|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
I don't think so. The quotes I'm bringing show beyond all doubt that the fossil record shows the opposite of evolution, namely stasis and sudden appearance. What if you've misunderstood what they are saying? What if the authors of the quotes were just wrong? There's plenty of doubt to be had.
This is totally incompatible with evolution, and totally supports creation. What else is there to say? How about you say something about the actual fossils that we have?
The fossile record clearly shows that evolution NEVER took place. The fossile record clearly show the evolution of many species along with intermediate stages throughout:
We know, without a doubt, that species emerge by evolving. We know, without a doubt, that the fossil record shows that species emerge by evolving.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
because the context does not alter the meaning of the quotes. Absolutely it does. Those authors were not saying that evolution doesn't happen at all, they were just saying that it isn't as gradual as we thought it was. But this has already been explained to you and you'd rather just ignore it.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1720 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
... the fossil record shows the opposite of evolution, namely STASIS, and sudden appearance ... Curiously stasis is predicted by evolution, but I have to wonder if you know what stasis really means (on top of your ignorance of how evolution works).
(1) The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities. The selection process means that those that have better adaptation to an ecology will have higher reproductive and survival success and their traits will become predominant in the breeding population if there are no changes to the ecological pressures. Thus in a stable ecology selection will occur against detrimental changes (that make individuals less fit) and for stasis (for the average population traits being reproduced). Even during stasis the process of evolution continues, and this will still allow neutral traits to develop and be dispersed within the breeding population -- new traits that are not under any selection process but which increase the diversity of the breeding population -- traits that may enable individuals to make use of a wider range of ecologies in the surrounding areas. As the population breeds, normally with more offspring than necessary to replace deaths, there will be pressure for individuals to move into surrounding ecologies to expand the breeding population further. This virtually ensures that some individuals will move into less optimum ecologies where selection pressure will be different than the main body of the breeding population. This is where "punctuation" comes into the picture.
... and sudden appearance ... Sudden in geological timescales of course. You would not recognize it as sudden if you were living at the time and observing it, but then I don't expect you understand this either.
... without any link with supposed predecessors. ... This too is false. There may be a gap but the new species will be similar in many respects to the previous population/s. Again fossils are like snapshots rather than motion pictures. When we look at fossils like the Therapsids we not only see a progression from reptile jaw and ear to mammal jaw and ear, we see several intermediate forms where the jaw is double jointed -- one at the reptile location and one at the new mammal location. Functional intermediates.
quote: This is the process of evolution demonstrated in spades in the fossil record. Any bets whether you will reply ... similar to your failed reply to Message 5? Amusingly it doesn't matter whether you have the intellectual honesty to reply to the post rather than attack the messenger -- people reading this thread will know. ![]() Edited by RAZD, : clrtyby our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eliyahu Member (Idle past 159 days) Posts: 290 From: Judah Joined: |
With that you implicate that the big evolutionists from whom these quotes are coming are lying.
No she is saying that your use is a misrepresentation that portrays their meaning in a false way -- that your usage is a lie. Bs'd The only problem is, that she nor anybody else can prove that the quotes mean something else than their plain meaning as conveyed by my quotes. So what it comes down to is shouting "Liar" without being able to back it up with proof.
... you implicate that the big evolutionists from whom these quotes ... One hopes you realize that no one person personifies the science of evolution and that using quotes is making the logical fallacy of the appeal to authority. Greater idiocy than your above statement I haven't seen in a long time. You say that relying on authority is a "logical fallacy". Well that statement of you is the logical fallacy. Or you must be of the opinion that it is better to rely on laymen in scientific issues... No, I didn't think so. So let's stop talking nonsense and get down to the facts. Said facts being that the fossil record shows only STASIS, non-change, and not evolution.
And that when you obfuscate and ignore their true meaning that your usage of such authority is invalid. I give the exact quotes, so by definition I'm not obfuscating anything. And their true meaning is saying that the fossil record does not show any evolution, and that for sure I do NOT ignore. And neither should you. 1. What is quote-mining? "Quote-mining" is an expression, invented by evolutionists, who, because of cognitive dissonance, are unable to understand and/or accept the meaning of very clear, straightforward statements made by very scholarly evolutionists. Because of that cognitive dissonance they become very irrational, and start saying absurd things, for instance, that somebody who quotes an evolutionist professor is a liar, and they cannot understand that then the one who made that statement is really the liar, because he is the one who made that statement in the first place. They also claim that the statement is taken out of context, and that it really means the opposite of what it says.When they are then confronted with the context, and it is then clear for everybody that the context doesn't change anything of the meaning of the quote, then they usually start attacking a straw man, meaning that they are going to "prove" something what was not a discussion subject at all. Then they start for instance saying that the one who made the quote believes in evolution, something that was never a point of dissension. In the last stage they resort to name calling. Of the above mentioned stages one or more can be skipped in a debate. The intellectually lesser gifted evolutionists usually immediately start name calling. And I say that when you quote expert opinions in your atheistic articles, you are guilty of quote mining. Gee, it seems we are at an impasse. What I am trying to illustrate, of course, is that the accusation of quote mining is childish and trivial. Not only does it not contribute to an adult-level exchange of ideas, but it actually inhibits such an exchange. It is perfectly valid to claim that a citation has been taken out of context As long as you can back it up with a reasoned argument. If you have nothing more to contribute than hurling unsubstantiated accusations of quote mining please go back to high school and shoot spitballs and do all the other things that immature adolescents do. I repeat: It is perfectly valid to claim that a citation has been taken out of context As long as you can back it up with a reasoned argument. If you have nothing more to contribute than hurling unsubstantiated accusations of quote mining please go back to high school and shoot spitballs and do all the other things that immature adolescents do.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
Bs'd I got them from here and there and everywhere. Some I checked in the original publications, I think I checked all of 'm in the Talk Origins Archive, and they are all totally correct. Your quote:
Paleontologists just were not seeing the expected changes in their fossils as they pursued them up through the rock record. ... That individual kinds of fossils remain recognizably the same throughout the length of their occurrence in the fossil record had been known to paleontologists long before Darwin published his Origin. Darwin himself, ... prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search ... One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a miserly fossil record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong. The observation that species are amazingly conservative and static entities throughout long periods of time has all the qualities of the emperor's new clothes: everyone knew it but preferred to ignore it. Paleontologists, faced with a recalcitrant record obstinately refusing to yield Darwin's predicted pattern, simply looked the other way." Actual quote
The main impetus for expanding the view that species are discrete at any one point in time, to embrace their entire history, comes from the fossil record. Paleontologists just were not seeing the expected changes in their fossils as they pursued them up through the rock record. Instead, collections of nearly identical specimens, separated in some cases by 5 million years, suggested that the overwhelming majority of animal and plant species were tremendously conservative throughout their histories. That individual kinds of fossils remain recognizably the same throughout the length of their occurrence in the fossil record had been known to paleontologists long before Darwin published his Origin. Darwin himself, troubled by the stubbornness of the fossil record in refusing to yield abundant examples of gradual change, devoted two chapters to the fossil record. To preserve his argument he was forced to assert that the fossil record was too incomplete, to full of gaps, to produce the expected patterns of change. He prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search and then his major thesis - that evolutionary change is gradual and progressive - would be vindicated. One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong. The observation that species are amazingly conservative and static entities throughout long periods of time has all the qualities of the emperor's new clothes: everyone knew it but preferred to ignore it. Paleontologists, faced with a recalcitrant record obstinately refusing to yield Darwin's predicted pattern, simply looked the other way. Rather than challenge well-entrenched evolutionary theory, paleontologists tacitly agreed with their zoological colleagues that the fossil record was too poor to do much beyond supporting, in a general sort of way, the basic thesis that life had evolved. And its basically true the fossil record only proves that creatures have evolved it does not prove gradual evolution, as as we have found if you put species in a new habitat they change verry fast, so having a full fossil record of the changes would be a miracle in it self. you creationist say that thats micro evolution but offer no reason why it should stop there what if you put those critters in yet a new environment, and a new one and a new one ... how many times would you haveto do it for it to become macro, or would they simply stop do to some unknown force. Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eliyahu Member (Idle past 159 days) Posts: 290 From: Judah Joined: |
because the context does not alter the meaning of the quotes. Absolutely it does. Bs'd Talking is cheap. Show me.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eliyahu Member (Idle past 159 days) Posts: 290 From: Judah Joined: |
What if you've misunderstood what they are saying? What if the authors of the quotes were just wrong? There's plenty of doubt to be had. Bs'd What if the sky falls down? Then we are all dead.
This is totally incompatible with evolution, and totally supports creation. What else is there to say? How about you say something about the actual fossils that we have? I'll say something about them: The fossil record flatly fails to substantiate this expectation of finely graded change. In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another. The record jumps, and all the evidence shows that the record is real: the gaps we see reflect real events in life’s history - not the artifact of a poor fossil record. The fossil record itself provided no documentation of continuity - of gradual transition from one animal or plant to another of quite different form. Gaps between higher taxonomic levels are general and large. The lack of ancestral or intermediate forms between fossil species is not a bizarre peculiarity of early metazoan history. Gaps are general and prevalent throughout the fossil record. The known fossil record is not, and never has been, in accord with gradualism. What is remarkable is that, through a variety of historical circumstances, even the history of opposition has been obscured . . . ‘The majority of paleontologists felt their evidence simply contradicted Darwin’s stress on minute, slow, and cumulative changes leading to species transformation.’ . . . their story has been suppressed. 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. If you want me to say more about the fossiles, just let me know. Glad to oblige.
The fossile record clearly shows that evolution NEVER took place. The fossile record clearly show the evolution of many species along with intermediate stages throughout: We know, without a doubt, that species emerge by evolving. We know, without a doubt, that the fossil record shows that species emerge by evolving. What if you've misunderstood what they are saying? What if the teachers of your wisdom were just wrong? There's plenty of doubt to be had. Or does the above only hold true for others, and not for you?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2421 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Bs'd Talking is cheap. Show me. BfD Are those few quotes all you have?Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
I give the exact quotes, so by definition I'm not obfuscating anything. And their true meaning is saying that the fossil record does not show any evolution You are lying. And we all know you're lying.
"Quote-mining" is an expression, invented by evolutionists, who, because of cognitive dissonance, are unable to understand and/or accept the meaning of very clear, straightforward statements made by very scholarly evolutionists. You are lying. And we all know you're lying.
Because of that cognitive dissonance they become very irrational, and start saying absurd things, for instance, that somebody who quotes an evolutionist professor is a liar, and they cannot understand that then the one who made that statement is really the liar, because he is the one who made that statement in the first place. You are lying. And we all know you're lying. --- Now, what I don't understand is this. I know why you lied in the first place. It's because creationism can only be supported with lies, and because you're a filthy putrid stinking dirty liar. But why do you go on lying after you've been caught? When everyone knows you're lying? You're not going to deceive anyone, are you? Do you just take some perverse pleasure in falsehood, like a pig wallowing in its own filth? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eliyahu Member (Idle past 159 days) Posts: 290 From: Judah Joined: |
Your quote: Paleontologists just were not seeing the expected changes in their fossils as they pursued them up through the rock record. ... That individual kinds of fossils remain recognizably the same throughout the length of their occurrence in the fossil record had been known to paleontologists long before Darwin published his Origin. Darwin himself, ... prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search ... One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a miserly fossil record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong. The observation that species are amazingly conservative and static entities throughout long periods of time has all the qualities of the emperor's new clothes: everyone knew it but preferred to ignore it. Paleontologists, faced with a recalcitrant record obstinately refusing to yield Darwin's predicted pattern, simply looked the other way." Actual quote The main impetus for expanding the view that species are discrete at any one point in time, to embrace their entire history, comes from the fossil record. Paleontologists just were not seeing the expected changes in their fossils as they pursued them up through the rock record. Instead, collections of nearly identical specimens, separated in some cases by 5 million years, suggested that the overwhelming majority of animal and plant species were tremendously conservative throughout their histories. That individual kinds of fossils remain recognizably the same throughout the length of their occurrence in the fossil record had been known to paleontologists long before Darwin published his Origin. Darwin himself, troubled by the stubbornness of the fossil record in refusing to yield abundant examples of gradual change, devoted two chapters to the fossil record. To preserve his argument he was forced to assert that the fossil record was too incomplete, to full of gaps, to produce the expected patterns of change. He prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search and then his major thesis - that evolutionary change is gradual and progressive - would be vindicated. One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong. The observation that species are amazingly conservative and static entities throughout long periods of time has all the qualities of the emperor's new clothes: everyone knew it but preferred to ignore it. Paleontologists, faced with a recalcitrant record obstinately refusing to yield Darwin's predicted pattern, simply looked the other way. Rather than challenge well-entrenched evolutionary theory, paleontologists tacitly agreed with their zoological colleagues that the fossil record was too poor to do much beyond supporting, in a general sort of way, the basic thesis that life had evolved.
Bs'd Fantastic. Now please be kind enough to explain to me which part of my quote is wrong.
And its basically true the fossil record only proves that creatures have evolved That is not basically true, that's a lie. The fossil record shows that new species pop up suddenly, without any connection to supposed ancestors. No evolution to be seen.
it does not prove gradual evolution, as as we have found if you put species in a new habitat they change verry fast, Or so you think.
so having a full fossil record of the changes would be a miracle in it self. you creationist say that thats micro evolution but offer no reason why it should stop there What is generally called "micro-evolution" is in fact recombination of existing genetic material. There is a limit to the amount of genetic material, therefore there is a limit to how much a certain species can change.
what if you put those critters in yet a new environment, and a new one and a new one ... how many times would you haveto do it for it to become macro, or would they simply stop do to some unknown force. They will stop to do so, as was found out during the research into mutation breeding: http://www.weloennig.de/...of-Law-of-Recurrent-Variation.pdf "In accord with the law of recurrent variation, mutants in every species thoroughly examined (from pea to man) − whether naturally occurring, experimentally induced, or accidentally brought about − happen in a large, but nevertheless limited spectrum of phenotypes with either losses of functions or neutral deviations. Yet, in the absence of the generation of new genes and novel gene reaction chains with entirely new functions, mutations cannot transform an original species into an entirely new one. This conclusion agrees with all the experiences and results of mutation research of the 20th century taken together as well as with the laws of probability. Thus, the law of recurrent variation implies that genetically properly defined species have real boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed by accidental mutations."
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1720 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Greater idiocy than your above statement I haven't seen in a long time. You say that relying on authority is a "logical fallacy". Well that statement of you is the logical fallacy. Or you must be of the opinion that it is better to rely on laymen in scientific issues... No, I didn't think so You are welcome to your opinion, however opinion has shown a very poor record of affecting reality in any way. Actually in science we would rely on what the evidence shows and how the evidence is best explained by theory -- and not on what any one person says. Curiously I did this in Message 5 which you have ignored. The fact that you don't seem to know this, shows a rather sad scientific illiteracy on your part.
I give the exact quotes, so by definition I'm not obfuscating anything. ... Actually you haven't: in at least one instance I KNOW that you used a creationist site for a quote and not the original source because they are different. You also do not quote the full statements that show the complete meaning -- you do know what a lie of omission is don't you? Cherry picking statements does not prove anything other than that you can copy sentences from other people instead of thinking for yourself. Evidence is what counts in science.
So what it comes down to is shouting "Liar" without being able to back it up with proof. But you have been shown proof of your lies. Denial does not make them go away. Repeating your false assertions does not make them any more valid. For instance this:
Message 39: Czarnecki, Mark, "The Revival of the Creationist Crusade", MacLean's, January 19, 1981, p. 56 Czarnecki Mark is an evolutionist and a paleontologist. Is a lie because Mr Czarnecki is not a scientist, neither in evolution or in paleontology: he is a journalist. Nor is MacLeans a scientific journal or even a rag magazine of any intellectual merit. And you don't even have a proper quote of his article. Because you didn't read it did you?
I repeat: It is perfectly valid to claim that a citation has been taken out of context As long as you can back it up with a reasoned argument. If you have nothing more to contribute than hurling unsubstantiated accusations of quote mining please go back to high school and shoot spitballs and do all the other things that immature adolescents do. If you have a reasoned argument then you don't NEED to take anyone out of context to support it. If this is the ONLY evidence you have then your argument is not reasoned but invented from whole cloth. And when I do present you with reasoned argument in response you reply by saying reasoned intellectually mature statements like this:
Message 31: I think there are 2 possibilities for the post of Razd, one is: It is totally made up out of thin air, two: It is on the same level as the piltdown man and the Nebraska man, and it will be exposed as a hoax soon enough. Rather than reply with reasoned argument to refute my post you insult the messenger, and now you say I am being childish. This is because you apparently are scientifically unequipped and intellectually unprepared to refute the information on a scientific basis with a reasoned argument. Amusingly I note that this is your first foray into the science forums on this site, and I suggest that maybe you either LEARN some science or go back to bible study. ![]() Edited by RAZD, : + Edited by RAZD, : ..by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1720 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
BfD Are those few quotes all you have? That and calling people liars and fakes. Looks like the quiver is empty of any real substance. ![]() by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eliyahu Member (Idle past 159 days) Posts: 290 From: Judah Joined: |
Are those few quotes all you have? Bs'd You can find more HERE Enjoy! Edited by Eliyahu, : Just felt like it
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Bs'd Heaven won't help you with the spreading of lies.
Talking is cheap. Show me. ![]() ![]() What if the sky falls down? Then we are all dead. So then, you agree that the possibility of you misunderstanding what they have said leaves room for doubt in your conclusion. I guess that's a start.
The fossil record flatly fails to substantiate this expectation of finely graded change. Phyletic gradualism was corrected in the 1970s, we have a better understanding now:
You are 40 years behind the rest of us. Do catch up.
In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another. In the case of horses, whales, birds, and hominids, the pictures I showed you explain how the fossil record shows us how those animals evolved.
The record jumps, and all the evidence shows that the record is real: the gaps we see reflect real events in life’s history - not the artifact of a poor fossil record. The fossil record itself provided no documentation of continuity - of gradual transition from one animal or plant to another of quite different form. Gaps between higher taxonomic levels are general and large. The lack of ancestral or intermediate forms between fossil species is not a bizarre peculiarity of early metazoan history. Gaps are general and prevalent throughout the fossil record. The known fossil record is not, and never has been, in accord with gradualism. What is remarkable is that, through a variety of historical circumstances, even the history of opposition has been obscured . . . ‘The majority of paleontologists felt their evidence simply contradicted Darwin’s stress on minute, slow, and cumulative changes leading to species transformation.’ . . . their story has been suppressed. 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. If you want me to say more about the fossiles, just let me know. Glad to oblige. Nope, that's plenty. You obviously have little to no understanding of what fossils we have and what they show. Too, you don't understand how the process of evolution actually works in the real world. Like I said, gradualism has been long replaced and you're still clinging to this outdated idea. Added by edit: Holy shit, as Percy exposed, all of that stuff in my quote box above comes from stuff you copied off the internet. Oh. My. God. Really? You really just stole quotes off the internet and passed them off as your own!? Have you any honesty whatsoever? I can't believe you would go to such lengths for such dishonesty. That is really pathetic. You should be ashamed from yourself. And to throw, "with the help of heaven" on top of that! Absolutely shameful. Pitiful. You have no honor and no respect from me.
What if you've misunderstood what they are saying? What if the teachers of your wisdom were just wrong? That's why I've looked at the actual fossils, themselves, instead of relying on cheap talk. You've utterly failed to provide a good argument. All you've shown us is that you don't know what you're talking about. Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shalamabobbi Member (Idle past 3164 days) Posts: 397 Joined:
|
Bs'd You can find more HERE Enjoy! Bf'e I see you've disabled comments on your linked site. You are wiser then you at first appear.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025