W
whatistrue
Guest
Sure, if every single lifeform that ever existed ended up fossilized. But that isn’t how it works. Again, basic fundamental stuff.
Transitional Fossils and the Theory of Evolution in relation to Genesis Accounts
- Status
B
buffalo
Guest
So we craft a story based on having a really small number of pieces in a millions of pieces puzzle? We can only do this is we have an a priori conviction we know the box cover looks like.
T
Techno2000
Guest
No, but after billions of ( “numerous, successive, slight modifications” -Darwin) there should be something…don’t you think?Techno2000:
Sure, if every single lifeform that ever existed ended up fossilized. But that isn’t how it works. Again, basic fundamental stuff.
T
Techno2000
Guest
“Darwin’s theory of natural selection has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument in favor of Darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true.” David M Raup,
“We have no idea why most structures in extinct organisms look the way they do. And, as I already have noted, different species usually appear and disappear from the record without showing the transition that Darwin postulated.” David M Raup,
“Instead of finding gradual unfolding of life, what geologists of Darwin’s time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record.” David M Raup,
“Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded … ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s 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, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information–what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic.” David M Raup,
“The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution…” Steven Stanley,
“Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists of Darwin’s time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record. and it is not always clear, in fact it’s rarely clear, that the descendants were actually better adapted than their predecessors. In other words, biological improvement is hard to find.” David M Raup,
“We have no idea why most structures in extinct organisms look the way they do. And, as I already have noted, different species usually appear and disappear from the record without showing the transition that Darwin postulated.” David M Raup,
“Instead of finding gradual unfolding of life, what geologists of Darwin’s time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record.” David M Raup,
“Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded … ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s 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, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information–what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic.” David M Raup,
“The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution…” Steven Stanley,
“Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists of Darwin’s time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record. and it is not always clear, in fact it’s rarely clear, that the descendants were actually better adapted than their predecessors. In other words, biological improvement is hard to find.” David M Raup,
W
whatistrue
Guest
Yes. And there is.
Is every gap filled neatly? No.
Do we have a good idea, based on the information we have, as to what happened? Yes.
Is it likely that new information will change some, or even a lot, of the details? Yes.
Is it likely that the entire theory will have to be scrapped based on new evidence? No.
For the nth time, this is basic fundamental stuff. Not just for evolution specifically, but for how science is done by those who do it every day.
T
Techno2000
Guest
Long ago, the late, famous paleontologist of Columbia University, the American Museum of Natural History, and the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard, George Gaylord Simpson, admitted: “Most new species, genera, and families, and nearly all categories above the level of families, appear in the records suddenly, and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely transitional sequences.”[ The Cambrian Explosion is an acknowledged problem for evolutionary theory—a falsified prediction—and yet the abrupt appearance of fully formed and functional species is an obvious, pervasive trait of the entire fossil record, from beginning to end.
B
Buzzard3
Guest
Please cite one scientist who describes Spriggina as “hard-bodied”.
My understanding is, “hard-bodied” refers to the presence of either an exoskeleton or an endoskeleton - Spriggina had neither.
Last edited:
B
Buzzard3
Guest
Please stop using scientific evidence presented by experts to argue your case.
After all, Darwinism is a fraudulent cult that relies on faith, junk-science and gullible victims. Inconvenient facts are not welcome.
After all, Darwinism is a fraudulent cult that relies on faith, junk-science and gullible victims. Inconvenient facts are not welcome.
C
CaptainPrudeman
Guest
Wrong. Spriggina, like trilobites, were mainly a series of interlocking plates made of tough material. It’s classified as “Tough but uncalcified.”
Last edited:
C
CaptainPrudeman
Guest
Pot, meet kettle.
I’m almost amazed that you, who belongs to the pseudoscientific cult of intelligent design of organisms, claims that evolution is actually the cult.
Last edited:
R
rossum
Guest
Think fingernails for example.
F
Freddy
Guest
So do you have a reasonable idea as to why all the animals had to be taken aboard the ark?
E
Eric_Hyom
Guest
No matter how many chances there might seem, they would never be able to form a skeletal system by mutation and natural selection.
The skeletal system is far more complex than an aircraft carrier and we have been making aircraft carriers for decades. We can only make a fairly poor robotic version of our bodies. This has to mean our design is more complex than an aircraft carrier.
Unless God was guiding it, evolution could not happen
Last edited:
R
rossum
Guest
How complex is God? Your only explanation for complexity is to assume complexity to start with. That explanation will not fly. If complexity requires design, then any intelligent designer requires design because intelligence is itself complex.
C
CaptainPrudeman
Guest
A conclusion based on no evidence whatsoever. Just blind insistence.
The skeletal system is very simple. We make plastic and metal versions every day. The materials it is made out of, though, and the way it’s made? Much harder to replicate through manufacturing.
E
Eric_Hyom
Guest
You recognise there is a chance life could have evolved given enough chances. This is another way of saying you do not have evidence that life evolved this way. How can you sift real evidence when you are searching through 3e9 base pairs, which gives about 2.7e12 / 3e9 = 900 generations per single base pair on average.
C
CaptainPrudeman
Guest
No, Rossum is only saying that the “chance” of evolution occurring the way it has is not nearly as small as you and others on your side have claimed. The evidence of evolution is strong and concrete. It’s been shown to be possible, and it explains everything about modern biodiversity.
Don’t understand what this part has to do with anything. Perhaps it’s part of your obsession with big numbers?
E
Eric_Hyom
Guest
Ok, Halloween is coming. But a robotic version of ourselves means a working model that can replicate all our movements. We can only make very crude models.
C
CaptainPrudeman
Guest
We can only make crude models because the motor system that governs human movement evolved over billions of years and we’ve had the technology for maybe 100. Plus, things like power supply and limits on sizing mean we can’t perfectly replicate human movement. Our power supplies are present in every cell and our motors are microscopic. We don’t have the technology to replicate that.
W
whatistrue
Guest
And how long have we been trying, compared to the length of time that the species has existed? Could the version of Norman Rockwell who slept in a crib paint the same way he could as an adult? No, we cannot make a robotic version according to your definition yet. But we are coming closer all the time, and time is not up yet. Incremental changes over time. Sound familiar?
- Status