Did you evolve?

[Nick M]

Genisis says all creatures, including man, were created complete and complex from the begining. There isn't any improvements to be made. We have a certain set of genes that get reshuffled for defense mechanisms and other needed adaptations. This is micro evolution. It is valid, it has been observed. However micro evolution plus time does not equal macroevolution. That is the belief that humans evolved from monkeyes, which evolved from something lower. That dinosaurs evolved into birds, or whatever you like, everything came from a pool of slime.

What science has validated through palaoentology and the study of biology is the law of biogenisis. It states that life only comes from other life. When Darwin wrote his novel, he speculated that digging would prove his theory. Instead, it made even bigger holes in his theory than what he thought. He expected to find intermediate fossils. Instead we have only found fully devolped species. For example;

Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the the situation hasnt changed much. The record of evolution is still suprisingly jerky and ironically, we have even fewer examples evolutionary transision than we had in Darwins time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America,(and the cocelacanth) have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information-what happened to be nice sample progression when relatively few data were available low appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin's problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection

Conflicts between Darwin and Palentology , Field Museum of Natural History BulletinVol 50, No 1, January 1975.

Instead of finding transitions(macroevolution) we found fully devolped species. Which is what Genisis states.

But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their history and the record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition

Evolution: The Paleobiological View Scinece Vol. 208, May16 1980 p. 716

This implies that there are no transition fossils(macro evolution).
Darwins hypothesis needs transition fossils or his hypothesis is invalid. Those are his words.

Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum(Natural History), was asked by Luther D. Sunderland why no evolutionary transitions were included in Dr. Patterson's recent book entitled Evolution. In a personal letter, Patterson said;

I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be asked to visualize such transformation, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader? Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say that there are no transitional fossils. As a palentologist myself I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least "show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived." I will lay it onl the line-there is not one such fossilfor which one could make a wartertight argument

Copy of letter dated Apr 10,1979 from Patterson to Sunderlund. "If I knew of any"...ouch.

There is more conclusive refutation of Darwinism that that furnished by palaeontology. Simple probability indicates that fossil hoardes can only be test samples. Each sample should represent a different stage of evolution, and there ought to be merely transitional types, no definition and no species. Instead of this we find perfectly stable and unaltered forms preservering through long ages, forms that have not developed themselves on the fitness principle but appear suddenly and at once in their definitve shape(creation); that do not thereafter evolve towards better adaptation, but become rarer and finally dissapear, while quite different forms crop up again. What unfolds itself, in ever increasing richness of form, is the great classes and kinds of living beings which exist aboriginally and exist still, without transition types, in the grouping of today

The Decline of the WestVol 2, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1966 p 32.

Mr. Spengler is commenting on Mr Knoph's findings if you don't understand the double credit.

But the smooth transition from one form of life to another wich is implied in the theory is not borne out by the facts. The search for the missing link between various living creatures, like humans and apes is probably fruitless...becuase they probably never existed as transitional types. But no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures. This oddity has been attributed to gaps in the the fossil record which gradualists expected to fill when rock strata of the proper age had been found. In the last decade, however, geologists have found rock layers of all divsions of the last 500 million years and no transitional forms were contained in them. If it is not the fossil record which is incomplete hen it must be the theory.

American Museum of Natural History Missing, Believed, Nonexistent Manchester Guardian(The Washington Post Weekly) Vol 119, No 22, 26 Nov 1978 P1

There is no fossil record establising historical continuity of structure for most characters that might be used to asses relationships among phyla

Molecular Phylogeny of the Animal Kingdon Science Vol. 239 Feb 12 1988 p.748

There is another and allied difficulty, which is much more serious. I allude to the manner in which species belonging to several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest known fossilferous rocks.

Origin of the Species p 348

What was that Charles? You need transistion fossils to show evolution, but there aren't any? How interesting. Maybe 100 years of digging will show elsewise.

Even chuck writes that Genesis account is the only thing we have found in the rock. That species appear fully devolped from the begining. Which he said would invalidate the entire theory. And after years of digging we still find the same thing. Fully devolped, and no transitional fossils. I will leave it at this for tonight. The fossil record shows more evidence for a creation than evolution and transition. In fact, it is a blowout. I will cover some other related topics tomorow, in addition to more information from palaeontologists searching for answers and not finding what they thought they would.

And this is a tangent but Charles Darwin is also a big time bolshevik, and anticapitalists.

Some famous palentolgists have been embarassed over what research has shown. For example.

The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of palaeontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our text books have data only at the tips and nodes of the branches; THE REST IS INFERENCE, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils...we fancy ourselves as the only true students of lifes history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view datat as so bad that wenever see the very process we profess to study

Evolutions Erratic Pace

Now Gould and Eldridge, as I quoted earlier believe transitional fossils are missing becuase relatively rapid evolutionary jumps occured over these gaps. They call their theory"punctured equilibria" Of course, they dont explain how it could happen. Genetiscists must be shocked by the proposal of Gould and Eldridge. They were forced to say something so contradictory to genetics. They were forced to say evolution must proceed in jumps. Explaining how these jumps occur is obviously not important to them. So the specieces of whales just jumped in short time huh?

It is true that skeletal features of some amphibians and some reptiles are similar. However, huge differences exist in their soft internal organs, such as their circulatory and reproductive systems. I would like to see an explination for the devolpement of the many unique innovations of the reptiles egg.

Gaps at lower taxonomic level, species and genera, are practically universal in the fossil record of the mammal-like reptiles. In no single adequately documented case is it possilbe to trace a transition species by species, from genus to another.

Mammal-like reptiles and the origin of mammals p.319

Some have claimed birds evolved from a two legged dinosaur known as a theropod. However several problems exist. Besides the proven fraud, Archaeoptrix.

A theropod dinosaur fossil found in China showed a lung mechanism completely incompatible with that of birds. (See John A Ruben "Lung structure and ventillation in theropod dinosaurs and early birds" Science vol 278, Nov 14, 1997p 1267-1270. In that report

Rueben argues that a transition from a crocodillian to a bird lung would be impossible, becuase the transitional animal would have a life threatening hernia or hole in its diaghragm

Lung fossils Suggest Dinos breathed in Cold Blood Science p1230

Ouch. Impossible is such a harsh word. Sorry Jack Horner.

You have to have a good fossil to learn this. And continuing with the themes, everytime we learn, transition is shot down. If we found a fossil of a German Sheppard and North American Wolf, we might think one evolved from the other. But of course, we know it is just a variation of a species, micro evolution.

Bird and theropod "hands" differ. Theropods have fingers 1,2 and 3, while birds have fingers 2,3, and 4.

The devolpmental evidence of homolgy is problematic for the hypothesize theropod origin of birds

]Devolpmental patterns and the identification of Homologies in the avian hand Scinence Vol 278, Oct 24, 1997 p666-668.

This important devolopmental evidence that birds have a 2,3,4 digital formula, unlike the dinosaur 1,2,3 is the most important barrier to the belief in the dinosaur origin orthodoxy

The Forward March of the Bird-Dinosaurs Halted? ScienceVol 278 Oct 1997 p597
Sorry to do that again Mr Jack Horner. BTW, Jack is famous for helping theorize what dinosaurs looked like in the design for Jurassic Park. An upright Godzilla creature? Probably not. He is most likely correct about his designs.

A simple way of putting it is that currently we have about 38 phlya of different groups of animals, but the total number of phyla discovered dring that period of time adds up to over 50 phyla. That means there are more pyla in the very very begining, where we found the first fossils, than exist now. Stephen J Gould has refrenced this as the reverse cone of diversity. The theory of evolution implies that things get more complex and get more and more diverse from one single origin. But the whole thing turns out to be reversed-we have more diverse groups inthe very beginning, and in fact more of them die off over time and we have less now.

Explosion of LifeInterviewed June 30, 1997

And finally...

Was the eyes contrived without skill in optics, and the ear with out knowledge of sounds???

I will now listen to any valid rebuttal. That you have evidence for macro evolution. Despite what the palentology record shows. Even the Trilobite which is supposed to be on one of the bottom rung of the ladder, has much more complex eyes than those at the top. Somebody explain it to me.

 

[wingman]

here we go again...the infamous "we're going to debate religion and science over the internet" threads that, knowing the maturity level of all internet forums, will descend into pointless babble about how your right and I'm wrong and in the end nobody will come out on top, just like every one of the 393242 threads like this that pop up every day. I still say just believe whatever the **** you want and get off your high horse about your belief being "the right one"....your not going to convert anybody anyway, so I don't really see a point, or the logic behind that post...unless your trying to pick a fight with some overly sensative person that doesn't believe in god.


Here's another, much better topic to debate that everybody can take part in. There's a 40 foot leprechaun in my neighbor's garage, and it's pink too...but for some reason it won't show up on any kind of camera...but because It's there leprechauns most definately exist.

discuss


ninja edit: oh, and while were at it, i slept with the tooth fairy...bow chica bow wow

 

[Nick M]

That was a well thought rebuttal. You did all things you say everybody else does. How ironic.

This is science. No religion here. Bring it.

 

[wingman]

That was a well thought rebuttal. You did all things you say everybody else does. How ironic.

This is science. No religion here. Bring it.

well of course I did, because aren't I part of "everybody else" when somebody else says it? Life is full of irony, why can't I be full of it too?

...and religion will find a way to slither in here, in fact you cited the book of genesis in your first paragraph. But hell if I care, I'm just going to haul the computer out and crack a few beers open with my leprechaun buddy while we watch the flamefest...maybe I'll call the easter bunny up too, he's always the life of the party.

 

[SupraOfDoom]

Although I'm open for both ideas... I will ask this, why did only some monkeys evolve into humans, or why did only some birds evolve into dino's ? Doesn't make much sense to me.

 

[SupraOfDoom]

bux fan? Like the milwaukee bucks?

 

[DreamerTheresa]

:: cries ::

 

[wingman]

:: cries ::

don't be sad, I'll put a good word in with my homeboy santa claus for ya :icon_bigg

 

[DreamerTheresa]

I appreciate that.

 

[91T breezen']

why can't I be full of it too?

Sounds to me like you already are!:biglaugh: Only a fool would deny the existence of God. No, that's not religion, just faith! Here's a little something I tell the non-believers that think I waste my time and money with Christian causes. If I'm wrong about God and Christianity, then I will just take an eternal dirt nap like everyone else when I die...nothing gained, nothing lost. But, If you are wrong... and God is as powerful as the Bible says, and as vengeful... God help you, cause you're not gonna' be doing any sleeping after you die! I've never told anybody that, who didn't hesitate with an answer. Kinda' makes you think a little, does'nt it!?

 

[SupraDerk]

Damn...I've always managed to stay out of these debates but I have to respond now...

Only a fool would deny the existence of God.

That's the thing that bugs me the most about most Christians is that they make it seem like you are SO wrong for not believing in God. I could conversely say that "only a fool would believe in God"...but I don't. I find that most people that are agnostic or atheist don't really feel the need to throw their belief around once they find out someone is a Christian...but holy hell once a Christian finds out your agnostic...or worse! Atheist!...they drop into "prove to me why you don't think a God exists."

God help you, cause you're not gonna' be doing any sleeping after you die!

Isn't that like a cruel joke...it's my understanding that those who don't believe in God will burn in hell for all of eternity. I'm guessing God really WOULDN'T help you if that were the case...

Anyways, I just think it's kind of arrogant to say that of all the planets in galaxies...out of all the galaxies in the universe and of all the possible universes that could exist (read up on the M-theory), and of all the different species of life that could exist, God supposedly sent his only son here to die for the sins of man...

Just my $.02. I'm in by no means making an attack on religion. Everyone is their own person and is free to think what they want to think. I'm just saying it's not for me. :naughty:

-Derek

 

[encomiast]

If I'm wrong about God and Christianity, then I will just take an eternal dirt nap like everyone else when I die...nothing gained, nothing lost. But, If you are wrong... and God is as powerful as the Bible says, and as vengeful... God help you, cause you're not gonna' be doing any sleeping after you die! I've never told anybody that, who didn't hesitate with an answer. Kinda' makes you think a little, does'nt it!?

But...but... Jesus loves me anyway! At least that's what the stickers say, isn't it?
Just to continue your logic: what if one of the numerous other religions are "true", i.e. their god(s) really exist(s)? Then YOU won't be doing any sleeping after YOU die, either... or you'll just reincarnate as a housefly or something if you're lucky
I personally don't deny the existence of (any form of) god, but I find it a little irritating that so many people on this world believe that "their" religion is the only true religion and that all the believers of other religions (or those who don't believe at all) are just plain stupid or "misguided". That's not directed towards you, it's just a little food for thought.

After all, most people on this planet believe in what their parents believe or what they told them to believe. That's usually Christianity in North America and Europe, Buddhism in China, Hinduism in India, etc....
If they were born in some "primitive people", most Christians/Buddhists/Muslims/whatever would probably believe in what most people in their environment believe, and their belief would be just as firm.

Since I didn't grow up in a believing family, I find it rather difficult to understand how people can be so sure of their beliefs. But maybe that's just me *shrug*

Live and let live

 

[BosoMKII]

Although I'm open for both ideas... I will ask this, why did only some monkeys evolve into humans, or why did only some birds evolve into dino's ? Doesn't make much sense to me.

The current theorys about why are there still monkeys, and why did only some move on to hominids? have mostly to do with the requirements of the enviornment. Monkeys, chimps, gorillas, orangs, all live in dense forest or otherwise close, rough terrain. Hominids, those creatures credited with being the first to stand upright where required to cover long distances to find food. The idea is that the rain forest that covered most of Africa began to recide as the savana came into existance. Walking upright is very energy efficent. In addition, humans and more recent hominids are pretty much built for running and sheding heat efficently.

Don't know much about dinos sorry.

Personally, I am leaving faith/religion out of this.

Theory theory theory please remember that in this discussion and try to stick to science. Its really neat stuff to think about.

 

[Wills7MGTE]

Maybe if everyone quit worrying about the meaning of life? is there a god? blah blah blah then we might actually accomplish important things like curing cancer, making a lag free turbo and a low fat but yet tasty burger, Just enjoy life and don't worry If ya wanna worship an asteroid fine by me just don't force your beliefs on me, too bad thats all religious people do, FORCE IDEAS ON ME. So yea just go have fun, you can think about all this when your dead.

 

[Supracentral]

When you see someone with true faith in a god, regardless of what you believe, the power of faith in and of itself can be a pretty amazing thing.

However when you see someone where their faith has been weakend to the point where they try to masquerade it around as science, it's dimented and sad.

Weak faithed creationists want to be called "Creation Scientists".

They want to pawn off their failed faith in creationisim as the newfound "Creation Science".

The only problem with this is Creationisim cannot stand in the scientific arena as a scientific hypothesis even if you do stick the word "science" into the name.

A scientific hypothesis must be testable and must allow for both positive and negative results. Meaning, a hypothesis must make predictions that can be compared to the observable world and determined to be either true or false.

If an hypothesis makes no predictions, makes predictions that cannot be unambiguously interpreted as either success or failure, or makes predictions that cannot be tested, then it is not science.

One of the things I find most entertaining (and telling) is that these folks always go right back to Charles Darwin.

There's something you need to think about and understand as a major difference between the two camps, and this illustrates it beautifully. When you deal with someone of faith, of religion, creationisim and god, the entire mindset is based upon the ancient & sacred. They believe that there are some things that are 100% eternal and unchanging. This mindset is so pervasive, that these folks go all the way back to Charles Darwin and attack him and his writings directly. They find minor (and sometimes major) flaws in his work and point them out to discredit him. They attack what they percieve as "sacred" to the scientific community.

What they fail to understand is that in the last hundred plus years, some of what Darwin originally proposed has been augmented by more modern scientific understanding of inheritance (genetics), development, and other processes that affect evolution. Science is constantly changing with new discoveries and new scientists. When you go back and "nitpick" at Darwin in an attempt to prove this creationist nonsense, you are really off base. Science itself has been doing that nitpicking for the last hundred some odd years. And a lot what Darwin originally proposed has changed because of it.

Every time they find a modern scientist who differs with Darwin or conflicts with something said earlier, they think they have found some sort of victory or have scored some sort of point on Darwin and/or science. Science is constantly changing, evolving if you will. Science doesn't fear questions, and science doesn't fear change, only faith does.

What remains unchanged over all these years however, is that the similarities and differences among living things on Earth over time and space display a pattern that is best explained by evolutionary theory. And creationisim, by any other name, is still just a religious belief, and any attempt to pass it off as science is, in my opinon, just a way of weakening the very faith that created the idea.

P.S. - I think as time goes on you are going to see more and more of this. I'll be the first to admit that faith can be strong. Amazingly so. When you see complete and utter faith, it will stand in the face of anything defiantly. However, as the very existence of "creation science" shows there's little faith left. In place of unbelieveable will and strength, you get these pathetic attempts to convert faith into reason. Pathetic attempts at science that start with the hypothesis "Genisis says".

:: cries ::

Don't cry girl, what you are seeing are the last, breathless attempts to hold on the tattered remnants of that faith. It's sad but it's also yet another stage in evolution, as we move away from mystical bullshit and out into the light of reason.

 

[Joel W.]

I lol'd @ this pic..

 

[Supracentral]

I lol'd @ this pic..[/img]

That's actually very funny. Someone had some real wit to put that together.

However on a serious note, the concept of the "missing link" is more than a bit outmoded and outdated. You have to look back at the origin of the idea of a missing link. It came from a time when we thought that the geneology of the human race was just a straight line. We now undertand that humanity's genetics span out over a "family tree" that was extremely diverse. This diversity has been seen in almost all other organisms that we know of as well.

If you start drawing out this tree, at the top with Homo Sapiens and at the bottom with Australopithecus Africanus, you've got five million years of mutation, offshoot, failed branches and the like to account for. The modern science of human evolutionary history doesn't have a missing link.

 

[Joel W.]

I read this story a few months back about a monkey that got sick and recovered but would no longer walk on all 4 legs, only the 2 back legs..

I thought it was interesting to say the least.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5479501/

 

[Yellow 13]

 

[CTsupra]

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: