What does the fossil record say?

[wilsoncole]

Please stop spamming us with useless crap from JW propaganda. Either make your argument, or cite a scientific source to support your claim. No one outside the world of JW thinks there is any merit to JW propaganda.

How would you know?

So apparently you and the JW liars think that all the paleontologists are a bunch of idiots?

About the majority, I do - but I wouldn't say it out loud.

What - getting emotional on me?
This is not effective refutation.
I gather you don't want to take on Lonnig.
That is exactly why I wrote:
"Please - don’t tell me this man is not a scientist. Let's deal with the science - avoid slander or negative remarks regarding the nature of the magazine or character of the researcher.
I would like to see what your branch of science has learned about this issue."

See if you can impartial and examine his evidence.

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[outhouse]

I reject evolution totally

thats due to your severe lack of education

well that and religion has closed your mind because 3000 years ago some ancient hebrews took pagans myths and made them there own with a mythical creation story that has never held water.

 

[wilsoncole]

From what I've read of Lonnig's work, he seems to making two major errors:

1) Assumption of heterozygosity.
2) He is purposely limiting the types of mutations applied in research.

From Lonnig's work:
"The Reproductive Powers of Living Beings and the Survival of the Fittest
Dobzhansky’s 1937 work Genetics and the Origin of Species is generally viewed as the crystallization point for the origin and growth of the modern synthesis or neo-Darwinian theory of evolution (Lönnig, 1999a). There is hardly a better example to illustrate the key message (and, at the same time, the weaknesses) of the modern theory of natural selection than the following quotation from this pioneering work of Dobzhansky (p. 149):

With consummate mastery Darwin shows natural selection to be a direct consequence of the appallingly great reproductive powers of living beings. A single individual of the fungus Lycoperdon bovista produces 7 x 1011 spores; Sisymbrium sophia and Nicotiana tabacum, respectively, 730,000 and 360,000 seed; salmon, 28,000,000 eggs per season; and the American oyster up to 114,000,000 eggs in a single spawning.

Even the slowest breeding forms produce more offspring than can survive if the population is to remain numerically stationary. Death and destruction of a majority of the individuals produced undoubtedly takes place. If, then, the population is composed of a mixture of hereditary types, some of which are more and others less well adapted to the environment, a greater proportion of the former than of the latter would be expected to survive.

In modern language this means that, among the survivors, a greater frequency of carriers of certain genes or chromosome structures would be present than among the ancestors...
For agreement on and further documentation of the principle of natural selection, see the group of authors cited above, beginning with Bell (1997). However, in the 1950s, French biologists, such as Cuénot, Tétry, and Chauvin, who did not follow the modern synthesis, raised the following objection to this kind of reasoning (according to Litynski, 1961, p. 63):

Out of 120,000 fertilized eggs of the green frog only two individuals survive. Are we to conclude that these two frogs out of 120,000 were selected by nature because they were the fittest ones; or rather - as Cuenot said - that natural selection is nothing but blind mortality which selects nothing at all?"

NATURAL SELECTION

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[outhouse]

1937 work Genetics

wow atleast you stay up on current events!!!!!!

 

[painted wolf]

More recent studies (1980's vs. 1960's) show that at least some populations of frogs have survival rates as high as 50% annually.

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

I wonder how your source chooses his numbers... they don't seem to be reflected by the actual research in the field.

wa:do

 

[tumbleweed41]

Quick thought....
What part of "What does the fossil record say?" do you not comprehend?

If the fossil record, the subject of this thread, does not provide empirical evidence of Creationism, the the Creationist must change the subject and appeal to the authority of a handful of outdated and misinformed sources in a very weak attempt to attack evolutionary biology.

 

[wilsoncole]

Mutation has been consistently observed to create new species.

Good catchphrase, but not true.


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[LuisDantas]

Out of curiosity, why do you claim so? Are you saying that there is a lying conspiracy or something?

After all, speciation due to mutation has been observed time and again, for decades at least, and is supported by essentially all available data.

So either you are bluffing or saying that everyone else is lying. Which is it?

 

[wilsoncole]

More recent studies (1980's vs. 1960's) show that at least some populations of frogs have survival rates as high as 50% annually.

Except for one thing:
The survival rate for ALL frogs is extremely low.


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[wilsoncole]

Out of curiosity, why do you claim so? Are you saying that there is a lying conspiracy or something?

After all, speciation due to mutation has been observed time and again, for decades at least, and is supported by essentially all available data.

So either you are bluffing or saying that everyone else is lying. Which is it?

The refutation - please!

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[Dirty Penguin]

From Lonnig's work:
"The Reproductive Powers of Living Beings and the Survival of the Fittest
Dobzhansky&#8217;s 1937 work Genetics and the Origin of Species is generally viewed as the crystallization point for the origin and growth of the modern synthesis or neo-Darwinian theory of evolution (Lönnig, 1999a). There is hardly a better example to illustrate the key message (and, at the same time, the weaknesses) of the modern theory of natural selection than the following quotation from this pioneering work of Dobzhansky (p. 149):

With consummate mastery Darwin shows natural selection to be a direct consequence of the appallingly great reproductive powers of living beings. A single individual of the fungus Lycoperdon bovista produces 7 x 1011 spores; Sisymbrium sophia and Nicotiana tabacum, respectively, 730,000 and 360,000 seed; salmon, 28,000,000 eggs per season; and the American oyster up to 114,000,000 eggs in a single spawning.

Even the slowest breeding forms produce more offspring than can survive if the population is to remain numerically stationary. Death and destruction of a majority of the individuals produced undoubtedly takes place. If, then, the population is composed of a mixture of hereditary types, some of which are more and others less well adapted to the environment, a greater proportion of the former than of the latter would be expected to survive.

In modern language this means that, among the survivors, a greater frequency of carriers of certain genes or chromosome structures would be present than among the ancestors...
For agreement on and further documentation of the principle of natural selection, see the group of authors cited above, beginning with Bell (1997). However, in the 1950s, French biologists, such as Cuénot, Tétry, and Chauvin, who did not follow the modern synthesis, raised the following objection to this kind of reasoning (according to Litynski, 1961, p. 63):

Out of 120,000 fertilized eggs of the green frog only two individuals survive. Are we to conclude that these two frogs out of 120,000 were selected by nature because they were the fittest ones; or rather - as Cuenot said - that natural selection is nothing but blind mortality which selects nothing at all?"

NATURAL SELECTION

(\__/)
( &#8216; .&#8216; )
>(^)<

Wilson

NATURAL SELECTION <------(Source)

DOES NATURAL SELECTION EXIST AT ALL?
The remarks made so far, however, do not refute the occurrence of natural selection. In spite of the problems just mentioned, it is self-evident that physiologically, anatomically, and ethologically damaged mutants and recombinants (to speak again in the contemporary genetic language of these individuals) will be at a disadvantage in many situations (lame prey in relation to their predators and vice versa). It is only on islands with loss or diminution of stabilizing selection that processes of degeneration may occur quickly (for further discussion of the topic, see Lönnig, 1993, 1998; Kunze et al., 1997). Furthermore, survival of the fittest evidently takes place, for example, in cases of alleles and plasmids with strongly selective advantages, as in the cases of multiple resistance in bacteria and resistance to DDT in many insect species. After pointing out that Darwin knew hardly any cases of natural selection, Mayr asserts (1998, p. 191): "Now, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of well-established proofs, including such well-known instances as insecticide resistance of agricultural pests, antibiotic resistance of bacteria, industrial melanism, the attenuation of the myxomatosis virus in Australia, the sickle-cell gene and other blood genes and malaria, to mention only a few spectacular cases."




This, above, is from your source.....

 

[LuisDantas]

The refutation - please!

Observed Instances of Speciation

If you will, feel free to go all the way and read this topic.

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...eference-faqs-tutorials-theory-evolution.html

 

[painted wolf]

Except for one thing:
The survival rate for ALL frogs is extremely low.


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

Hardly a useful statement as the survival rate for all living things is extremely low as everything eventually dies.

The fact remains that your source was factually demonstrably wrong.

wa:do

 

[Gunfingers]

Wilson: "Evolution is false!"
Us: "No, it's real, here's some examples of why."
Wilson: "Evolution is false, if it was true then how do you explain X?"
Us: "Here is an explanaition of X using the published and peer reviewed work of real scientists."
Wilson: "So you can't refute X, huh? Just hiding and dodging!"

 

[Autodidact]

I reject evolution totally, so don't ask me that again.
Variations in particular species - yes. Like the variety evident in humans. No new species of humans.
It has not been proven, it cannot be proven.
It is much like those UFOs. You can never really get a good look at them.
You scream and yell about the evidence. Lonnig's got plenty.
His work has proved that mutations have never produced new species.
Now - why don't you take on Lonnig's work? You seem to be willing to dodge that.
I provided you with his websites. You have all the information you need to prove that all his research has been a series of mistakes.

Go git 'im!

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

You claim new species have never been observed. When I offer to show you proof of just that, you admit you will not change your position. You have proven to us that you are not honest. Thank you. New species have in fact been observed, but I'm sure this will not stop you from going on the internet and denying this fact, all while refusing to learn about them.

You are a creationist.

 

[Autodidact]

About the majority, I do - but I wouldn't say it out loud.

So basically you don't trust science?

Are all scientists idiots, in your book, or only Biologists, Paleontologists and Geologists. What about astronomers, are they morons too?

 

[Autodidact]

Good catchphrase, but not true.


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

How do you know? When I offered to show you proof, you said it would not change your position.

 

[Autodidact]

Good catchphrase, but not true.


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

The refutation - please!

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

Why bother? You already told us the definitive refutation would not change your position.

 

[wilsoncole]

If the fossil record, the subject of this thread, does not provide empirical evidence of Creationism, the the Creationist must change the subject and appeal to the authority of a handful of outdated and misinformed sources in a very weak attempt to attack evolutionary biology.

You wouldn't be saying that if you were able to quickly dispatch the information I present. Survival of the fittest/natural selection is a myth and does not exist in nature. My information proves it.
Outdated?
"During the summer, an oyster lays about 500 million eggs within the water to be fertilized by the male's sperm. Soon after that a pinhead sized larva swim around and hatch contained by about ten hours. In two days, shells initiate to form and two weeks later pea-sized "spat" sink to the bottom. Living on its hollowed out shell, the oyster grows one inch a year. Adults can live to be ten years ripened and reproduce billions of times. With so many predators of the oyster, singular about one within a million will survive."
What is the average number of eggs laid by the feminine American Oyster per year?

As the man said: Did nature pick that single oyster because it simply was the fittest?

"The opportune appearance of mutations permitting animals and plants to meet their needs seems hard to believe. Yet the Darwinian theory is even more demanding: a single plant, a single animal would require thousands and thousands of lucky, appropriate events. Thus, miracles would become the rule: events with an infinitesimal probability could not fail to occur .... There is no law against day dreaming, but science must not indulge in it."

• Grasse, Pierre-Paul (1977)
  Evolution of Living Organism
  Academic Press, New York, N.Y., p. 103

If you claim this is a quote-mine, you have the name of the book, tell me what it was that Grasse actually said.

"Out of 120,000 fertilized eggs of the green frog only two individuals survive. Are we to conclude that these two frogs out of 120,000 were selected by nature because they were the fittest ones; or rather - as Cuenot said - that natural selection is nothing but blind mortality which selects nothing at all?" (Litinski - NATURAL SELECTION



So - quit making excuses and provide effective refutation.



(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[outhouse]

the fossil record shows us how ignorant some creationist are to the point, there closed minds will not open when slapped with the truth repeatedly