|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3076 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Some Evidence Against Evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3076 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
Science reporter Richard Milton says concerning the theory of evolution : "...the inability of Darwinists to demonstrate to a thinking member of the public {non Darwinist} conclusive scientific evidence to substantiate the theory ...."
The larger context for the above statement is the fact that this criticism is specifically directed at the British Museum of Natural History at Teddington. With this said, I ask what museum actually possesses and displays the intermediary missing link bones ? Every museum I have encountered diplays fake bones made of rubber and plaster. These pieces are always surrounded by impressive visual presentations that insert the bones as the missing links. This is outrageous as it appears these museum displays are presenting what they HOPE to find but have not. If there is a paucity of missing link bones in museums could this mean that there are none ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rei Member (Idle past 7041 days) Posts: 1546 From: Iowa City, IA Joined: |
quote: Actually, 43% of Americans even believe in Theistic evolution (not counting atheistic evolution/ so that's not correct.
quote: Bones of missing links, or fossils that you think should but there but aren't? There are no fossils that we think should be there but aren't. For example, here is the smooth transition from humans to jawless fish: ) H. Sapiens Sapiens (us) (40kya)2) H. Sapiens (500kya) 3) H. Erectus (1.8 Mya) 4) H. Habilis (2.5 Mya) 5) A. Africanus (3.0 Mya) 6) A. Afarensus (3.9 Mya) 7) Ardipithecus Ramidus (5.8 Mya) 8) Orrorin Tugenesis (6 Mya) 9) Sahelanthropus tchadensis (7Mya) 10) Kenyapithecus (16 Mya) 11) Dryopithecus (~16Mya) 12) Proconsul Africanus (~20 Mya) 13) Aegyptopithicus (~30 Mya) 14) Parapithecus (~32 Mya) 15) Amphipithecus, Pondaungia (~35 Mya) 16) Pelycodus, etc (~50 Mya) 17) Cantius (~50 Mya) 18) Palaechthon, Purgatorius (~60 Mya) 19) Kennalestes, Asioryctes (~80 Mya) 20) Pariadens kirklandi (95 Mya) 21) Vincelestes neuquenianus (135 Mya) 22) Steropodon galmani (~140 Mya) 23) Kielantherium and Aegialodon (~140 Mya) 24) Endotherium (very latest Jurassic, 147 Ma) 25) Peramus (~155 Mya) 26) Eozostrodon, Morganucodon, Haldanodon (~205 Mya) 27) Kuehneotherium (~205 Mya) 28) Sinoconodon (~208 Mya) 29) Adelobasileus cromptoni (225 Mya) 30) Pachygenelus, Diarthrognathus (earliest Jurassic, 209 Mya) 31) Oligokyphus, Kayentatherium (early Jurassic, 208 Mya) 32) Probelesodon (~225 Mya?) 33) Exaeretodon (239 Mya) 34) Probainognathus (239-235 Mya) 35) Diademodon (240 Mya) 36) Cynognathus (240 Mya) 37) Thrinaxodon (~240 Mya) 38) Dvinia (Permocynodon) (~245 Mya) 39) Procynosuchus (~245 Mya) 40) Biarmosuchia (~255 Mya) 41) Dimetrodon, Sphenacodon (~270 Mya) 42) Varanops (~275 Mya) 43) Haptodus (~290 Mya) 44) Archaeothyris (~315 Mya) 45) Clepsydrops (~325 Mya) 46) Protoclepsydrops haplous (~325 Mya) 47) Paleothyris (~325 Mya) 48) Hylonomus, Paleothyris (~325 Mya) 49) Limnoscelis, Tseajaia (~325 Mya) 50) Proterogyrinus or another early anthracosaur (~335 Mya) 51) Temnospondyls (Pholidogaster) (330 Mya) 52) Labyrinthodonts (eg Pholidogaster, Pteroplax) (~360 Mya) 53) Hynerpeton, Acanthostega, and Ichthyostega (~365 Mya) 54) Obruchevichthys (370 Mya) 55) Panderichthys, Elpistostege (370 Mya) 56) Eusthenopteron, Sterropterygion (~375 Mya) 57) Osteolepis (~385 Mya) 58) Palaeoniscoids (Cheirolepis, Mimia) (~400 Mya) 59) Acanthodians(?) (~420 Mya) Tell me where you think a "missing link" should be. If you can't name a specific, don't bring up the subject.
quote: Please be more specific. Are you talking about entire skeletons, or just places where part of the skeleton was missing? If you're talking about the latter case, what do you expect, entire skeletons to be miraculously preserved intact? Think about the situation for a second: what happens when you throw a vase? You get some big pieces, some small pieces, and some things pretty much turned to dust. That's the same thing that happens when bones get buried under kilotons of rock under pressure and heat. Complete skeletons are incredibly rare, and very valuable.
quote: You need to clarify which concept of "missing link" you're referring to in your statement of "missing link bones". Do you mean bones that belong to a supposed "missing link" in human evolution, or bones of a species for which a particular museum doesn't happen to own a complete skeleton for? Or are you trying to assert that there is no way to identify an organism without a 100% skeleton? Again, we need specifics before we can comment, not vague assertions. ------------------"Illuminant light, illuminate me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Willowtree,
Kathleen Hunt has written a pretty good list of transitional species between some of the major animal groups. Look at the lists. They are quite long and detailed. And the species depicted show the necessary "step-by-step" transitions, and occur at the right time in the geological record. There are very few significant gaps. Now whatever the museums display to the public, scientists study the original fossils. Here is a description of one fossil, that of the Morganucodons. Note the detail. The study of these fossils are very detailed, and these are exactly the details one sees transforming when examining the evolutionary lineages.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5061 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Srill looks rough or greasy to me. But oh, well.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 762 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Every museum I have encountered diplays fake bones made of rubber and plaster. The Royal Tyrell, in Drumheller, Alberta, does this in many cases. But "fake bones" is rather a loaded phrase for a plaster cast painstakingly made to precisely reproduce the original, don't you think?And let's not get started on Milton....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
It sure seems to me, that if you could spin-off that list of 59, into a new topic complete with online references, you would potentially have a "post of the year".
As it sits, it's just a big list of words, that doesn't mean hardly anything to me. Moose (the non-admin mode)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Darwin's Terrier Inactive Member |
Science reporter Richard Milton says concerning the theory of evolution : "...the inability of Darwinists to demonstrate to a thinking member of the public {non Darwinist} conclusive scientific evidence to substantiate the theory ...." The larger context for the above statement That’s a statement? It looks like the first half of a sentence to me. And who cares what Milton says anyway? Science doesn’t derive its power from authority, but from evidence. Some people can never be convinced.
is the fact that this criticism is specifically directed at the British Museum of Natural History at Teddington. It’s in South Kensington, in west central London. Which is nowhere near Teddington, which is in Middlesex (as was). Someone needs to get their facts straight, and this is indicative of the depth of research behind your claims.
With this said, What said? ‘Darwinists’ not allegedly being able to demonstrate evolution to creationists is a criticism of a museum? Erm, what on earth are you on about?
I ask what museum actually possesses and displays the intermediary missing link bones ? Well the Natural History Museum does, that’s for certain. Tucked away through doors the public doesn’t usually get to go through, there are rabbit warrens of corridors, all lined with grey metal sliding door fronted cabinets. Slide back a door at random, and there’s wooden drawers. Each contains a dozen fossils, each in a lidded cardboard box lined with cotton wool and labelled with names like Acanthostega gunneri. I have myself held some of these fossils; accompanied by Per Ahlberg, I have held the skull of a 340 million year old tetrapod, and a chunk of rock of a similar age, still being prepared, in which I could clearly see a shoulder and humerus. Would you like me to explain about all the ‘missing’ links that have been found which reveal the course of tetrapod evolution? Guess what? They are just about all in museums. The actual, real fossils. And many other museums do have these things too, because the NHM has from time to time put on exhibitions of material loaned from other museums. Earlier this year, for instance, they had an exhibition of many of the fossils -- the real fossils -- which confirm the dinosaur-bird link. I have seen them and photographed them. Fossils like ‘fuzzy raptor’ (not sure if it’s got a proper name yet), both the slab and counterslab; at least two Archaeopteryx (their own ‘London’ one and the Berlin one for sure, maybe another (altogether eight have been found)... I was so bowled over that I didn’t think to count up what I saw!); and many of the recently unearthed Chinese Liaoning fossils. Each one a non-missing link. Is all this material on display? Of course not. Is it real and in museums? Absolutely.
Every museum I have encountered diplays fake bones made of rubber and plaster. Painstakingly moulded from the originals. The real things are rare and precious. Would you rather see a precise, moulded-from-the-original model at your local museum, or have to cross half the planet to see the original? Personally, I’d rather see the original too; but since I cannot, an exact replica will do. Nobody is being deceived.
These pieces are always surrounded by impressive visual presentations that insert the bones as the missing links. I’ve no idea what you mean by this. Do you mean adding in bones where the original has none... because a mounted Triceratops would look stupid with three legs and some spine missing? Or do you mean that the displays are entirely made-up tosh, and the so-called missing links are still missing?
This is outrageous as it appears these museum displays are presenting what they HOPE to find but have not. I suppose you could say that every museum HOPES to have its own T rex... but that’s not, I’d guess, what you’re getting at. Yep, it would be outrageous, if it were true. But since it isn’t true, there’s no cause for creationist celebration.
If there is a paucity of missing link bones in museums could this mean that there are none ? Nope. It just means that there aren’t enough of the really important fossils to go round all the museums that might want them. Anyone can have a trilobite. Not everyone can have an Ichthyostega. Here’s another ‘missing link’ for you, btw. The real fossil.
Here’s some more. The real fossils.
You can see yet more here. Therre’s thousands and thousands of these ‘missing link’ fossils. But not all museums can have all of them. Remind me again what the problem was? TTFN, DT [This message has been edited by Darwinsterrier, 11-26-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5223 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Darwinsterrier,
British Museum of Natural History at Teddington. The British Museum & the Natural History Museum are two entirely different entities as well, & neither is located at Teddington. Mark
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
Richard Milton, as in author of 'Shattering the Myths of Darwinism'?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Just to be pedantic the "Natural History Museum" is more properly known as "The British Museum of Natural History".
And Milton gets the location right - Kensington. Willowtree is responsible for that error. Mind you considering the opinion of an anti-science crank like Milton worthwhile evidence of anything is a far greater error.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5223 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
PaulK,
Just to be pedantic the "Natural History Museum" is more properly known as "The British Museum of Natural History". It isn't. The official title is The Natural History Museum. It officially changed its name in 1963 when it was officially separated from the British Museum, by act of parliament, no less! Mark
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Darwin's Terrier Inactive Member |
Just to be pedantic the "Natural History Museum" is more properly known as "The British Museum of Natural History". Just to be even more pedantic, the institution we're talking about was called the 'British Museum (Natural History)' until sometime in the 1980s, when it became simply the 'Natural History Museum', which is what it's called now. (See their website!) Though just to be confusing, their catalogue numbers are prefixed 'BMNH', which clearly translates as you said. (Edit: Argh, beaten to the punch by Mark! However, while the Act separated it off in '63, 'British Museum (Natural History)' was what it was (still?) called in the mid-70s when I used to go regularly. David Attenborough mentions the name change as being in the '80s in Life on Air, and I'd guess that would have been in '86 when the Geological Museum was incorporated.) [This message has been edited by Darwinsterrier, 11-26-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5223 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
I stand corrected, sir!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3076 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
I was inaccurate, this museum is a few miles to the east of Teddington, also there should be millions and millions of bones for evolution to be true on the scale you claim it to be. The problem I have with the real bones and fossils is that they are locked away just like the Catholic Church locks away their treasures in vaults, which means we have to take someones word about the authenticity, which sounds to me like the same criticism that science levels at religion for having to take their word on it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3076 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
Richard Milton is no crank. He is a member of Mensa the I Q society group and of course he is not a creationist. You sound like a religious fundementalist in your unfounded slander toward Milton, which means you are deficent on arguments to respond with pertaining to his questions about Darwinism. Instead you attack the question asker which deflects away from besting him with merits of truth. Milton has legitimate problems with the theory and all you Darwinists can do is attack him personally.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024