What does the fossil record say?

[outhouse]

Listen - you keep talking about intelligence and education when you show neither.
Well, here is one man who shows both and he disagrees with the whole evolution mess
You will find him # 12 on this list:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660


And here is something about him:
"Henry F. Schaefer III or ("He is the author of more than 1150 scientific publications "(see 1 , 2 and 3 ) , including recent studies on DNA and RNA (eg 4 ) . A list of 2007 out in 1155 peer-reviewed publications in detail on ). And of course, a highly qualified Quantum Chemist as Schaefer also fully applicable to the creation of life to say something, even if the research focus is not to be. And on this website scientists is a good number of other critical darwin and ID to find peer-reviewed publication lists can prove long."
Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig Literaturverzeichnis
Henry F. Schaefer, III - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
CCC - Henry F. Schaefer Publications

Usually, God only needs one to prove that your deception is not as complete as you suppose.
Remember this man?:

"And Jehovah went on to say to Satan: "Have you set your heart upon my servant Job, that there is no one like him in the earth, a man blameless and upright, fearing God and turning aside from bad?"" (Job 1:8)​

And this one nation?"
"He is telling his word to Jacob, His regulations and his judicial decisions to Israel. He has not done that way to any other nation; And as for [his] judicial decisions, they have not known them." (Psalm 147:19-20)​

And this one family?:
"After that Jehovah said to Noah: "Go, you and all your household, into the ark, because you are the one I have seen to be righteous before me among this generation." (Genesis 7:1)​

Now, I expect you to scream and yell and deny and throw dust in the air. But remember:
History cannot be replaced by stupidity.​

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<
&#12288;
Wilson

dont bring scripture into this, they are holding me back at this moment and ill tear your little myth into shreds based on its own words and lack of historicity.

and second

your little list has been refuted many times over and its been found to be creationist trash and poor propaganda at that.

get a education, you need it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty1Bo6GmPqM

 

[wilsoncole]

That verse has nothing to do with the subject under discussion, your claim that it was foretold is garbage, just the usual tactic of taking a verse out of context and pretending it has some relevance.

For you have spent enough time in the past doing what pagans choose to do—living in debauchery, lust, drunkenness, orgies, carousing and detestable idolatry. (1 Peter 4:3).

What has this to do with evolution, biology and science? Not a jot.

EVERYTHING!
Unbelievers are the ones living this way and that is only because they refuse to believe. The believer accepts the creation of living things the way they are, while the evolutionist rejects it. Since it is not possible for any unbeliever to know right from wrong, THEY are the ones from whom Peter urges believers to stay away and who (believers) would become objects of puzzlement and targets of abuse.

No point in arguing - I'm done with you.


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<
&#12288;
Wilson

 

[outhouse]

dont bring scripture into this, they are holding me back at this moment and ill tear your little myth into shreds based on its own words and lack of historicity.

and second

your little list has been refuted many times over and its been found to be creationist trash and poor propaganda at that.

get a education, you need it

[youtube]Ty1Bo6GmPqM[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty1Bo6GmPqM

heres your sign

 

[waitasec]

Since it is not possible for any unbeliever to know right from wrong, THEY are the ones from whom Peter urges believers to stay away and who (believers) would become objects of puzzlement and targets of abuse.

 

[outhouse]

Unbelievers are the ones living this way and that is only because they refuse to believe

this is false information on your part, there are many religious biologist. Why do you state facts that are not true!!! ?????????????????????????????

The believer accepts the creation of living things the way they are

you mean they dont question anything, science , history or reason and reality

disgusting

No point in arguing - I'm done with you.

you my uneducated friend have not debated or argued since the time you joined this site.

You have however copied and pasted trash and personal opinions.

You have refused to learn and have kept a closed mind regarding facts and reality

you wont be missed

 

[newhope101]

Tumbleweed....it does not matter that you imply they were 'sucked in' so to speak. The point is that these people are educated in the sciences and still have concerns about the robustness of TOE and supportive evidence.

You may like to read this:
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j19_3/j19_3_4-5.pdf

This perspective was written in 2005, before the recent general acknowledgement of HGT in procaryotes.

There are new models that try to address HGT. Your researchers have used a 2% insertion value to address this conundrum. However, as with any model, it is theoretical..and honestly how can your researchers truly estimate this sort of thing? Rather I think the insertion values will be arrived at that maintain the status quo as best it can.

Full genome comparisons also address this. One study shows a 30% difference between humans and chimps. I also know that we share 50% of genes with a banana. I am unsure, without rechecking what sort of comparison this was. I wonder how similar we are to a banana if whole genomes are compared.
Chimpanzee genome project - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes there are fossils and yes there are genomes but neither appears to be convincing, let alone irrefuteable, evidence of Toe.

Rather the fossil evidence is good evidence of the variety within kinds not ancestry.. eg horses, many thought to be different species are actually not. A whale and hippo share a common ancestor but are obviously not morphologically similar at all. The same goes for many marine mammals that share a common ancestor with a terrestrial organisim.The genomic data is good evidence for a designer that created all life using a basic plan rather than denoting ancestry.

 

[outhouse]

David A. DeWitt is a creationist quack

none of his work is credible and he follows his own rules which do not apply to real science

 

[tumbleweed41]

Tumbleweed....it does not matter that you imply they were 'sucked in' so to speak. The point is that these people are educated in the sciences and still have concerns about the robustness of TOE and supportive evidence..

Like I said...
That list represents less than 0.023 percent of the world's scientists.
The list was signed by only about 0.01% of scientists in the relevant fields.
Fewer than 20% of the signers were biologists.
At least seven of the signatories received their advanced degrees from outside the areas of "engineering, mathematics, computer science, biology, chemistry, or one of the other natural sciences", as DI puts it.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that the ToE claims to be unassailable.
On the contrary, biologists are continuously investigation the how of biological evolution. Testing hypothesis and discovering new paths that evolution may take.
The statement from DI questions the singular "Darwinism", a concept that can mean biological evolution as a whole, as seen in most European scientific communities, or the mistaken concept that "natural selection" is the only force behind biological evolution.
Your continued insistence that "scientists question the TOE" is laughable because it is the nature of science to question every conclusion. Yet every little post you make from a true biologist only further supports the fact that biological evolution occurs. All that is shown is that we are improving our understanding of the many processes of biological evolution.

 

[outhouse]

your quite the little quote miner

Chimpanzee genome project - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Full genome comparisons also address this. One study shows a 30% difference between humans and chimps

that is your poor opinion. below is the facts from your link

Human and chimpanzee chromosomes are very similar.

The primary difference is that humans have one fewer pair of chromosomes than do other great apes. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes and other great apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes.

your link also apply's the facts regarding evolution

In the human evolutionary lineage, two ancestral ape chromosomes fused at their telomeres producing human chromosome 2


your lack of education has led you to post material against your very myth

you had better get a real education because your copy paste tactics isnt working for you

 

[newhope101]

this is false information on your part, there are many religious biologist. Why do you state facts that are not true!!! ?????????????????????????????



you mean they dont question anything, science , history or reason and reality

disgusting



you my uneducated friend have not debated or argued since the time you joined this site.

You have however copied and pasted trash and personal opinions.

You have refused to learn and have kept a closed mind regarding facts and reality

you wont be missed

I think you and some of your cohorts are telling big 'porkies'.

It is a straight out lie to state that all toe disputers are uncredentialed. Many of these professors are biologists and from related disciplines.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

There are a plethora of credentialed researchers/scientists that have....

A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." [/FONT][/FONT]​

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]This was last publicly updated January 2010. Scientists listed by doctoral degree [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]or [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]current position. (there are heaps)[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]These scientists do not necessarily believe in creation but have concerns that current knowledge around natural selection and random mutations can account for the complexity of life.[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Do you think these professors, assistant professors and PHD holders etc gave their names over frivolously?[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Despite your ridicule and minimization, it is obviously undeniable that very qualified and credentialed scientists agree that the status quo in relation to TOE is insufficiently convincing, not unlike biblical creationists claims.[/FONT][/FONT]

 

[tumbleweed41]

I think you and some of your cohorts are telling big 'porkies'.

It is a straight out lie to state that all toe disputers are uncredentialed. Many of these professors are biologists and from related disciplines.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

There are a plethora of credentialed researchers/scientists that have....

A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." [/FONT][/FONT]​

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]This was last publicly updated January 2010. Scientists listed by doctoral degree [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]or [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]current position. (there are heaps)[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]These scientists do not necessarily believe in creation but have concerns that current knowledge around natural selection and random mutations can account for the complexity of life.[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Do you think these professors, assistant professors and PHD holders etc gave their names over frivolously?[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Despite your ridicule and minimization, it is obviously undeniable that very qualified and credentialed scientists agree that the status quo in relation to TOE is insufficiently convincing, not unlike biblical creationists claims.[/FONT][/FONT]

Once again...

That list represents less than 0.023 percent of the world's scientists.
The list was signed by only about 0.01% of scientists in the relevant fields.
Fewer than 20% of the signers were biologists.
At least seven of the signatories received their advanced degrees from outside the areas of "engineering, mathematics, computer science, biology, chemistry, or one of the other natural sciences", as DI puts it.

This hardly represents a "plethora".

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I think you and some of your cohorts are telling big 'porkies'.

It is a straight out lie to state that all toe disputers are uncredentialed.

Not a single person here said that. Now it's you who's telling "big porkies".

Many of these professors are biologists and from related disciplines.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

There are a plethora of credentialed researchers/scientists that have....

A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." [/FONT][/FONT]​

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]This was last publicly updated January 2010. Scientists listed by doctoral degree [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]or [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]current position. (there are heaps)[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]These scientists do not necessarily believe in creation but have concerns that current knowledge around natural selection and random mutations can account for the complexity of life.[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Do you think these professors, assistant professors and PHD holders etc gave their names over frivolously?[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Despite your ridicule and minimization, it is obviously undeniable that very qualified and credentialed scientists agree that the status quo in relation to TOE is insufficiently convincing, not unlike biblical creationists claims.[/FONT][/FONT]

We have already been through and picked apart that list and shown it to be dishonest, misleading and almost entirely signed by people who either have nothing to do with evolutionary theory or who don't even reject evolution theory in the first place.

At this point, you're just parroting.

 

[outhouse]

really creationist grabage is not worth a debate

I applaud all those who try to educate our closed minded friends with little education.

fact is they are not worth your valuable time and a debate only gives them satidfaction

they should be ignored since they only talk myth

they do not debate and never have, that would take reason and reality and that is something they are forced to avoid

there myth has been outlawed from public schools and they are now desperate

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I think Wilconsole has illustrated that many knowledgeable people disagree with Toe.

No he hasn't....Appealing to numbers doesn't work here. As has been shown...for every (1) "TRUE" biologist that doesn't agree with evolution or common decent there are thousands of actual (biologist) that do....So his outdated list is hardly a support for his position. The other point is...the website he keeps referring to says otherwise about Natural Selection, as I've indicated in my previous post.

The least one can take away from this is that many educated persons have concerns in relation to Toe.

Concerns are fine but none disagree that it doesn't happen.

Therefore, this illustrates that not only non scientifically educated persons, such as biblical creationists, have a problem with Toe being seen as having sufficient evidence to be taken as factual and irrefutable.

You're forced to disagree because it does not align with your outdated religious text. Your text were fine at a time when man was ignorant of the natural world. They reasoned as children but as we've become more advanced and knowledgeable of the natural world we put away childish thoughts.

There has been sufficient evidence mulled over here and various threads to demonstrate that shared traits does not necessarily imply ancestry.

I know where you're going with this and I can't tell you how many times you were told that morphology is not the key deciding factor as to relationship.

There is ample evidence to demonstrate that many traits &#8216;evolved&#8217; independently.

Even if you believe this is correct...do you NOW accept evolution as fact?.....I mean...you go so far as to use the word...

This is further supported by the fact that many fossils are reclassified over time.

More importantly is we see reclassification in almost every field of science so I'm not sure what you hope to gain from your statement.

Some of these are minor adjustments others are major. Morphology sometimes is not in line with phylogeny

Even if true, the ToE has never rested on morphology alone. It would be ridiculous to do so.

humans share 28 morphological traits with an Orang-utan and only a few with a chimp, yet genomically we are more similar to a chimp than a chimp is to an orang, monkey or gorilla.

Which substantiates my claim above. The ToE does not rest on morphology alone. It would have been easy for biologist to gaze upon the orangutan and say...("Yep....bob's your uncle") but they didn't. They actually ("did science") and determined...regardless how much we're physically similar..genetically we're not as close in relation as we are to chimpanzees. But since you "NOW" agree we are genetically similar are you now prepared to accept ToE as fact or will you continue to deny it....?

So now we know that traits may arise individually. There is also research to suggest comparative genomics may not be a good basis for inferring ancestry either due to HGT in prokaryotes. The fossil evidence and genomics work hand in hand to support Toe.

Although Comparative Genomics is a fairly young field it is not hmpered the way you're describing it. Additionally, while the fossil record and ToE can work together the ToE survives just fine without the fossil record. If there were no fossils found at all it would hardly be a blow to the ToE.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I think you and some of your cohorts are telling big 'porkies'.

It is a straight out lie to state that all toe disputers are uncredentialed. Many of these professors are biologists and from related disciplines.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

There are a plethora of credentialed researchers/scientists that have....

A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." [/FONT][/FONT]​

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]This was last publicly updated January 2010. Scientists listed by doctoral degree [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]or [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]current position. (there are heaps)[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]These scientists do not necessarily believe in creation but have concerns that current knowledge around natural selection and random mutations can account for the complexity of life.[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Do you think these professors, assistant professors and PHD holders etc gave their names over frivolously?[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Despite your ridicule and minimization, it is obviously undeniable that very qualified and credentialed scientists agree that the status quo in relation to TOE is insufficiently convincing, not unlike biblical creationists claims.[/FONT][/FONT]

Priceless.....You cited Wiki then when you fail....(epically)...you resort to a creationist website in an attempt to substantiate you obvious misunderstanding of the data presented by actual biologist......You posted the wiki but in context it refutes your assertions......This list has already been refuted time and time again.....why you would re-post it is a mystery....

 

[Dirty Penguin]

really creationist grabage is not worth a debate

I applaud all those who try to educate our closed minded friends with little education.

fact is they are not worth your valuable time and a debate only gives them satidfaction

they should be ignored since they only talk myth

they do not debate and never have, that would take reason and reality and that is something they are forced to avoid

there myth has been outlawed from public schools and they are now desperate

We have to try and educate them. It's in our nature. Even if we can't and I doubt we will....at least what has been said will live on in these forums until they are removed but it will give other members as well as some rational thinking newbies something to chuckle at....

 

[newhope101]

Oh look you can all woffle on. It does not matter if it is a minority of scientists. The point is that very well credentialed researchers do not think that random mutations and natural selection adequately explains the diversity of life...and there are plenty of them. Most here maintain that it does, the evidence is irrefuteable, and that anyone that has any skepticism is an idiot and/or uneducated.

Well these guys and gals have concerns sufficiently to put their credentials on the line by signing a document. Hence the continual assertion that biblical creationsists that have problems 'accepting' the evidence for TOE because they are uneducated or stupid is simply a nul and void insult, and a cheap desperate shot.

Let's not forget that these decending scientists employment is likely to not depend on continuing research grants and they are free to voice their opinion.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Oh look you can all woffle on. It does not matter if it is a minority of scientists. The point is that very well credentialed researchers do not think that random mutations and natural selection adequately explains the diversity of life...and there are plenty of them. Most here maintain that it does, the evidence is irrefuteable, and that anyone that has any skepticism is an idiot and/or uneducated.

Well these guys and gals have concerns sufficiently to put their credentials on the line by signing a document. Hence the continual assertion that biblical creationsists that have problems 'accepting' the evidence for TOE because they are uneducated or stupid is simply a nul and void insult, and a cheap desperate shot.

Let's not forget that these decending scientists employment is likely to not depend on continuing research grants and they are free to voice their opinion.

Let's go through this again:

Barely any of the supposed scientists on the petition are actually credentialed scientists.

Most of those that are scientists are not related to evolution or biology.

The petition claim is misleading, and many of the scientists who signed it support evolution and do not endorse ID.

Even if every single name were a biologist and the petition's claim was "we reject evolution", it is still only 102 names against the millions of other biologists and life scientists who support evolution.

The title of the petition gives no mention whatsoever that these scientists in any way reject the claim that random mutations and natural selection generate complexity or diversity - it only states that they are skeptical of the claim, as any scientist worth their salt would be skeptical about any claim.

Now, stop parroting your ignorant nonsense and actually listen to people for once.

 

[wilsoncole]

They are denigrating themselves, by publishing such a list where maybe more than half of the names aren't even claiming to have biology credentials. That doesn't even qualify as a fallacy of argument from authority, it is plain barrel-scratching.

The list itself claims to come from another source, named Dissent From Darwin

http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/

Their FAQ is particularly enlightening.

http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/faq.php

They are simply not a serious source.

Are you actually saying that the ONLY people who truly understand and are qualified to explain evolution and its ramifications are biologists?
Is that what I'm supposed to believe?

If it is, you have some very serious problems coming up.


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Are you actually saying that the ONLY people who truly understand and are qualified to explain evolution and its ramifications are biologists?

No, he's saying that it's dishonest to write a petition and claim it is filled with credentialed scientists when it's barely got any scientists with relevant credentials in it.

If I wrote a petition on "why gravity is an illusion" and got the signatures of 102 "experts", but those "experts" turned out to be experts in the field of car maintenance, that's intellectual dishonesty. This petition actually goes one step further than that, not only by including the names of lots of people who don't have any relevant credentials whatsoever, but by misrepresenting the views of many of the real scientists on the list who do support evolution theory. The dissent from Darwin petition is dishonest from beginning to end.