- This topic has 1,340 replies, 50 voices, and was last updated 14 years ago by
.
- Posts
“Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?”–Charles Darwin
Darwin answered by saying that the transitional forms had all been exterminated already.
Stu, I believe would answer by saying that everything we see is a transition. But if this is a “gradual” process, would we not find partial organs or limbs evolving into something else?
Wherever there is an eye, ear, wing, hand, foot or some other organ or structure, it is not in an “in-between” stage. It is complete, and useful to the organism that has it.True, sometimes scientists have pointed to organs such as the appendix and tonsils in man, claiming that these have been ‘left over’ from evolution. But further knowledge revealed that such organs were not ‘left over’ at all, but have a definite use. The problem was that investigators did not understand their function until recently.
Every wing or fossil of a wing is fully developed, is it not?
Quote (Stu @ Aug. 12 2007,23:31) On the point of nothing coming from nothing, how do you propose matter came into existence? To simply categorise it as the unexplainable work of a creator is to do no better, and in my opinion considerably worse that the Big Bang theory, imperfect though it is.
Sorry Stu, but believing that a big bang came from nothing is way too far fetched for me to believe. In fact it is impossible and seems silly for me to subject my mind to that paradigm.It is completely logical to me that reality is full of code and logic and I know nothing didn't start it all.
There was either a creator or there wasn't. Your view is illogical and too far fetched for me to switch sides.
Besides God speaks to me, so it's not like I need scientific proof that he doesn't exist. I have already proved to myself that he is real.
You say that everything originally came from nothing.
I say that everything came from something bigger than everything.All things originally came from God. You can replace God with nothing (you are free to do that) but it is completely illogical and impossible in my opinion.
If I really believed that nothing can make something, then I could also believe that 1 million dollars could just appear out of thin air in front of me. Would be nice, but the problem is it is impossible.
Hebrews 3:4
For every house is built by someone, but God is the builder of everything.David
++”“So many side-branches have been brought to light, so many intermediary forms are completely lacking that we can now only say that the classic description is no more than a guide to the probable steps by which the modern horse evolved.”
This last sentence sums it up pretty well. The evolution of the horse has been exactly as you would expect, there is (as there has to be) a “main line” of ancestry, but there are little sub-branches off the line that often go to extinct species. Human evolution follows this pattern too.
++”Eohippus, supposedly the earliest horse, and said by experts to be long extinct and known to us only through fossils, may in fact be alive and well
There is no reason for ancestor species to go extinct if, say, their descendants occupy a different niche or location.
++”Placing little Eohippus as the ancestor of the horse strains the imagination…Nor should it be surprising that there are fossils of horses of different sizes and shapes. Even today, horses vary from very small ponies to large plow horses. All are varieties within the horse family.
Just as well it doesn’t come down to who has the greatest imagination – notwithstanding the artists’ recreations of extinct species(!) Size changes are relatively easy in evolution. The previously mentioned flightless birds of New Zealand are an example.
++”To give this neat picture of horses growing in size and losing toes, etc, evolutionists have to leave out many of the fossils. They pick only the ones that support their theory, and assume that these are connected to each other.
Can you give an example of a fossil that you think has been unduly left out of an evolutionary sequence?
Stuart
Quote (david @ Aug. 13 2007,12:53) “Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?”–Charles Darwin Darwin answered by saying that the transitional forms had all been exterminated already.
Stu, I believe would answer by saying that everything we see is a transition. But if this is a “gradual” process, would we not find partial organs or limbs evolving into something else?
Wherever there is an eye, ear, wing, hand, foot or some other organ or structure, it is not in an “in-between” stage. It is complete, and useful to the organism that has it.True, sometimes scientists have pointed to organs such as the appendix and tonsils in man, claiming that these have been ‘left over’ from evolution. But further knowledge revealed that such organs were not ‘left over’ at all, but have a definite use. The problem was that investigators did not understand their function until recently.
Every wing or fossil of a wing is fully developed, is it not?
I would like to see where your Darwin quote comes from, to put it in context (knowing how often these things are abused by creationsists). As you have posted earlier, Darwin expected fossils to be found that conformed to a gradual process of change, and that is exactly what the sequence of dated fossils, getting older the deeper you go, shows.Can you give me a reference for the “exterminated” attributation?
With regard to partially-formed “transitional” body parts you are making the classic mistake of giving natural selection a goal to strive for. There is no such thing as an evolutionary target. Any mutation must confer an advantage (or at least be neutral) immediately, for it to persist. A proto-feather, no matter how tiny a fibre it may be, has to help the animal to be sexually selected or survive better at that time, say by forming an insulating layer or giving greater allure for a mate.
Please see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eyefor an explanation of how eyes might have evolved (they don't fossilise very well but there are living examples that are candidates for transitional forms).
As you say, every wing is fully developed – as something. Flying squirrels have wings, adapted from skin.
I appreciate that ignorance is no excuse for consigning a human body part to the “vestigial” bin. My problem with the appendix is not so much whether it has a function, but how the alleged “creator” could have built into me such a dangerous feature – a timebomb that could kill me, without modern surgery. Either there is a capricious and malevolent creator at work, or natural selection is variable in its quality control. The latter seems to be true across the living world.
Tell me about archeopterix.
Stuart
Quote (t8 @ Aug. 13 2007,16:23) Quote (Stu @ Aug. 12 2007,23:31) On the point of nothing coming from nothing, how do you propose matter came into existence? To simply categorise it as the unexplainable work of a creator is to do no better, and in my opinion considerably worse that the Big Bang theory, imperfect though it is.
Sorry Stu, but believing that a big bang came from nothing is way too far fetched for me to believe. In fact it is impossible and seems silly for me to subject my mind to that paradigm.It is completely logical to me that reality is full of code and logic and I know nothing didn't start it all.
There was either a creator or there wasn't. Your view is illogical and too far fetched for me to switch sides.
Besides God speaks to me, so it's not like I need scientific proof that he doesn't exist. I have already proved to myself that he is real.
You say that everything originally came from nothing.
I say that everything came from something bigger than everything.All things originally came from God. You can replace God with nothing (you are free to do that) but it is completely illogical and impossible in my opinion.
If I really believed that nothing can make something, then I could also believe that 1 million dollars could just appear out of thin air in front of me. Would be nice, but the problem is it is impossible.
Hebrews 3:4
For every house is built by someone, but God is the builder of everything.
It is not for me to try and convert you – I have a pretty low opinion of those who attempt to convert me. There have been tangents, but my single purpose has been to represent science, specifically evolution by natural selection in the discussion that you began some time ago.Clearly we see the universe in quite different ways. If I had the evidence that you seem to have (god speaks to you – why did you not mention this before? …what does he say?) perhaps I would see it differently.
I still think it is a shame that Hebrews does not go on to tell you who built god.
Stuart
Quote (acertainchap @ Aug. 14 2007,00:16) To Stu, What you propose is a foolhardy attempt to cover insecurity. And No less?
You've got me again acertainchap. I don't understand you.
All things of complexity you (wrongly) argue, come from a designer. Is your proposed god not one of the most complex things possible?Stuart
Quote I would like to see where your Darwin quote comes from, to put it in context (knowing how often these things are abused by creationsists). –Stue
The Origin of Species, in the chapter entitled “Difficulties on Theory”
“…Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?… But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?… But in the intermediate region, having intermediate conditions of life, why do we not now find closely-linking intermediate varieties? This difficulty for a long time quite confounded me.”
–Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, The Modern Library, New York, p. 124-125.
Even Darwin himself was aware of the absence of such transitional forms. He hoped that they would be found in the future. Despite his optimism, he realized that these missing intermediate forms were the biggest stumbling-block for his theory.
The only explanation Darwin could come up with to counter this objection was the argument that the fossil record uncovered so far was inadequate.
Quote Tell me about archeopterix. The eleven fossils currently classified as Archaeopteryx are the oldest evidence of feathers on the planet and the only ones dated from Jurassic times. Furthermore, their advanced nature and placement suggest their origins must have been even earlier.–wICKipediA.
The oldest wings we have and “their advanced nature and placement suggest their origins must have been even earlier.”
In other words, we have fully developed wings. The writer assumes that these wings developed earlier because they are already developed.The majority of experts regard all the remains that have been discovered as belonging to a single species, though this is still debated.–WickIPEDA.
Hmmm. Maybe it will turn out to be another piltman, where it is in fact bones from more than “a single species.”
At one time evolutionists believed that Archaeopteryx, meaning was a link between reptile and bird. But now, many do not. Its fossilized remains reveal perfectly formed feathers (not scales half developed into feathers) on aerodynamically designed wings capable of flight. Its wing and leg bones were thin and hollow. Its supposed reptilian features are found in birds today. And it does not predate birds, because fossils of other birds have been found in rocks of the same period as Archaeopteryx.
Back to the horse myths:
“I am enough of an artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge.”–Albert Einstein.
There is nothing wrong with imagination, when used properly. The “evolution of the horse” is a very improper use of scientists imagination.
The imaginary sequence supposedly showing the evolution of the horse has been a great “evidence” for the myth/theory of evolution.
In 1980, at the Museum of Natural History in Chicago, there was a symposium with 150 evolutionists in attendance discussing the problems with the gradualistic evolutionary theory.
There, evolutionist Boyce Rensberger noted that the scenario of the evolution of the horse has no foundation in the fossil record, and that no evolutionary process has been observed that would account for the gradual evolution of horses:
“The popularly told example of horse evolution, suggesting a gradual sequence of changes from four-toed fox-sized creatures living nearly 50 million years ago to today's much larger one-toed horse, has long been known to be wrong. Instead of gradual change, fossils of each intermediate species appear fully distinct, persist unchanged, and then become extinct. Transitional forms are unknown.”-Boyce Rensberger, Houston Chronicle, November 5, 1980, p. 15.Dr. Niles Eldredge, a curator at the American Museum in New York, , where “evolution of the horse” diagrams were on public display at that time on the ground floor of the museum, said the following about the exhibition:
“There have been an awful lot of stories, some more imaginative than others, about what the nature of that history [of life] really is. The most famous example, still on exhibit downstairs, is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps fifty years ago. That has been presented as the literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that is lamentable, particularly when the people who propose those kinds of stories may themselves be aware of the speculative nature of some of that stuff.”
-Niles Eldgridge, quoted in Darwin's Enigma by Luther D. Sunderland (Santee, CA, Master Books, 1988), p. 78.What is this imaginative horse myth really based on?
Charts were devised by the sequential arrangement of fossils of distinct species that lived at vastly different periods in India, South Africa, North America, and Europe, solely in accordance with the rich power of evolutionists' imaginations.
More than 20 charts of the evolution of the horse, which are totally different from each other, have been proposed by various researchers.
It is obvious that evolutionists have reached no common agreement on these family trees.
The only common feature in these arrangements is the belief that a dog-sized creature called Eohippus, which lived in the Eocene period 55 million years ago, was the ancestor of the horse. However, the fact is that Eohippus, which became extinct millions of years ago, is nearly identical to the hyrax, a small rabbit-like animal which still lives in Africa and has nothing whatsoever to do with the horse.–Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong, New American Library, New York, 1982, pp. 16-17, 19The more fossils we find, the more inconsistent the theory of horse evolution becomes. Fossils of modern horse species (Equus nevadensis and Equus occidentalis) have been discovered in the same layer as Eohippus. This is an indication that the modern horse and its so-called ancestor lived at the same time.–Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong, New American Library, New York, 1982, pp. 16-17, 19.
The evolutionist science writer Gordon R. Taylor explains this little-acknowledged truth in his book The Great Evolution Mystery:
“But perhaps the most serious weakness of Darwinism is the failure of paleontologists to find convincing phylogenies or sequences of organisms demonstrating major evolutionary change… The horse is often cited as the only fully worked-out example. But the fact is that the line from Eohippus to Equus is very erratic. It is alleged to show a continual increase in size, but the truth is that some variants were smaller than Eohippus, not larger. Specimens from different sources can be brought together in a convincing-looking sequence, but there is no evidence that they were actually ranged in this order in time.”-–Gordon Rattray Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, Abacus, Sphere Books, London, 1984, p. 230.All these facts are strong evidence that the charts of horse evolution, which are presented as one of the most solid pieces of evidence for Darwinism, are nothing but fantastic and implausible fairy tales. Like other species, horses, too, came into existence without ancestors in the evolutionary sense.
See: http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/natural_history_2_12.htmlOn the Aetiocetus and Beluga, I found something which I think bears repeating:
“I confirmed that the Berkley University web page, that he referenced intitled: “How to teach Evolution” uses the Pelecicus creature which was originally sketched with whale like tale and feeble limbs (the drawing, of course, was based from two bones in the scull of the fossil which was all they orignally found) But when it was later clearly found to match a land creature with 4 long legs and a cat-like tale they still view it as a snap shot of the evolutionary history of a whale. Then the website puts the Aetiocetus between it and the Beluga –even though the Aetiocetus is a Baline whale (which are 40 times bigger than Belguas today) So, to say that's “excellent proof” of a transitions happening in the fossil record (unless the Berkley people are truly ignorent) seems like blatant deception for the Public to believe. A land mammal to a Baline whale to a Baluga based solely on a noticeable change in the nasal passage of skulls of (in my opinion) embarassingly UNrelated creatures is not logic, it's faith.
http://forum.myspace.com/index.c….5574727Maybe 95 percent of scientists believe in evolution, but 95% of scientists are not paeleontologists. They put far too much faith in their imperfect collegues.
David Pilbeam, a Harvard University paleoanthropologist, says:
“If you brought in a smart scientist from another discipline and showed him the meagre evidence we've got he'd surely say, “forget it; there isn't enough to go on.”
–Richard E. Leakey, The Making of Mankind, Sphere Books Limited, Barcelona, 1982, p. 43.William Fix, the author of an important book on the subject of paleoanthropology, makes this comment:
“As we have seen, there are numerous scientists and popularizers today who have the temerity to tell us that there is 'no doubt' how man originated. If only they had the evidence…”
–William R. Fix, The Bone Peddlers, Macmillan Publishing Company, New York, 1984, pp. 150-153.Is it evidence, or is it imagination?
Is it unbiased or is it wanting to believe and wanting to be accepted by their peers?I truly think it all comes down to this reasoning:
“look, you're here and there is no intelligent designer so evolution must be true!”
Is this science or something else?Here's a fun little fact that hurts my head.
Throughout history, more than 6,000 species of ape have lived, and most of them have become extinct. Today, only 120 species live on the earth. These 6,000 or so species of ape, most of which are extinct, constitute a rich resource for the evolutionists.David
++”Maybe 95 percent of scientists believe in evolution, but 95% of scientists are not paeleontologists. They put far too much faith in their imperfect collegues.
Don’t worry about the zoologists, botanists, molecular biologists, hydrologists, nuclear physicists, chemists, geneticists, forensic pathologists and physiologists (and the rest) who have actually contributed to our understanding of evolutionary history. The 5% who are creationists tend to be physical chemists or hydrologists or some kind of engineer. I know a few have perversely studied science in order to contradict it for their applauding religious audiences. Number of creation scientists actually doing real science: approx 0%.
Counting the numbers of scientists who are atheists / religious / believe in the fact of evolution / are creationsists is of little value in any case. Even if all people were 100% percent convinced that we evolved by natural selection, that wouldn’t make it true. You need evidence (and there is lots of it).++”David Pilbeam, a Harvard University paleoanthropologist, says:
“If you brought in a smart scientist from another discipline and showed him the meagre evidence we've got he'd surely say, “forget it; there isn't enough to go on.”
–Richard E. Leakey, The Making of Mankind, Sphere Books Limited, Barcelona, 1982, p. 43.Richard Leakey certainly had his work cut out for him by religious fanatics: http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/061203_richard_leakey.html
No wonder there aren’t many fossils. The churches are trying to hide them!++”William Fix, the author of an important book on the subject of paleoanthropology, makes this comment:
“As we have seen, there are numerous scientists and popularizers today who have the temerity to tell us that there is 'no doubt' how man originated. If only they had the evidence…”
–William R. Fix, The Bone Peddlers, Macmillan Publishing Company, New York, 1984, pp. 150-153.You’ve got to be JOKING! An IMPORTANT book on paleoanthropology?? The man is a legendary crackpot. Several sandwiches short of a picnic. David, you should stop downloading and posting stuff without checking it out first.
++”Is it evidence, or is it imagination?
Is it unbiased or is it wanting to believe and wanting to be accepted by their peers?Unlike Judeo-Christian mythology, science has peer-review, the most testing process new information can go through. Were a reviewer to stop a new idea that turned out to be important it would be, as they say, a poor career move. It is creationists who play to the crowd like 19th century snake oil salesmen.
++”I truly think it all comes down to this reasoning: “look, you're here and there is no intelligent designer so evolution must be true!” Is this science or something else?
That, if I may say so is the height of hypocrisy. How many times have we been subjected to he creationist logic that goes “evolution is demonstrated wrong, therefore god did it”.
Stuart
++”The only explanation Darwin could come up with to counter this objection was the argument that the fossil record uncovered so far was inadequate.
While the fossil record has steadily improved through the work of real scientists, for a creationist, it will always be inadequate.
Stuart
Tell me about archeopterix.
++”Hmmm. Maybe it will turn out to be another piltman, where it is in fact bones from more than “a single species.”
As you will have read, Sir Fred Hoyle famously argued that archeopteryx was a fake, with feathers glued on. The staff at the Natural History Museum (who actually have one) explained why his claim was incorrect. You have a better argument for a fake than Fred Hoyle?
++”At one time evolutionists believed that Archaeopteryx, meaning was a link between reptile and bird. But now, many do not. Its fossilized remains reveal perfectly formed feathers (not scales half developed into feathers) on aerodynamically designed wings capable of flight. Its wing and leg bones were thin and hollow.
Its supposed reptilian features are found in birds today. And it does not predate birds, because fossils of other birds have been found in rocks of the same period as Archaeopteryx.Wikipedia continues: Unlike modern birds, Archaeopteryx had small teeth, as well as a long bony tail, features which Archaeopteryx shared with other dinosaurs of the time.
It also did not have a beak, but a jaw.
Stuart
++”What is this imaginative horse myth really based on? The only common feature in these arrangements is the belief that a dog-sized creature called Eohippus, which lived in the Eocene period 55 million years ago, was the ancestor of the horse. However, the fact is that Eohippus, which became extinct millions of years ago, is nearly identical to the hyrax, a small rabbit-like animal which still lives in Africa and has nothing whatsoever to do with the horse.–Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong, New American Library, New York, 1982, pp. 16-17, 19
This is the Francis Hitching that is a dowser with a belief in the psychic explanation for standing stones who apparently lies about his (non-)membership of archeological societies?
++”The evolutionist science writer Gordon R. Taylor explains this little-acknowledged truth in his book The Great Evolution Mystery: “But perhaps the most serious weakness of Darwinism is the failure of paleontologists to find convincing phylogenies or sequences of organisms demonstrating major evolutionary change… The horse is often cited as the only fully worked-out example. But the fact is that the line from Eohippus to Equus is very erratic. It is alleged to show a continual increase in size, but the truth is that some variants were smaller than Eohippus, not larger. Specimens from different sources can be brought together in a convincing-looking sequence, but there is no evidence that they were actually ranged in this order in time.”—Gordon Rattray Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, Abacus, Sphere Books, London, 1984, p. 230.
No wonder the book is little-acknowledged. Changes in size are easy. Smaller to bigger is not to be expected, necessarily. Erratic IS to be expected. The same happens in the branching pattern of any line of ancestry. There is no problem with species existing at the same time as their ancestors. Don’t you have any recent stuff?
++”All these facts are strong evidence that the charts of horse evolution, which are presented as one of the most solid pieces of evidence for Darwinism, are nothing but fantastic and implausible fairy tales. Like other species, horses, too, came into existence without ancestors in the evolutionary sense.
What nonsense. You have no evidence for this claim at all. What kind of history do you expect from the fossil record? A perfect specimen of every single ancestor species, all lined up in one column? There is only one place in the world (in Canada) where there is an undisturbed continuous geologic column. Not all species lived there.
I’ll repeat myself: the horse fossils are exactly as you would expect to find them. A main line with erratic-looking branches to extinct species, and if you go back far enough, lines to all other species.Speaking of fairy tales, what mechanism (complete with details comparable to natural selection) do you propose for the changes observed from older (deeper) to younger fossils?
Stuart
++”On the Aetiocetus and Beluga, I found something which I think bears repeating:
“I confirmed that the Berkley University web page, that he referenced intitled: “How to teach Evolution” uses the Pelecicus creature which was originally sketched with whale like tale and feeble limbs (the drawing, of course, was based from two bones in the scull of the fossil which was all they orignally found) But when it was later clearly found to match a land creature with 4 long legs and a cat-like tale they still view it as a snap shot of the evolutionary history of a whale. Then the website puts the Aetiocetus between it and the Beluga –even though the Aetiocetus is a Baline whale (which are 40 times bigger than Belguas today) So, to say that's “excellent proof” of a transitions happening in the fossil record (unless the Berkley people are truly ignorent) seems like blatant deception for the Public to believe. A land mammal to a Baline whale to a Baluga based solely on a noticeable change in the nasal passage of skulls of (in my opinion) embarassingly UNrelated creatures is not logic, it's faith.I’m not sure what the writer is objecting to. That whales have land animals as ancestors?
Read
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whale_evolution(then explain your creator’s logic for giving sperm whales little bits of leg bone!)
Stuart
Quote ++”Maybe 95 percent of scientists believe in evolution, but 95% of scientists are not paeleontologists. They put far too much faith in their imperfect collegues.
The first website I found after trying to figure out who believes what is this one:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm
It gives all kinds of different statistics on this.Quote Even if all people were 100% percent convinced that we evolved by natural selection, that wouldn’t make it true. –Stu
You're right. No point looking at that website. It is a fallacy of thinking that the majority must be right simply because they are the majority. Thankyou for pointing that out. At one time, the majority of people in certain lands may have thought that excrament was a great treatment for all sorts of things. They were clearly wrong.
Quote ++”David Pilbeam, a Harvard University paleoanthropologist, says:
“If you brought in a smart scientist from another discipline and showed him the meagre evidence we've got he'd surely say, “forget it; there isn't enough to go on.”
–Richard E. Leakey, The Making of Mankind, Sphere Books Limited, Barcelona, 1982, p. 43.Richard Leakey certainly had his work cut out for him by religious fanatics: http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/061203_richard_leakey.html
No wonder there aren’t many fossils. The churches are trying to hide them!
Since you didn't argue with his quote but only tried to raise a completely unrelated issue, am I to assume you agree with his statement?Quote While the fossil record has steadily improved through the work of real scientists, for a creationist, it will always be inadequate.
Stu, we have horses of a variety of sizes, with scientists trying to connect them every which way. And this has often been suggested to be the best proof.Quote What kind of history do you expect from the fossil record? A perfect specimen of every single ancestor species, all lined up in one column?
I expect simply what darwin expected. And I expect if darwin were alive today, he too would be trying to squirm around his expectations.Could you please explain to everyone what the fossil record actually truly shows. I'm not talking about a dog becoming a slightly larger dog or a horse with an extra toe.
I'm talking about the macro-evolutionary theory and what it proposes happened and the actual true evidence for it.Quote here is only one place in the world (in Canada) where there is an undisturbed continuous geologic column. Not all species lived there. Canada eh? I'm pretty sure i live in the middle of it all. Been to drumheller several times. Been to a couple dig sights. Love the dinosaurs. been to the museums. Seen what scientists imaginations of 30 years ago believed dinasours looked like. Quite funny really. Very colourful. But very imaginative. Now, I'm pretty sure they base their conceptions on jurassic park, the movie.
++”The first website I found after trying to figure out who believes what is this one:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm It gives all kinds of different statistics on this.That is very interesting data. I’m sure you have an opinion on why those with a greater level of education tend to go with evolutionary explanations.
Quote
++”David Pilbeam, a Harvard University paleoanthropologist, says:
“If you brought in a smart scientist from another discipline and showed him the meagre evidence we've got he'd surely say, “forget it; there isn't enough to go on.”
–Richard E. Leakey, The Making of Mankind, Sphere Books Limited, Barcelona, 1982, p. 43.
++”Since you didn't argue with his quote but only tried to raise a completely unrelated issue, am I to assume you agree with his statement?There really is nothing to agree or disagree with. Almost certainly the quote comes from a creationist website and is taken out of context. What was he referring to?
Since you don’t address the point about religious nutters wanting to hide fossils, I have to assume you would want to do the same?++”Stu, we have horses of a variety of sizes, with scientists trying to connect them every which way. And this has often been suggested to be the best proof.
Size is not much of an issue. Proof is not a possiblilty. Are you trying to say that the horse ancestor sequence is not a sequence of ancestors, or even a sequence of closely-related species? No doubt your falsifiable Theory of Special Creation, with detailed mechanisms, will give a much better explanation for the series of horse ancestor fossils than ignorant atheistic paleontologists with years of analytical experience could possibly muster.
Quote
What kind of history do you expect from the fossil record? A perfect specimen of every single ancestor species, all lined up in one column?++”I expect simply what darwin expected. And I expect if darwin were alive today, he too would be trying to squirm around his expectations.
So, I ask again. What do you expect from the fossil record?
This post to talkorigins gives a better insight into Darwin than your out-of-context quotes:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb98.html++”Could you please explain to everyone what the fossil record actually truly shows. I'm not talking about a dog becoming a slightly larger dog or a horse with an extra toe.
I'm talking about the macro-evolutionary theory and what it proposes happened and the actual true evidence for it.I don’t know why you dismiss horses with extra toes. The ability to occasionally produce features of a distant ancestor species is evidence of evolution.
Let me rearrange your questions so they make sense to me:
1. How is the fossil record interpreted by scientists?
2. What observations does the theory of evolution by natural selection explain?Do you agree that these are fair rearrangements?
Stuart
Imagination is very powerful.
The imagination can link things together and figure out the facts, but it can also link things together in a way that is wrong.
The fossil record doesn't prove that certain species turned into other ones it just shows a myriad of species of which there are common characteristics. Some then using their imagination link them together in a time line and say that this became that then evolved into this.
Such teaching takes some fact and interjects imagination that cannot be proven.
As for the majority being right, well history is a great teacher but few learn from it. History shows us that most men were wrong when it comes to scientific fact. Many believed the world was flat. Many others believed the stars hung from a ceiling. Others again believe that men evolved from primitive apes. I am sure that many were convinced they were right, but then they just get disproven in time. Perhaps it is a bit arrogant to say that the current popular theory is fact?
Anyway, if humans have about 40% DNA in common with a daffodil, then I could using my imagination take a whole lot of species between humans and daffodils and using a movie show a gradual change from a daffodil to human. But does that make my theory/movie right?
Hell no.
So if you take extinct apes and relate them to human ancestors you are just doing the same thing. i.e., using you imagination and showing a gradual change from one species to another.
The thing that stand out to me is that most living things have related DNA. That can also equally argue that there is a programmer who created all things and he has a code base by which he derives species based on differing combinations of code.
In my experience people believe what they want to believe. Bias is a big part of Science and always has been.
The majority are wrong according to scripture.
Wide is the path of lies and narrow is the path of truth.
The truth is like precious stones. It isn't common and it is also extremely valuable.
At the end of the day, it boils down to this for me.
Nothing cannot create something.
Nothing produces nothing. In fact nothing cannot even produce.
Nothing is nothing.
Yet we find something. In fact many things.
Hebrews 3:4
For every house is built by someone, but God is the builder of everything.
Hi t8
++”Imagination is very powerful. The imagination can link things together and figure out the facts, but it can also link things together in a way that is wrong.
This is very true. Just as it could be true for scientific theories it is even truer for religious mythology.
++”The fossil record doesn't prove that certain species turned into other ones it just shows a myriad of species of which there are common characteristics. Some then using their imagination link them together in a time line and say that this became that then evolved into this. Such teaching takes some fact and interjects imagination that cannot be proven.
The very least that the fossil record does is to disprove the Genesis account. Comparative DNA independently verifies the tree of life model made by comparative morphology of fossils. You may argue about whether a fossil is in a direct line of the descent of modern horses or a side branch to extinction, but the resolution of the fossil record is more than good enough to show that, for example, birds arose from reptiles.
++”As for the majority being right, well history is a great teacher but few learn from it. History shows us that most men were wrong when it comes to scientific fact. Many believed the world was flat. Many others believed the stars hung from a ceiling. Others again believe that men evolved from primitive apes. I am sure that many were convinced they were right, but then they just get disproven in time. Perhaps it is a bit arrogant to say that the current popular theory is fact?
It is a fact that evolution has taken place. It is a theory that natural selection is the mechanism for it. This theory is better understood than the mechanism that explains the fact of gravity. This is state-of-the-art knowledge, the best we have. Is it too much to say that it is a bit arrogant to assert a creator did it without evidence for one?
++”Anyway, if humans have about 40% DNA in common with a daffodil, then I could using my imagination take a whole lot of species between humans and daffodils and using a movie show a gradual change from a daffodil to human. But does that make my theory/movie right?
Hell no.No, as you say your change from daffodil to human would be incorrect.
See http://library.thinkquest.org/29178/treeolif.htm for a crude picture that shows why.++”So if you take extinct apes and relate them to human ancestors you are just doing the same thing. i.e., using you imagination and showing a gradual change from one species to another.
No, you would be using morphological and genetic evidence to make those links, not imagination.
++”The thing that stand out to me is that most living things have related DNA. That can also equally argue that there is a programmer who created all things and he has a code base by which he derives species based on differing combinations of code.
Common DNA is explained by common ancestry. The progression of genetic difference between species over time is mirrored in the ages of fossils of proposed common ancestors. If you insist on a creator, then he has done the creation to mimic exactly what we would see from the process of descent with modification, laying down an ordered fossil record to match. As we have been over already, His coding is not up to the standard you would expect even from a very average programmer.
++”In my experience people believe what they want to believe.
Very honest of you to say so.
++”Bias is a big part of Science and always has been.
That is a serious accusation. Science has a correction mechanism. Genesis doesn’t. If you mean that science assumes that there is no creator, can you please give one piece of evidence that would lead to assuming such a thing.
++”Nothing cannot create something.
True. Where did your creator come from?
++”Nothing produces nothing. In fact nothing cannot even produce.
Nothing is nothing. Yet we find something. In fact many things.This is sad, t8, you have been reduced to deism!
Stuart
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
