Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The phrase "Evolution is a fact"
Archangel
Member (Idle past 1357 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 141 of 217 (523969)
09-13-2009 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by subbie
10-31-2008 2:02 PM


subble writes:
Yes, it is.
Evolution can be described by the phrase "descent with modification." Change in the population of various organisms across generations has been directly observed, both in the lab and in nature. Thus, it is an fact.
Simple as that.
Really? As simple as that? Then by all means prove descent with modification has actually occurred in the real world, which means show me that one type/species of lower animal such as a fish has actually evolved into a different type/species of animal such as an amphibian, and then, since we are well past that stage of evolution, go on and show how that amphibian evolved in the reptile and how the reptile evolved into mammals. We'll put the evidence for avian's on hold for now cuz I don't want to stress you out.
I mean, as has been stated already, a FACT requires evidence, so prove your claim of descent by modification/MACROEVOLUTION has actually happened in the real world and in the animal kingdom leading up to we human beings.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by subbie, posted 10-31-2008 2:02 PM subbie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by RAZD, posted 09-13-2009 7:43 PM Archangel has replied
 Message 152 by Peepul, posted 09-14-2009 1:10 PM Archangel has not replied

  
Archangel
Member (Idle past 1357 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 142 of 217 (523972)
09-13-2009 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by Modulous
09-13-2009 11:05 AM


Modulous writes:
He (Dawkins) draws a line between the two. The two subjects are obviously related to the subject of 'life'. The origin of biology itself is obviously a topic of interest to a biologist.
The selfish gene is principally about replicators (the title of the chapter to which you are referring). Dawkins talks (very) briefly about a pre-replicator world and then talks about the first replicators and so on. His central thesis is that where there is replication + inheritance there will be evolution which is why he also talks about memes in the book too.
Here is the crux of the issue. No evolutionist denies or ignores the value of abiogenesis as the first step of the macroevolution process. Only when creationists refer to the two issues simultaneously do evos sanctimoniously claim they just don't get it. Well we do get it, and very clearly. You believe that life magically appeared spontaneously around 3.5 billion years ago in that pool of primordial ooze, and immediately there after the process of macroevolution began as simple proteins evolved into varied and diverse enzymes and bacteria which split into other types of life forms leading to more and more complex forms of life. What we creationists are waiting for is evidence that one actual species/type of animal has ever evolved into another species/type of animal. That's the crux of your belief system after all, so produce evidence of it if you can and put this issue to bed once and for all.
Only disingenuous propagandists would then attempt to separate these two processes of abio and evo when everyone knows that the second process could never exist without the first having occurred according to their own theory. Someone needs to hold your feet to the fire of honest definitions and expose the dishonesty your pseudo science represents when held up to the light of day in these debates.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Modulous, posted 09-13-2009 11:05 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Coyote, posted 09-13-2009 6:51 PM Archangel has not replied
 Message 144 by jacortina, posted 09-13-2009 6:57 PM Archangel has not replied
 Message 146 by Modulous, posted 09-14-2009 2:55 AM Archangel has not replied
 Message 149 by Arphy, posted 09-14-2009 8:25 AM Archangel has replied

  
Archangel
Member (Idle past 1357 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 147 of 217 (524020)
09-14-2009 7:01 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by RAZD
09-13-2009 7:43 PM


Razd writes:
Here is a bit of evidence from the fossil record for Pelycodus:
Pelycodus: gradulastic
I must sincerely compliment you on at least finally posting something that from an evolutionists point of view can be considered evidence of evolution in all of the examples you document here. For the sake of time, I will deal with the first evidence you offer and apply it to all of the evidence as my reasoning/criticism remains consistent and the same for all of it. Although I disagree with your sciences definition that this fossil record for Pelycodus is evidence of macroevolution speciation in any way, even according to what evolution generally accepts as a reasonable definition of macroevolution, this example fails since it is still called a Pelycodus, all be it a larger version after your alleged 40 million years of evolution. It doesn't evolve into a different species/type of animal as I asked for.
Also, you know that creationists interpret the same evidence you observe differently because we don't accept the old earth standard of life evolving over millions or hundreds of millions of years as evolutionists do. This is the cause of much frustration for both sides since you feel we are denying what you consider obvious evidence and what we feel you accept incredible and unsupportable conclusions which in many cases are manufactured results by zealous evolutionists who love to create a convincing back story and a complete history for a find where none truly exists at all.
Here is the creationist explanation for this alleged fossil record and for the increase in size of this animal which I believe is more a case of rapid adaptation than macroevolution. What we have here are a series of fossil finds of the same animal at different ages when they met their unfortunate demise. And I hold up as evidence of how ludicrous your apologetics link is as it attempts to solidify its claims by saying this:
At no time is there a gap where the smallest new population is larger than the largest previous population, just that the distribution of alleles for size shifts gradually to larger and larger individuals within the population.
This claim is just incredible for a couple of reasons. ONE, that it implies that every fossil example at every strata level are somehow, miraculously not only complete enough examples, but are all the same approximate age at the time of their individual death. But even more incredibly, that they were able to extract genetic material in order to test the change in alleles in fossils going back 40 million years, or even 10 million years. The claim is ridiculous and defies scientific reason and current capabilities. But for some unknown reason which I will never understand, you alleged intellectuals lack the common sense to see through these blatant misrepresentations and inconsistencies in what your own accepted science says in the normal course of defining accepted science. Here is what I mean using the explanation of the extraction of mt DNA from Neanderthal Man according to your own accepted link of Talk Origins:
Extraction of the mitochondrial DNA
After death, DNA starts degrading immediately. It is thought that under the most favorable conditions, some DNA fragments can survive for as long as 50,000 to 100,000 years. The Feldhofer Neandertal fossil, thought to be between 30,000 and 100,000 years old, was therefore pushing the limits for this kind of work. However initial testing of the fossil showed good preservation of amino acids, indicating that it might contain recoverable mtDNA.
Fossil Hominids: mitochondrial DNA
So tell me, assuming that this accepted understanding of the limitations of DNA's survivability of between 50,000 and 100,000 years, on what realistic premise do you ask me to accept this so called "change in allele evidence" for fossils going back from, according to my source, between 50 and 55 million years to the Eocene Age. A Smooth Fossil Transition: Pelycodus
With all due respect to you, I rest my case as a skeptic who must oppose and reject your stated evidence on the grounds that it defies standards and practices which the known science of DNA extraction claims is possible. It also exposes more of the inconsistencies which causes we common sense creationists to reject your claims of being a valid and honest science.
Edited by Archangel, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by RAZD, posted 09-13-2009 7:43 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by RAZD, posted 09-14-2009 11:24 PM Archangel has replied

  
Archangel
Member (Idle past 1357 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 151 of 217 (524098)
09-14-2009 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by Arphy
09-14-2009 8:25 AM


Arphy writes:
To Archangel
First up: Want to say that while you are a harsh critic, you are also very good. Keep up the good work.
Thankyou Arphy, I appreciate the kind words of encouragement.
I think there might be a bit of confusion when you use the word "species". New "species" do occur, but as RAZD writes...
So they might be classified as a new species or they may not. However as you correctly pointed out this still doesn't equate to the information increasing evolution where one type or kind (hopefully a better definition) of animal gives rise to a completly different type/kind of animal.
You raise an interesting point of what I consider to be an issue of semantics I think, but I don't want to confuse the changes which take place through what I call rapid adaptation which I believe occurs via mechanisms which exist in the so called junk DNA which have been identified in the genome project, but not explained or defined regarding its value and function.
In other words, we have observed that animals can adapt quickly in response to environmental pressures. This insures the balance in the chain of life and protects niche species from extinction for just that purpose. But none of these creatures which adapt, change into other species/types of creatures in any way. And that is the very crux of what the theory of evolution claims to be what it represents.
Common descent means that from ONE singular genetic ancestor which spontaneously appeared from dead chemicals around 3.5 billion years ago, on an approximately 1 billion year old cooling planet at that time, all forms of life arose into the variety and various "types" of life forms, from every type of plant to every type of insect to every type of animal up to and including humanity evolved from this common ancestor. The singular word which describes this process is macroevolution. In plain and simple english I reject this process as rational.
Every single example which is forwarded by evolutionists in order to defend one example of macroevolution, will invariably, and must ignore, obscure or blatantly misrepresent other known and accepted laws of science which I showed above by pointing out that absolute genetic changes in alleles have been proven regarding the Pelycodus which allegedly evolved during the Eocene Age 30 to 50 million years ago, when other established sciences prove that such DNA cannot be successfully extracted past 100,000 years.
This leaves us with only one of two options regarding this evidence. Either it is completely fraudulent and the evolutionists are completely lying about this genetically linked evidence regarding fossils which actually existed 30 to 50 million years ago, OR, the genetic DNA has actually been extracted and successfully tested and a familial connection has been observed proving absolutely that these levels of fossil evidence which evolutionists have created this ancient history for, did in fact exist within the period of time which allows for actually harvesting DNA for testing which must have taken place within the past 30,000 to 100,000 years.
Either way this obvious inconsistency doesn't bode well for either the honesty of evolution, or its foundational claims as a study of ancient/old world origins for all life, common descent or random mutations by way of natural selection. I rest my case your honor.
Edited by Archangel, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Arphy, posted 09-14-2009 8:25 AM Arphy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Peepul, posted 09-14-2009 1:17 PM Archangel has replied

  
Archangel
Member (Idle past 1357 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 155 of 217 (524115)
09-14-2009 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Peepul
09-14-2009 1:17 PM


Peepul writes:
Leaving aside your example (RAZD is capable of defending himself on this!), please cite some claims that ignore, obscure or blatantly misrepresent accepted laws of science.
Sorry, I intended to post this with my argument above.In fact, I thought I did.In fact, I went back and checked and I did post this very evidence in my original argument on post 147; just so you know. Anyway, I post this link just for the evidence quoted since I disagree with Talk Origins conclusions on every level of its pro-evolution apologetics. So please don't take my posting of this link as a sign that I either accept or believe anything T.O. offers in defense of evolution. It was important to me to quote a source you would respect regarding how long genetic material is believed by your science to be possible in order to show the obvious inconsistency between what you claim is possible and the conclusions you come to using fictitious results and assumptions.
Extraction of the mitochondrial DNA
After death, DNA starts degrading immediately. It is thought that under the most favorable conditions, some DNA fragments can survive for as long as 50,000 to 100,000 years. The Feldhofer Neandertal fossil, thought to be between 30,000 and 100,000 years old, was therefore pushing the limits for this kind of work. However initial testing of the fossil showed good preservation of amino acids, indicating that it might contain recoverable mtDNA.
Fossil Hominids: mitochondrial DNA
The question remains, if this statement is true, and it definitely is accepted science today, then how was DNA extracted from the Pelycodus going back between 30 and 50 million years ago, which allowed the posted conclusions regarding the claimed genetic changes to be generated? It makes no rational sense at all as my post above clarifies.
Edited by Archangel, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Peepul, posted 09-14-2009 1:17 PM Peepul has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by Wounded King, posted 09-14-2009 2:29 PM Archangel has replied

  
Archangel
Member (Idle past 1357 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 157 of 217 (524121)
09-14-2009 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Coyote
09-14-2009 2:02 PM


Re: Accepted laws of science
Coyote writes:
I'd like to see a listing of the "accepted laws of science" that evolution fail to follow as well.
I wonder if the "second law of thermal documents"* will be among those cited.
* That is what was claimed, on another website, that evolution violated.
How sad that this is the best I can get from you since you're unable to refute my arguments intelligently. That is why so many of you fall back on the condescending and sanctimonious attempts to talk down to us and insult our intelligence.
So tell me Coyote, how's this innorant christian doing? And if I am so ignorant, why aren't I getting any factual refutations from you who self righteously believes you are intellectually superior to me? Methinks you lie to yourself about more than "just" the deceptions which evolution promotes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Coyote, posted 09-14-2009 2:02 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Coyote, posted 09-14-2009 3:17 PM Archangel has not replied

  
Archangel
Member (Idle past 1357 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 158 of 217 (524128)
09-14-2009 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by Wounded King
09-14-2009 2:29 PM


Wounded King writes:
Hi Archangel,
I think you are obsessing needlessly over one sentence in RAZD's post. He isn't making any claims about extracting DNA from ancient fossils. He merely talks about allelic distributions in the populations because we know that genetic traits are the basis for heritable morphological variation.
For some reason you have inferred from this one word that RAZD is claiming that there are genetic data on all of these fossil species, he isn't. The evidence he is pointing you to is the distribution of sizes amongst the fossilized lineage of Pelycodus over time. You may well argue that your interpretation is that these are not really related populations, but to quibble over his use of the term allele is to miss the point.
At the moment you seem to be flogging a strawman.
Balderdash and poppycock on all counts regarding your shallow, flimsy and irrational defense of RAZD's post. By what standard of evolutionist truth were alleles extracted as evidence for the claims he made if no allele changes were actually observed by extracting them and testing them in a laboratory?
You can't have it both ways WK, but that is precisely how you evo's like to have it. Either your science is consistent and works within the boundaries of known scientific laws, or else we are being sold an absolutely fictitious bill of goods which RAZD's link which tells a very pretty story about the alleged documentation of 40 million years of Pelycodus evolution, but is in fact a blatant and fraudulent fairy tale based on no science what so ever. How can I be the one in error when all I am doing is interpreting RAZD's evidence for precisely what it says?
Only in evolutionary science do you people have the audacity to twist and squirm and claim it is I who is creating a strawman just because I am holding RAZD to a literal interpretation of what his words stated was evidence for his claims regarding the Pelycodus. How else do you suggest I interpret this but literally according to his own words?
[RAZD SAID:] Successive fossils in the Pelycodus fossil record show the gradual evolution of increased size, which can be recognized as a series of species. The coexistence of two simultaneous size trends indicates a speciation event.
What you see is a series of snap shots of a species population, covering many generations, with a gradual trend to larger individuals over time, eventually reaching the point where the largest end population, Pelycodus jarrovi (before being clasified as Notharctus venticolis) is several times larger than the original population Pelycodus ralstoni. In between these two on the main branch are arbitrary speciation classifications made because the population had changed traits sufficiently to warrant this. At no time is there a gap where the smallest new population is larger than the largest previous population, just that the distribution of alleles for size shifts gradually to larger and larger individuals within the population.
Also visible are three branches, where the population divided into non-interbreeding daughter populations, each descended from a common ancestor population, as show by the lines. These are non-arbitrary speciation events, as the population divided and separated to the point where interbreeding no longer occurred. The first two branches apparently became extinct, but the third branch, Pelycodus frugivorus developed into a parallel population distinct from Notharctus venticolis.
This is descent with modification. The time lapse between the bottom and the top of this graphic covers about five million years.
As is quite obvious, much is stated here as proven fact, yet nothing is factually proven at all. It is nothing more than a well written story written with authority as if it is actually science when it isn't science at all. At this point I want to see evidence that the fossil chain referred to actually exists at all.
Edited by Archangel, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Wounded King, posted 09-14-2009 2:29 PM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Richard Townsend, posted 09-14-2009 3:50 PM Archangel has replied

  
Archangel
Member (Idle past 1357 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 161 of 217 (524163)
09-14-2009 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Richard Townsend
09-14-2009 3:50 PM


Coyote writes:
At religious apologetics you're doing well. You are doing what most religious apologists do--hand waving away any evidence that doesn't fit your religious belief. What RAZD posted is mainstream science, and all you have done is make some quibbles about extracting DNA millions of years into the past. That's a bunch of meaningless nonsense--what, can't you refute his post?
At science--well, don't give up your day job.
You have it wrong again Coyote, but you seem to be pretty consistent at that around here. I haven't hand waved away any evidence which doesn't fit my world view. What I did was confront the evidence as offered and revealed the dishonest inconsistency which it attempts to spoon feed us. The evidence claims directly that it was arrived at through genetic testing which proved a change in alleles on fossils between 30 and 50 million years old, when evolution science also claims that this is impossible to accomplish on fossils older that 100,000 years old.
Why are you judging me harshly for simply holding your evidence to the stated limitations which your own science states are the norm?
Richard Townsend writes:
The splitting of the population into different clusters based on size is what is evidence of the speciation event.
RAZD's saying with reference to alleles that the change is gradual. He is assuming that size in Pelicodus was determined genetically. This seems to be what you're objecting to as an assumption. Do you in fact object to this? Do you think it's unreasonable to assume that an extinct organism had genes? or that it's unreasonable to assume that its size was under genetic control? Or both?
By the way, this is very much a side issue - the evidence is the change in size distribution.
Sure Richard, great synopsis of what RAZD said. Unfortunately for you I have shown that no such evidence actually exists. Everything he offered up was nothing more than a nice story with all of the pieces fitting neatly in a perfectly wrapped package. Too bad none of it is valid science and what is even more sad is that you evos continue to delude yourselves by not only believing the lie, but defending it. That makes you guilty of promoting and endorsing it when all is said and done. So shame on you...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Richard Townsend, posted 09-14-2009 3:50 PM Richard Townsend has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Coyote, posted 09-14-2009 5:06 PM Archangel has replied

  
Archangel
Member (Idle past 1357 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 163 of 217 (524175)
09-14-2009 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by Coyote
09-14-2009 5:06 PM


Coyote writes:
Is that an example of creation "science?"
Not at all Coyote, all I have provided is the inconsistency and lies which evolution science promotes. Why can't you see that?
You have provided no evidence against what RAZD posted. What you did was erect a monstrous strawman and proceed to belabor it. That type of argument might be looked upon with approval in religious apologetics or creation "science" but it doesn't mean anything in real science.
I challenge you to clarify the strawman I have erected. Because the only strawman I have seen here was when RAZD claimed that a change in alleles showing 30 to 50 million year old fossils changed species and proved his claim that macro-evolution has occurred in Pelycodus when such tests on such ancient fossils cannot possibly return results of any kind.
But rather than admit the attempted fraud in those claims you must deny reality and insist that the strawman is mine. Well prove it. Point out the strawman as I have repeated my accusation of the dishonesty of the claim once again. For once prove that what you assert is true for all to see if you can.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Coyote, posted 09-14-2009 5:06 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Tanndarr, posted 09-14-2009 6:24 PM Archangel has replied

  
Archangel
Member (Idle past 1357 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 165 of 217 (524210)
09-14-2009 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by Tanndarr
09-14-2009 6:24 PM


Re: Allelegorical License
Tanndarr writes:
Are you suggesting that a change in allele frequency can only be measured directly by sampling intact genetic material?
Uhh, yeah!!! Why, are you suggesting that we can determine a change in allele frequency by looking at the incomplete fossils from animals who lived an ALLEGED 30 to 50 million years ago? I mean, I get the direct impression that you people think that graph RAZD posted represents millions of years of perfectly preserved skeletons of these animals. But only because that's the impression the evolutionists description gives, of course.
I'm going to inject a little reality into this debate in order to educate you innocents so as to inoculate you somewhat against the pseudo intellectualism these wannabe scientists promote at every turn around here as they bluster with such assurance about things they have absolutely no real and actual clue about. Let's start with decomposition and the survival of the remains of dead animals in the real world. Let's see what happens to a similar sized animal to the Pelycodus after death using high speed time lapse video. This is following this rabbit for 8 days after death in a protected environment where no predators can contribute to consuming it and carry off the bones. It is safe to say that this rabbit wouldn't have lasted even the 8 days it took it to decompose naturally had predators had access to the remains.
Given this reality, how do you propose that generation after generation of Pelycodus fossils survived to be slowly and methodically preserved in layers of strata which left us with a perfectly datable record of when they lived and died? Can any of you intellectual giants explain this problem in the face of an actual video which exposes real time reality for once, apart from actual predators carrying off the bones of course,? Any takers???
Can't we look at the other evidence (including size) of similar creatures and consider all of it when forming a hypothesis? You're telling us that there is only one way to measure change and that seems just plain wrong. Perhaps WK or RAZD could tell us more, or maybe it should be a new topic.
Hey, I'm only going by what RAZD said and held us as evidence in order to support his claims. Don't blame me that what he claims is evidence that alleles changed between 30 and 50 MILLION years ago ALLEGEDLY, is proven to be impossible to test for by what your own Talk Origins says.
So far all you've done is poo-poo scientists for making educated guesses about the world we see around us and mis-characterizing science as a preachy know-it-all endeavor that indoctrinates kids. Those educated guesses put food on the table for billions, split the atom and put men into space; that's not a bad track record especially when compared with inanities like don't eat shrimp or wear textile blends.
WOW, this is quite a rant. When did I say that science attempts to indoctrinate kids even though I know that evolution does exactly that! Or when did I ever deny or even discuss agricultural advances here? Or speak against splitting the atom, can you quote me questioning that science at all? And when have I questioned our ability to put men into space? Can you quote me doing that at all? Don't you get it that I'm not anti-science at all? Can you grasp that truth? I AM ANTI-EVOLUTION BECAUSE IT IS A PHILOSOPHY RATHER THAN A PROVABLE OR VERIFIABLE SCIENCE. And this false evidence of claiming that alleles confirm the proposed conclusions, when a different branch of evo science admits that fossils older that 100,000 years cannot produce any testable results at all is evidence that my mistrust of this so called science is justified.
Especially since all you can fall back on is accusing me of being a science denier because I possess the common sense to question the bogus claims this pseudo science makes.
Here's the question: Do populations change over time? We can see it, we can measure it...therefore: evolution is a fact.
Closing your eyes doesn't make it go away I'm afraid.
LIE TO YOURSELF IF YOU LIKE, MY DELUDED FRIEND, BUT DON'T YOU DARE EXPECT ME TO BELIEVE OR ACCEPT YOUR LIES. EVOLUTION IS A FALSE SCIENCE WHICH HAS NO FOUNDATION IN FACTS AT ALL. IF IT DID, THEN DISHONEST ASSUMPTIONS AND MISLEADING CONCLUSIONS WOULDN'T BE ITS SOP.
Page not found | Blogcritics
Edited by Archangel, : add additional evidence:

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Tanndarr, posted 09-14-2009 6:24 PM Tanndarr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Coyote, posted 09-14-2009 11:24 PM Archangel has not replied
 Message 169 by Blue Jay, posted 09-15-2009 12:04 AM Archangel has not replied
 Message 170 by Tanndarr, posted 09-15-2009 12:31 AM Archangel has not replied

  
Archangel
Member (Idle past 1357 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 175 of 217 (524247)
09-15-2009 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by RAZD
09-14-2009 11:24 PM


RAZD writes:
Now here's the problem for you: the evidence has been presented that is more than sufficient to demonstrate evolution - the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation - AND is is more than sufficient to demonstrate the formation of lineages of descent, including non-arbitrary speciation events and development of novel traits, ACCORDING TO THE TERMS AS USED IN SCIENCE.
You evos are very wordy people since it takes a lot of words to sound scientific. Also, everything you post assumes facts NOT in evidence so you must attempt to build a wall of assumptions in order to attempt to convince me that it all adds up to a factual conclusion.
But here's the problem for you RAZD, nothing you promote here is founded in solid evidence that anything you claim is true at all regarding the timing for the events you claim. I don't believe that any of the fossil evidence which you interpret as million to hundreds of millions of years old is the least bit valid or rational as my time lapse video above clearly shows. By that I mean that unless animals were buried via cataclysmic events such as the biblical flood which would have realistically laid down layer after layer of animal rich strata via sedimentation throughout the world in a very short period of time, which offers us a fossil record which your side misinterprets at every level of understanding, can the fossil record be rationally explained at all. Because I have showed in real time video how quickly an animal decays even when it is protected from scavengers.
Place that rabbit in the unprotected wild and its decomposing odor is to animals, equivalent to the inviting odors we sense when passing in front of a restaurant. In other words, that any animals could survive unmolested long enough to become a fossil is a massive and ludicrous assumption which defies logic and observable evidence.
In order for you to build your theory, you must deny and ignore common sense and rational consideration for how the real world actually works. I never denied that evolution doesn't tell a nice story which you have captured in your well written defense. But that doesn't mean that anything you accept as real is true at all in reality. And by that, I mean that it happened when you say it did. If you apply your beliefs to having taken place within the past 10,000 years or so, then all of a sudden the science starts to make sense to me. But when you insist that this is evidence of evolution occurring over the last 40 to 50 million years, you lose me.
I have explained and posted evidence for rapid adaptation which allows the same results that you propose in a much shorter period of time that you presume to have been necessary for the results you assume are accurate. But I assure you that you are completely misinterpreting the evidence which is why evolution is most assuredly a fraudulent philosophy which attempts to justify itself with scientific terms.
It is also a fact that Mendel never asserted in any way that his predictions via observations were evidence of allele changes at all. He studied clear cut inherited traits and anticipated changes but it wasn't until much later that actual molecular science revealed the existence of genes or alleles at all. You just proved once again how you will adopt an unrelated science in order to further defend your original erroneous claim which was blatantly and factually FALSE and can accurately be called dishonest in its conclusions.
But these differences in interpretation of the paleontological evidence and the evolutionists interpretations of nature is why Creationists and Evolutionists will never see eye to eye. Sorry I can't respond to your post point by point, but I don't have all day to spend on a rebuttal which your long winded post would require. But I couldn't leave without responding to this claim also.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2009/02/090227072739.htm
RAZD writes:
And here you are ignoring the third example, where we not only have a number of different species involved, and a number of different genera involve, we have the derivation of the mammalian ear from the reptile ear, as we go from reptiles to mammaliforms.
In other words, your complaint is not only weak and petty, it is downright false: you either did not read it, did not comprehend it, or chose to ignore it.
You call my complaint downright false, but can you post absolute and undeniable evidence according to DNA which shows that the animals claimed in the two stages of evolution are in fact related? You make incredible claims which you attempt to tie together with so called evidence which cannot be substantiated with actual factual proof at all. No matter what aspect of evolution we are speaking about, we must take it all on faith in mans interpretation of observations which are alleged to have happened millions, to hundreds of millions of years ago. So if your interpretation of the available evidence is so fundamentally wrong from the outset, how can you be expected to come to accurate conclusions at all? The answer is, you can't expect to come to accurate conclusions.
Edited by Archangel, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by RAZD, posted 09-14-2009 11:24 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by Peepul, posted 09-15-2009 11:04 AM Archangel has not replied
 Message 178 by greyseal, posted 09-15-2009 11:59 AM Archangel has not replied
 Message 179 by NosyNed, posted 09-15-2009 12:05 PM Archangel has not replied
 Message 180 by Richard Townsend, posted 09-15-2009 3:50 PM Archangel has not replied
 Message 185 by RAZD, posted 09-15-2009 11:48 PM Archangel has not replied
 Message 186 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-16-2009 2:18 AM Archangel has replied
 Message 217 by RAZD, posted 09-18-2009 10:20 PM Archangel has not replied

  
Archangel
Member (Idle past 1357 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 187 of 217 (524378)
09-16-2009 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by Dr Adequate
09-16-2009 2:18 AM


RAZD writes:
The problem for you is then to explain how the foraminifera are sorted by layers rather than randomly distributed throughout the whole sedimentation layers. Why do they show the gradual evolution of species after species and the tree of common ancestry? How does that occur from stirring a pot of mud with dead forams in it?
You claim to be a skeptic: lets see you apply your skeptical outlook to the claim of the flood laying down layers of fossils in discrete, sorted and organized layers.
I don't believe the fossil record shows this organized and gradual record of evolution as you assert it does. I believe the only thing organized about evolution science is the lie which it tells in order to convey a convincing story. It is no different than the dishonest, yet very neat way your original testimony of the Pelycodus reads. On its face one would have to be a denier of facts to reject your claims, but upon minimal scrutiny, it defines all of the inconsistencies and contradictions which are endemic with this false and pseudo science. Claiming something does NOT make it true at all, and neither does it become true if a massive volume of lies have been created over decades or even centuries. A lie doesn't become truth just because it is repeated thousands or even millions of times.
Here's another example for you. Islam is a 1500 year old cult. It claims to be a true religion of God, it is perceived by the world to be a true and valid religion. But by every bit of evidence based on what it actually represents in reality, it is most assuredly a false religion, or a cult as they are known to be by reasonable people. This cult which believes in and promotes the outright murder of anyone who rejects it is more satanic than Godly in its desire to enslave people spiritually since islam tends to hold its followers in bondage through fear and intimidation rather than liberty and free thought.
Dr Adequate writes:
The great thing about our cunning plan to sound scientific is that we've managed to fool the world's scientists.
Fool them? I doubt it. It's just more convenient for them to avoid confronting this massive lobby which will attempt to destroy the career of any scientist who opposes their agenda.
But somehow you, whose knowledge of science can only be expressed as a negative number, since everything you think you know about it is nonsense that's been fed to you by creationists --- you can see through our little charade.
Here's the rub DA, a scientific knowledge isn't necessary or required when discussing a supernatural event which the Creation account is. Just because secular humanists must define, categorize and quantify evolution as a valid science, doesn't mean that it is in reality. It is the epitome of fraud and a pseudo science.
It must be nice for you to know more about science than the world's community of scientists do collectively. It must be even more of a boost to your ego to have achieved this without ever having spent a moment actually studying the subjects you're prating on about.
It isn't necessary to study the intricacies of a lie in order to recognize that it's a lie on its face.
For example, having never spent a moment studying taphonomy, and knowing nothing at all about it --- do you even know the word? --- you still feel confident enough to bullshit us about it. What a great genius you must be, to be sure.
Is this what you call a rebuttal to my time lapse video showing that even with protection from predators, a rabbit is devoured by insects within 7 days? Posting that video somehow proves I don't understand Taphonomy? If you actually read my prior criticisms, you would see that although I reject the evolutionists interpretation of the fossil record, I don't deny that fossilization occurs in reality. I just reject the concept that animals die and their remains survive long enough to be buried naturally in order to leave a permanent record of their entire generation in nice neat and easy to read sedimentary layers as evolution claims it is. You guys make it seem as easy as reading tree rings when in reality the only way the majority of all fossils survived to become that way only through cataclysmic upheavals. So by its very nature, that would explain why there are pockets of fossils at certain strata levels apart from the universal layers which were created by the great Flood of Noah. How sad that you secularists misinterpret all available evidence and attempt to erase our Maker from the equation of how we came to be here.
And speaking of tree rings, Can you explain why, in such a old earth, no trees have survived past 8000 years anywhere according to this link, with the previous oldest at around 5000 years old? 404 Now, by all means let the excuses fly as you attempt to explain to this innorant christian why he just doesn't understand what you secularists see so clearly. Here's an excerpt.
World's oldest tree discovered in Sweden
By Roger Highfield, Science Editor
The tree has rewritten the history of the climate in the region
The world's oldest tree has been found in Sweden, a tenacious spruce that first took root just after the end of the last ice age, more than 9,500 years ago.
The tree has rewritten the history of the climate in the region, revealing that it was much warmer at that time and the ice had disappeared earlier than thought.
Previously, pine trees in North America were thought to be the oldest, at around 5,000 years old.
But Swedish scientists report that in the mountains, from Lapland in the north to Dalarna in central Sweden, there are much more ancient spruce trees (Picea abies).
Prof Leif Kullman at Ume University and colleagues found a cluster of around 20 spruces that are over 8,000 years old.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-16-2009 2:18 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by Huntard, posted 09-16-2009 10:03 AM Archangel has not replied
 Message 189 by NosyNed, posted 09-16-2009 10:20 AM Archangel has replied
 Message 190 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-16-2009 12:24 PM Archangel has not replied
 Message 191 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-16-2009 12:34 PM Archangel has not replied
 Message 192 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-16-2009 1:29 PM Archangel has not replied
 Message 193 by Modulous, posted 09-16-2009 2:44 PM Archangel has not replied
 Message 194 by SammyJean, posted 09-16-2009 2:50 PM Archangel has not replied

  
Archangel
Member (Idle past 1357 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 197 of 217 (524510)
09-17-2009 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by NosyNed
09-16-2009 10:20 AM


Re: A second explanation
NosyNed writes:
So, your first explanation for what we see is that God is a big practical joker.
Feel free to quote me saying that anywhere. Why must evos always distort and purposely misinterpret what we say in order to denigrate our position?
The second explanation is that we don't see what we claim to see at all.
This is a fact. YOU DON'T see what you claim to see. The minute you remove God, the Creator from the equation, all available observations become immediately lost to the distorted imaginings of men who must attempt to interpret them in a way which makes sense. This is why the old earth world view must exist in order to justify a slow and tedious process of evolution when none of it is true or factual at all.
You claim that 10,000's of people over many decades are liars.
This is also true to a point. Tens of thousands of people have been raised to believe that a false pseudo science is valid. So they have invested their lifetimes attempting to prove it. And since they believe that the premise of this fraudulent science is valid, they promote every aspect of their study as true and interpret every observation as further evidence that they are witnessing evidence of evolution.
Sadly though, since the foundational premise of everything they believe is false, we have more than a century worth of bad/fraudulent science which has become institutionalized as valid and real, leading to the corruption of complete generations since Darwin first promoted his secular philosophy for how man came to be apart from the creation account.
As for tree rings, take that to this thread:
message1 Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III).
From what I see of RAZD's thesis is that trees are used in order to determine the minimum age of the earth. What is also painfully obvious is that evolutionists make some dramatic assumptions later on in order to extend their dating of the earth as far back as possible. Never coming even close to 4.5 billion years though, of course, but only making it to the estimated 400,000 year age from his evidence. In other words, it comes no closer to proving that any of the overall beliefs regarding the age of the earth which evolution promotes are even close to accurate in reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by NosyNed, posted 09-16-2009 10:20 AM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by NosyNed, posted 09-17-2009 8:50 AM Archangel has not replied
 Message 199 by bluescat48, posted 09-17-2009 10:49 AM Archangel has replied
 Message 201 by NosyNed, posted 09-17-2009 2:29 PM Archangel has not replied
 Message 203 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-17-2009 2:38 PM Archangel has not replied
 Message 205 by Tanndarr, posted 09-17-2009 6:45 PM Archangel has replied
 Message 206 by Richard Townsend, posted 09-17-2009 6:51 PM Archangel has not replied

  
Archangel
Member (Idle past 1357 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 200 of 217 (524559)
09-17-2009 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by bluescat48
09-17-2009 10:49 AM


Re: A second explanation
bluescat48 writes:
Show me any evidence that the earth is not ~4.5 billion years old.
Tell me how one proves a negative? The question is to show evidence that a belief that the earth is 4.5 billion years old rational or reasonable at all. Can you reproduce the claimed process of abiogenesis which allegedly occurred at that time? Can you prove in any absolute terms at all that the 4.5 billion year age for the earth is accurate? Using the speed of light, red shift and gravitational theory, can you prove in absolute terms that our application of, and predictions based on these observations are absolutely correct and cannot be interpreted in any other way which would drastically change the theoretical outcome we have arrived at regarding the age of the earth and the universe?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by bluescat48, posted 09-17-2009 10:49 AM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by NosyNed, posted 09-17-2009 2:34 PM Archangel has not replied
 Message 204 by bluescat48, posted 09-17-2009 5:38 PM Archangel has not replied

  
Archangel
Member (Idle past 1357 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 207 of 217 (524607)
09-17-2009 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by Tanndarr
09-17-2009 6:45 PM


Re: A second explanation
Tanndarr writes:
Either go present evidence for this vast global conspiracy in an appropriate topic (I suggest calling it "The Conspiracy Theory of Evolution") or actually engage the topic here.
Since you asked for evidence here, here is where I'll place it. A complete thread isn't needed to debate what is overwhelming evidence of major frauds which have contributed to the acceptance of this false science and even gave it legitimacy where none was deserved. But by the time the frauds were discovered, and the retractions were quietly placed on back pages compared to the fraudulent discoveries releases which were widely disseminated, the damage was done since millions upon millions of people heard about the fraudulent evidence on the evening news everywhere; where as 12 laymen saw the retractions on the back page of the scientific journal that laymen never read. Challenge me on this point and I will give details if you like.
Evolution Fraud and Myths

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by Tanndarr, posted 09-17-2009 6:45 PM Tanndarr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by AdminNosy, posted 09-17-2009 7:59 PM Archangel has replied
 Message 213 by Tanndarr, posted 09-17-2009 10:47 PM Archangel has not replied
 Message 215 by RAZD, posted 09-18-2009 7:41 AM Archangel has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024