Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Best Evidence for Evolution.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    My studies of the fossil record indicate that the fossil record disproves major transformations. This was the finding of the evidence by Gould and Eldridge, except that they claimed that major transformations must have occurred so rapidly that they left no record in the fossils.
    What are you on about? Was not the change between the Newt-Like creatures that existed 400 million years ago and the creatures that exist today a major change.

    You are actually completely in agreement with the Theory of Evolution, when you say that major transformations occured.

    That's not the way things work. Creatures gradually diversify into different forms, they don't "magically" turn from one into the other.

    You are on the right track except you have not studied the fossil record sufficiently to realize that major transformations among multicelled creatures are as non-existent as ones which go from bacteria to anything else.

    Gould and Eldridge (and others) gave the game away when they revealed "the trade secret" of paleontology.
    However, no Evolutionists are actually claiming that major transformations ever occured.

    Things happen as a series of gradual steps, not all at once. This proccess takes millions of years.

    Indeed, drastic tranformations were they ever to occur, would almost certainly be fatal or useless, since multiple things have to evolve together in sync, for the most part.

    The problem comes with the "assembly" part of the situation. That is how exactly did the various parts get to be assembled well enough that they actually worked to some extent.

    Your view of Evolutionary Theory, is actually a flawed one. The effective sum of constant smaller changes, eventually adds up to major changes, when we are comparing over millions of years, but no major transformations ever happened overnight.
    Of course I probably don't know what I'm talking about, but that's theology for you.

    A Lie requires a reason to exist.
    The Truth does not.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by bob b View Post
      I might if you were more specific about the groupings as well as the evidence.

      I will accept or reject the evidence once it is presented.

      (Actually I rarely reject evidence per se, preferring to concentrate on the conclusions which are drawn once the evidence is given).
      Evidence for common ancestors for different animals has been presented to you countless times on these forums by much finer posters than myself. It would be a waste of my time to start digging up examples.

      If you reject the evidence that dogs and cats have a common ancestor, then why bother going back all the way to your hypotocell? The disagreement happens long before that.
      "What if the Hokie Pokie is really what it's all about?"

      "The best things in life aren't things"

      Comment


      • #18
        Bob B, I fail to see the point in you endlessly debating the SAME PEOPLE about evolution. Conduct research. Write a book. Get a paper published. Pose your arguments to a new audience (i.e. a different forum). ANYTHING would be better than putting forth the same arguments and "refutations" over and over and over and...
        "In a fractional reserve banking system like the United States banking system, most of the funds advanced to borrowers (assets of the bank) are created by the banks themselves and are not merely transferred from one set of depositors to another set of borrowers." - Walker F. Todd

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Cliffracer RIP View Post
          What are you on about? Was not the change between the Newt-Like creatures that existed 400 million years ago and the creatures that exist today a major change.
          That would only be true if it were demonstrated scientifically that the "newt-like" creature was the ancestor of newts that exist today. This is never done.

          You are actually completely in agreement with the Theory of Evolution, when you say that major transformations occured.
          Where did I say that?

          That's not the way things work. Creatures gradually diversify into different forms, they don't "magically" turn from one into the other.
          The offspring do vary. But there is no evidence that this process can be extrapolated backwards without limit to form the fictious "tree of life".

          However, no Evolutionists are actually claiming that major transformations ever occured.
          Of course they do. They just say that it occurred in multiple stages over millions of years, and the naive think this speculation must be true because the guy has a PhD and teaches at a university.

          Things happen as a series of gradual steps, not all at once. This proccess takes millions of years.
          This is the theory, but there is no evidence in the fossil record that this actually happens.

          Indeed, drastic tranformations were they ever to occur, would almost certainly be fatal or useless, since multiple things have to evolve together in sync, for the most part.

          The problem comes with the "assembly" part of the situation. That is how exactly did the various parts get to be assembled well enough that they actually worked to some extent.
          Those pesky details again. They have ruined many a beautiful theory. Are you an Engineer by any chance? If so you probably know that complex interrelated control systems can not be created by step-by-step unidimensional tiny changes. And biological control systems are far more complex and interrelated than anything that humans have come up with. (Of course Darwin didn't know this, so he can be excused for thinking that small changes could continue to accumulate without limit. The wonder is that many (if not most) scientists today do not realize the fallacy here. Dogmas die hard.

          Your view of Evolutionary Theory, is actually a flawed one. The effective sum of constant smaller changes, eventually adds up to major changes, when we are comparing over millions of years, but no major transformations ever happened overnight.
          Unfortunately the only evidence of this is in some people's overactive imaginations.
          Random changes are destructive to any carefully crafted piece of work, such as a computer program, a novel or the genome of a lifeform.
          Matt 23:24Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by JustinFoldsFive View Post
            Bob B, I fail to see the point in you endlessly debating the SAME PEOPLE about evolution. Conduct research. Write a book. Get a paper published.
            Funny you should mention that.

            Pose your arguments to a new audience (i.e. a different forum).
            I do. Same result: "there is plenty of evidence (unspecified) for macroevolution".

            AND

            "Are all those scientists wrong?"

            Scientists have been wrong about lots of things in the past (even when "everybody knew thus and thus") and they will be wrong about many of the things which are widely believed today.

            But of course "that's how science works".

            I'm just giving people here a "heads up" on the next big thing that "everybody knows is true" that will eventually be shown to have been false.

            And at that point there will be thousands of scientists who will come forward and confess that they knew or suspected it all the time, but were not able to prove it so they just kept quiet.
            Random changes are destructive to any carefully crafted piece of work, such as a computer program, a novel or the genome of a lifeform.
            Matt 23:24Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

            Comment


            • #21
              I think that the best evidence is........that monkeys love bananas. We evolved from monkeys, and monkeys evolved from bananas. 60%->98%->US. Makes perfect sense!

              sigpic

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by bob b View Post
                Are you an Engineer by any chance? If so you probably know that complex interrelated control systems can not be created by step-by-step unidimensional tiny changes.
                Sure they can.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by SUTG View Post
                  Sure they can.
                  Show us.
                  Random changes are destructive to any carefully crafted piece of work, such as a computer program, a novel or the genome of a lifeform.
                  Matt 23:24Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by bob b View Post
                    I'm just giving people here a "heads up" on the next big thing that "everybody knows is true" that will eventually be shown to have been false.

                    And at that point there will be thousands of scientists who will come forward and confess that they knew or suspected it all the time, but were not able to prove it so they just kept quiet.
                    This sounds more like what you hope happens than anything else. What evidence do you have that what you say here is true?


                    Evo

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Evoken View Post
                      This sounds more like what you hope happens than anything else. What evidence do you have that what you say here is true?
                      Evo
                      The fact that people here who believe in (macro)evolution have so far struck out on giving any scientific evidence for it. In science this is a pretty good indicator that an idea is mostly "hot air" and is about to be discarded. (Does anyone here realize that the "Big Bang" is on its last legs in this regard?)

                      Stay tuned.
                      Random changes are destructive to any carefully crafted piece of work, such as a computer program, a novel or the genome of a lifeform.
                      Matt 23:24Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Ok, the very fact that you're here talking about this is evidence against evolution. For you to be here, numerous mutations and random chances would have happened, and what were the in between species supposed to do? (Imagine a creature trying out its new legs for the first time, only to find it can't breath air! Or, an air breather w/ fins? I don't think so...)
                        sigpic

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          The fact that people here who believe in (macro)evolution have so far struck out on giving any scientific evidence for it. In science this is a pretty good indicator that an idea is mostly "hot air" and is about to be discarded.
                          SUTG and might_duck have both provided evidence in this thread, you simply do not accept the evidence. I have this crazy hunch that regardless of what evidence is cited, you will not accept it, and thus will continue to charge that all "evolutionists have struck out on giving any scientific evidence for it". What a silly tactic.
                          "In a fractional reserve banking system like the United States banking system, most of the funds advanced to borrowers (assets of the bank) are created by the banks themselves and are not merely transferred from one set of depositors to another set of borrowers." - Walker F. Todd

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by bob b View Post
                            Show us.
                            You first.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by JustinFoldsFive View Post
                              SUTG and might_duck have both provided evidence in this thread...
                              Really? Where?


                              Evo

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by bob b View Post
                                Show us.
                                The problem with most mechanical systems is that they can't reproduce. Not really a problem for software though, hence:

                                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_algorithm
                                "What if the Hokie Pokie is really what it's all about?"

                                "The best things in life aren't things"

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X