]

No. to both of you.

wa:do

How come?
I don't believe there is any such thing as a "primitive cell," and I said so.
All living cells are highly complicated.