Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
wilson: You are deeply, deeply confused. You have no idea what evolution is. I find this is common among people who oppose it. You seem to be confusing it with atheism. It's not. Would you like to learn what it is?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What does the fossil record say?
- Thread starter Youtellme
- Start date
newhope101
Active Member
Look the point is that you can put up this or that theoretical evidence that can most likely be refuted by some equally credentialed researcher that provides an alternative hypothesis. I have provided ample examples. You do not get this and will go around in circles endlessly with more theories, endless requests for a theory of everything and asides. Whatever it takes to have the last word on it, regardless of your inability to refute this:
1. The fossil evidence refutes Darwins gradualism.
2. Paintedwolf and others are great at posting evidence and shoving it down creationists throats while they are unable to defend their own stance, when it comes down to it. Eg birds.
One may choose to accept or reject what they please with so many of your theories. It has been shown that common thinking is not always the final word. You have faith that despite what is unknown, unfound, disputed and contradicted eg birds etc, does not mean that your theory is not going to eventually explain it all. You believe regardless of what birds evolved from, they evolved. The fact that this example or any other example that is unclear or disputed by equally credentialed researchers does not move you to be sceptical. Good for you., That is faith, but you cannot see it or refuse to equate yourself to a religious term.
Likewise biblical creationists have a right to allege same.
The fossil evidence shows only that which agrees with the creation record. If your dating methods are incorrect the door to new earth remains open.
　
Punctuated origin of new designs.
Another solution for origin of new designs, which is gaining renewed attention among evolutionists, is that the full sequence of intermediate forms may not have existed at all, and instead key features may have developed by rapid transitions, discontinuously. This view of a punctuational origin of key features arose because of: (1) the persistent problem of the lack of fossil evidence for intermediate stages between major designs, with transitions between major groups being characteristically abrupt; and (2) the inability to conceive of functional intermediates in select cases. In the later case, prominent evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould (1980b) cites the fur-lined pouches of pocket gophers and the maxillary bone of the upper jaw of certain genera of boid snakes being split into front and rear halves: "How can a jawbone be half broken? What good is an incipient groove or furrow on the outside? Did such hypothetical ancestors run about three-legged while holding a few scraps of food in an imperfect crease with their fourth leg?"
Evolution - New World Encyclopedia
　
　
Ill wind up by saying that scepticism in the fossil record really is not the sole realm of the stupid and uneducated. It is moronic of any of you to allege otherwise. The evidence for TOE is far from convincing at this stage and not robust sufficiently that one should take up another faith. We can swap research yarns all day and night. Belting the theoretical over the head with the theoretical appears to be a waste of time.
It is not about the one that has the last word having any point nailed. There are lots of you evos, few of us. I think its about having 1. good reason to be sceptical of the fossil record and 2. requiring what is tantamount to faith to say it supports TOE, and 3. Accepting what research you choose to accept, ignoring the rest is a right open to both sides of the debate and not just evos.
1. The fossil evidence refutes Darwins gradualism.
2. Paintedwolf and others are great at posting evidence and shoving it down creationists throats while they are unable to defend their own stance, when it comes down to it. Eg birds.
One may choose to accept or reject what they please with so many of your theories. It has been shown that common thinking is not always the final word. You have faith that despite what is unknown, unfound, disputed and contradicted eg birds etc, does not mean that your theory is not going to eventually explain it all. You believe regardless of what birds evolved from, they evolved. The fact that this example or any other example that is unclear or disputed by equally credentialed researchers does not move you to be sceptical. Good for you., That is faith, but you cannot see it or refuse to equate yourself to a religious term.
Likewise biblical creationists have a right to allege same.
The fossil evidence shows only that which agrees with the creation record. If your dating methods are incorrect the door to new earth remains open.
　
Punctuated origin of new designs.
Another solution for origin of new designs, which is gaining renewed attention among evolutionists, is that the full sequence of intermediate forms may not have existed at all, and instead key features may have developed by rapid transitions, discontinuously. This view of a punctuational origin of key features arose because of: (1) the persistent problem of the lack of fossil evidence for intermediate stages between major designs, with transitions between major groups being characteristically abrupt; and (2) the inability to conceive of functional intermediates in select cases. In the later case, prominent evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould (1980b) cites the fur-lined pouches of pocket gophers and the maxillary bone of the upper jaw of certain genera of boid snakes being split into front and rear halves: "How can a jawbone be half broken? What good is an incipient groove or furrow on the outside? Did such hypothetical ancestors run about three-legged while holding a few scraps of food in an imperfect crease with their fourth leg?"
Evolution - New World Encyclopedia
　
　
Ill wind up by saying that scepticism in the fossil record really is not the sole realm of the stupid and uneducated. It is moronic of any of you to allege otherwise. The evidence for TOE is far from convincing at this stage and not robust sufficiently that one should take up another faith. We can swap research yarns all day and night. Belting the theoretical over the head with the theoretical appears to be a waste of time.
It is not about the one that has the last word having any point nailed. There are lots of you evos, few of us. I think its about having 1. good reason to be sceptical of the fossil record and 2. requiring what is tantamount to faith to say it supports TOE, and 3. Accepting what research you choose to accept, ignoring the rest is a right open to both sides of the debate and not just evos.
David M
Well-Known Member
Stop repeating this lie.
Using a similar comparison method that you use to get the 0.5% for humans, i.e. SNPs and CNVs the difference between humans and chimps is 3.97% as your own source indicates.
Darwin hypothesised only gradualism did he? No, you are misrepresenting the facts again here because he proposed that populations did evolve at different rates and not only gradually. Still buying creationist lies I see.
From On the Origin of Species
No it doesn't. It completely refutes the creation record because a) types of species do not appear in the order that genesis specifies such as land plants on the 3rd day and fish on the 5th day and b) species and genera keep appearing in the fossil record concurrent with species that genesis says were created on later days such as the fact that new "kinds" of fish keep appearing after the land creatures appear.
The second is a problem that no claim of unreliable dating can overcome, new bird "kinds" appear with new land animal "kinds" because they are in the same deposits. That means that the genesis claim that birds were created the day before the land animals cannot be true by any defintion of kind that keeps humans in their own separate kind.
Last edited:
outhouse
Atheistically
wilsoncole
Active Member
You seem content to pick up an invisible football and run with it without wondering if you've got a hold of anything.
Dawkins wrote: ...a particularly remarkable molecule was formed by accidenta molecule that had the ability to reproduce itself. Though admitting that such an accident was exceedingly improbable, he maintains that it must nevertheless have happened. Similar molecules clustered together, and then, again by an exceedingly improbable accident, they wrapped a protective barrier of other protein molecules around themselves as a membrane. Thus, it is claimed, the first living cell generated itself."(Creation p. 39)
You mean you took Dawkins seriously? What kind of research could lead to his conclusions?
Do you actually think that Dawkins' "explanation" of the origin of life is worthy of consideration by biologists? Is it supported by any independent research? Did he actually follow the scientific method which requires an observation, the forming of a hypothesis and testing said hypothesis? How would anyone conduct such a test?
Abiogenesis is the spontaneous generation of life. There is no "explanation" of that because it is not a fact. In point of FACT, it is not even science.
If nothing else, this particular situation should emphasize the ridiculous nature of your claims.
I can see why you try so hard not to discuss abiogenesis.
(\__/)
( . )
>(^)<
Wilson
wilsoncole
Active Member
Do you? Really? Is that actually the truth?
Is it a fact that mutations really benefit an organism when all research results tell a different story?
The colored moth and the finch stories are based on observations and they both failed to make your point. The drosophilia tests were actually research in action but that, too failed to prove your point.
Since mutations fail to produce any actual benefits, what other mechanism is there to drive the evolution machine? Such colossal failure clogs the machine and you never could get to the imaginary "intermediary" fossils.
Did Dawkins back up his "facts" about abiogenesis?
You didn't question nor censure him for it, so you must agree with him.
It is not wise to tell falsehoods. They have a strange way of coming back to bite you.
(\__/)
( . )
>(^)<
Wilson
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
See Auto.
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
Unfortunately most of your info was quote mind and the few "evolutionist researchers" you presented really didn't say what you thought they were saying.
The issue on birds was addressed more than once.
Once again, the issue on birds has already been addressed. Additionally no one here ever said the ToE "explains it all". There's still a lot of unknowns but do understand that there are unknowns in every field of science. I will take the ToE explaining some considering the bible explains none....
The fact of the matter is...they evolved as appose to what your bible says.
Current evidences in every field of science have been, are and will continue to be disputed. So where are you going with this? We saw what you've been presenting and none of it overturns the ToE.
They do and they're wrong in their assumptions.
Great then maybe you can tell me where this fits. It's not an Ape or a monkey.
Nothing wrong with being skeptical. I'm skeptical of the claims made by your bible. None of the genesis account matches the fossil record as you assert.
This is your opinion and everyone is entitled to their opinions. Unfortunately you're wrong...
I accept every wiki you presented on biology, the fossil record and the ToE. Do you? See, I'm not picking and choosing I accept it all. Every science journal (non-creationist of course) I accept. Do you? See, none of what you've presented from the wiki or science journal puts not one dent in the ToE. None of it dismisses that fact that man and some primates have been clearly shown to have a common ancestor. The bible is completely inept at answering the myriad of questions we have about the fossil record.
Last edited:
wilsoncole
Active Member
Wait a sec - you just contradicted yourself!
You said "life is created," yet you deny a Creator.
You speak of the "Laws of Nature," yet you deny the existence of a supreme Lawmaker.
You will admit design in natural things, yet you deny a Designer.
You don't seem to realize what it is that you're saying.
One thing you're really good at - denial!
Doesn't surprise me.
(\__/)
( . )
>(^)<
Wilson
wilsoncole
Active Member
Do you? Really?
Is it a fact that mutations really benefit an organism when all research results tell a different story?
The colored moth and the finch stories are based on observations and they both failed to make your point. The drosophilia tests were actually research in action but that, too failed to prove your point.
Since mutations fail to produce any actual benefits, what other mechanism is there to drive the evolution machine? Such colossal failure clogs the machine and you never could get to the imaginary "intermediary" fossils.
Did Dawkins back up his "facts" about abiogenesis?
You didn't question nor censure him for it, so you must agree with him.
(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<
Wilson
wilsoncole
Active Member
It couldn't and didn't do itself.
Is that what you believe?
(\__/)
( . )
>(^)<
Wilson
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
Yes, it is a fact that there are beneficial, neutral, and harmful mutations.
The vast majority of mutations are neutral. Some are beneficial, and a few are harmful.
wilsoncole
Active Member
Life has changed for the worse.
It does neither!
But........
Would accepting the existence of a superhuman designer hamper scientific and intellectual progress? Is an intelligent designer called for only when no other explanation is offered? And does it really make sense to infer from the design that there is a designer?
You mean that you do?
Which came first, the man or the woman?
The question is reasonable because to assert that evolution provided two separate creatures, male and female, and did so simultaneously, is far too preposterous to even contemplate.
You cannot escape the connection, try as you might.
(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<
Wilson
Last edited:
wilsoncole
Active Member
That's theory!
Maybe you can explain why all the research has failed to confirm the claim that mutations benefit the organism to the extent of vastly improving that organism.
(\__/)
( . )
>(^)<
Wilson
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
You are correct, it is a scientific theory composed of objective empirical evidence.
Many examples have been provided throughout this thread.
That you choose to remain in ignorance is your own personal failing.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Patterns of Microsatellite Variability Among X Chromosomes and Autosomes Indicate a High Frequency of Beneficial Mutations in Non-African D. simulans
SpringerLink - Genetica, Volume 102-103, Number 0
Fitness effects of advantageous mutations in evolving Escherichia coli populations
Beneficial Mutations, Hitchhiking and the Evolution of Mutation Rates in Sexual Populations -- Johnson 151 (4): 1621 -- Genetics
Examples of Beneficial Mutations and Natural Selection
Distribution of fitness effects among beneficial mutations before selection in experimental populations of bacteria - Nature Genetics
wa:do
SpringerLink - Genetica, Volume 102-103, Number 0
Fitness effects of advantageous mutations in evolving Escherichia coli populations
Beneficial Mutations, Hitchhiking and the Evolution of Mutation Rates in Sexual Populations -- Johnson 151 (4): 1621 -- Genetics
Examples of Beneficial Mutations and Natural Selection
Distribution of fitness effects among beneficial mutations before selection in experimental populations of bacteria - Nature Genetics
wa:do
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
The gene split didn't happen in humans (to make man/woman). It had already happened in an earlier species. Almost all of species carry genes for male and female. Sexual reproduction with dedicated sexes happened very early in the development of both flora and fauna. More than likely originating with a single celled eukaryotic species.
wilsoncole
Active Member
Speculation!
You are not in a position to know what happened.
Not nearly good enough.
Which came first - the male or the female?
It is really stretching it to believe that they came simultaneously.
Please provide the evidence.
(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<
Wilson
Last edited: