Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9179 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,204 Year: 5,461/9,624 Month: 486/323 Week: 126/204 Day: 0/26 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Transitional fossils not proof of evolution?
mr_matrix
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 223 (315629)
05-27-2006 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by arachnophilia
04-30-2006 7:55 PM


Speculations
Well, the evolutionary interpretations of the fossil record is mostly based on speculative interpretations. This is because the fossil record does not realy support evolution. Since the fossil record never shows a clear step by step evolution, why would any body assume that there was evolution in the first place. Similarities among species is not enough to be evidence for evolution.
evolution is not a straight line. it's a tree.
IN fact, this tree is what evolutionists assume to be true. This is what Darwin hoped. However, the fossil record does not reveal that all species emerged from a single ancestor. IN fact, it shows that the vast majority of organisms phyla (whether in sea, on land or in the air) emerged all of a sudden and fully formed without ancestral species to show a clear gradual evolution.
with enough data, we can draw the important parts of the tree
This is still based on the speculation that life is a tree. YOu cannot collect several "branches" together and assume that they evolved.
most of the hominids in that graphic are not actually in the line of human descent, so the transition that presents is really kind of deceptive. but they ARE indicitive of the changes that were going on.
Since the line of hominids is deceptive and does not clearly indicate a gradual evolution, any assuptoin of human evolution would be based on just speculations and bias and not on solid scientific evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by arachnophilia, posted 04-30-2006 7:55 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Belfry, posted 05-27-2006 3:38 PM mr_matrix has replied
 Message 11 by Chiroptera, posted 05-27-2006 6:09 PM mr_matrix has not replied
 Message 58 by arachnophilia, posted 05-29-2006 4:51 PM mr_matrix has replied
 Message 70 by RickJB, posted 05-30-2006 8:14 AM mr_matrix has replied

  
mr_matrix
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 223 (315648)
05-27-2006 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Belfry
05-27-2006 3:38 PM


Re: Speculations
You cannot draw that conclusion at all. The fossil record is spotty. Fossilization is rare, and some organisms are more easily preserved than others.
So you're saying that the fossil record is not complete and fossils are rare. This is the same old and desperate argument that Darwin used before. Now the fossil record is almost complete and provides a huge wealth of information about living species emerging all of a sudden with no evolutionary past. Many evolutionists admit this fact.
It is not impossible for soft tissues to survive up to today. The Burgess Shale fossil bed in Canada contains thousands of organisms with fossilized soft tissues because they were mostly covered with mud and had no contact with oxygen. Again, this fossil bed shows no evolutionary past.
The Cambrian "explosion" coincides with the appearance of hard body parts
The Camberian explosion has established more than 60 different phyla. This means tens of thousands of species that exploded into life fully formed. Just finding few fossils that are so-called precamberian does not invalidate the Camberian explosion. We dont know the validity of these fossils or if they realy belong to pre camberian eras.
The important thing to understand is that all of the lines of evidence converge and are consistent both with each other and with evolutionary theory.
But there are no clear lines in the fossil record because it shows that many phyla emerged suddenly. A famous British paleontologist Derek V. Agar approves this fact: “The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find-over and over again-not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another”.
AS Darwin said, if his evolution theory is true, there should be numberless transitional forms and that they should still exist today. However, the fossil record invalidates evolution. This is because all species that exist today and in the fossil record, are clearly independent of each other and are classified seperately. The so called transitional forms are very limited and most (if not all) of them are mistakelnly thought to be transitional but they are not.
If you say the Camberian explosion is invalid, how can 60 phyla emerge in a very short time period (geologically speaking) and fully formed and independent of each other with no evolutionary ancestral species? If there is a gradual evolution, it should take billions of years of evolution to form 60 phyla that include thousands of species.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Belfry, posted 05-27-2006 3:38 PM Belfry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by CK, posted 05-27-2006 7:10 PM mr_matrix has not replied
 Message 14 by RAZD, posted 05-27-2006 8:03 PM mr_matrix has not replied
 Message 16 by Belfry, posted 05-27-2006 9:26 PM mr_matrix has not replied
 Message 17 by Percy, posted 05-27-2006 9:28 PM mr_matrix has not replied
 Message 201 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-18-2006 2:27 PM mr_matrix has not replied
 Message 204 by crashfrog, posted 08-18-2006 10:06 PM mr_matrix has not replied

  
mr_matrix
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 223 (315817)
05-28-2006 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Belfry
05-27-2006 8:44 PM


Re: Speculations
Derek V Agar is one out of many others who admitted the fact of Camberian explosion. Take Richard Dawkins for instance, an evolutionist extremist. He quoted that life forms in the Camberian era seem to be planted on Earth as if they have no evolutionary past.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Belfry, posted 05-27-2006 8:44 PM Belfry has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by CK, posted 05-28-2006 5:38 PM mr_matrix has not replied
 Message 33 by ohnhai, posted 05-28-2006 6:25 PM mr_matrix has not replied

  
mr_matrix
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 223 (315821)
05-28-2006 6:22 PM


Fossil Gaps
OK! lets make this clear. The fossil record is full of gaps that invalidate evolution. I am not denying any evidence I see, in fact, evolutionist ignore the gaps and fossil evidence against evolution and make up imaginary theories to cover the embarassing lack of evidence.
It is also important to note that phyloginy is not a great supporter of evolution. These phyloginies are based on similarity in appearance. However, even though there are organisms that look alike, there are vast differences between the chemical and the proteins makeup. For example, there are different genetic codes that code for similar structures. If evolutionists were to make a phyloginy based on proteins structures and rRNA in living organisms, the phylogenic tree will collapse and become messed up and confused linking two or more organisms that dont even look alike in shape.
Lets look for example to the pentadactyl structure that has appeared in two separate times each independatley of the other (anthracosaurs and amphibians). What is more interesting is that different genetic codes in the two different types of creatures code for the same pentadactyl structure.
If evolutionists are proud of the similarity in living things and consider it evidence for evolution, this similarity collapses when comparing livig things in the chemical makeup, in particular the protein and rRNA makeup.
Even thought the Cambrian period lasted for 5 million years, this time period is too short compared to the age of life on Earth. Most importantly, it is too short in evolutionary terms to form 60 different phyla. Would the theory of punctuated equlibriam say that somehow these thousands of species evolved very rapidly? Any explanation to show an evolutionary process in the Cambrian explosion would be more like a fantasy tail of imagination and not a scientific theory. The same is true for the entire fossil record. If is wasnt full of gaps, there wouldnt be the theory of PE in the first place. But PE was made up to try to cover the gaps in the fossil record.
It is very simple, if evolution is true there should exist millions of transitional links in the fossil record. But all we find is millions of Gaps. You cannot desparately ignore all the gaps and stick to few fossils that are "thaught" to be transitional.
If you see no evidence for creation and design in nature, then you should see an eye doctor. Every thing is intellegently designed and balanced in flawless order. How can random chances creat such order. If you dont believe in creation, it is not enough to just say that creation is wrong. Instead you should show your belief regarding the beginning of life on Earth and try to support it. How can anybody ignore creation and believe that a cell can be the result of totally random chance, and then all the diverse life forms and order in nature emerged as a result of a chain of millions of unconcious and blind chances. Where is the logic in someone who believes in chance as being a super creative force?
Edited by mr_matrix, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by anglagard, posted 05-28-2006 6:45 PM mr_matrix has not replied
 Message 35 by mark24, posted 05-28-2006 6:47 PM mr_matrix has not replied
 Message 36 by Belfry, posted 05-28-2006 7:22 PM mr_matrix has not replied
 Message 37 by Percy, posted 05-28-2006 8:33 PM mr_matrix has not replied
 Message 45 by Quetzal, posted 05-29-2006 10:01 AM mr_matrix has not replied

  
mr_matrix
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 223 (316066)
05-29-2006 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by arachnophilia
05-29-2006 4:51 PM


Re: Speculations
i'm also annoyed by people (as above) that say it's "spotty." it's not. there are a few missing ancestors here and there, but there are far, far more links than holes.
See how evolutionist interprate the fossil record in the way they want. IN previous posts some evolutionist explained the absense of evident fossils by saying that the fossl record is incomplete. NOw you say that it is not spotty and it completely shows gradual evolution. Evolutionists are contradicting each other because of their different interpretations and speculations about fossils. Do you fill the fossil record whenever you want and make it look empty whenever you want just to support your interpretations?
life *IS* a tree, because of variation in sexual reproduction.
Variations but not evolution. I can draw a tree of my family and this tree is full of Humans only. But the tree of life mixes up different creatures wherever evolutionists see fit.
i can't actually think of a single case of a "missing link" that's actually missing. i'm trying
Probably the reason why you make such unfounded claim is that YOU have a lack of knowledge about fossils. OR maybe because you only search in evolutionist web sites that are full of false claims and misinterprated fossils.
could it be the development of hard parts, allowing for better fossilization? the "explosion" doesn't mean they came from nowhere, it means we have more fossils, all of a sudden.
You are saying "could it be", well it could be not. If you quit your evolutionary speculations about the fossil record you should also take into account other possibilities.
But you still admit the huge amount of fossils in the Cambrian explosion. How do you explain the suddent emergence of fossils as you said "all of a sudden"?
You already said that fossils show patterns of life. This is why evolutionists make phylogenic trees. Evolutionists use fossils to indicate patterns of life. Well how come non of them pays attention to the obvious emrgence of more that 60 phyla in the fossil record in a short period of time (geologically speaking)? You admitted that there is a huge number of fossils in the Cambrian explosion. How come this does not indicate any pattern of life for evolutionists and they even try to refute it, while at the same time, they make tons of interpretations and speculations and imaginary scenarios based on few fossils that are "thaught" to support evolution. How come evolutionists ignore any patterns regarding the Cambrian explosion and at the same time claim that they base their evidence on the fossil record.
About the picture you posted, there are thousands of diagrams (either imaginary or based on speculation) regarding human evolution. It is obvious that most of the skulls do not belong to humans, they belong to either apes or chimps. I am certain that many of these skulls have been already refuted by scientific evidence that clearly showed that they belong to apes. You could draw hundreds of diagrams based on skulls but remember that they are all imaginary.
i think it's the creationists who are biased, and not willing to look at the solid scientific evidence because they'd find it hard to draw the conclusions they want.
Biased? You are talking as if evolutionists are not biased. Where is that solid scientific evidence? Evolutionists always say that there is evidence but when you ask them about it they start making imaginary scenarios and interprete the fossil record the way they like just to fit in thier family trees. The reproduction you mentioned does create variations, but you cannot find species turning to different species as a result of variations, so you should not use variations to prove evolution. Ans where is that logical inference you're refering to? Is it the speculations about fossils or the believe that all life forms emerged on Earth by random chances?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by arachnophilia, posted 05-29-2006 4:51 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by arachnophilia, posted 05-29-2006 7:16 PM mr_matrix has replied
 Message 63 by kjsimons, posted 05-29-2006 9:14 PM mr_matrix has not replied

  
mr_matrix
Inactive Member


Message 71 of 223 (316366)
05-30-2006 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by arachnophilia
05-29-2006 7:16 PM


Re: Speculations
I keep seeing evolutionists showing off different diagrams of sequences made of fossils to show transitions. Remember, this is still your own speculations and interpretations of the fossil record.
For example, look at the bat. It is a flying mammal with fur similar to rodents and wings similar to birds. If bats go extinct and a bat fossil is found after million years in the future. Evolutionists will say that there was a rodnet (could be rat, squeril, or termite) or any small animal with fur that million years ago (which is our time) has evolved into a flying creature and then evolved into a bird. And this was the origin of birds. Then they would publish it in their books and consider it a logical evidence. However, we know in our time that rodents are not evolving into bats and bats are not evolving into different birds. But the evolutionists' speculations lead them to such belief. It might sound logical but it is not necessarily true. This type of speculation is applied on all fossils.
Similarities can be deceptive and you cannot heavily rely on them and consider them evidence. For the same hypothese that you make about the fossil record, others will make their own hypotheses around the world.
variation IS evolution.
How can you even make such a claim in the 21st century? Darwin (with his limited knowledge about cells and his lack of knowledge about genetics) assumed that variations have no limit and that variations would eventually lead to evolution. However, Mendel's genetics have showed that variations are limited and cannot lead to the formation of new species. Modern genetic studies have showed that variations within species is limited to the gene pool of the population and cannot provide "forign" traits from other orgaisms in order for them to evolve. These discoveries have conclusively proved that no matter how many generations pass, a horse (for instance) will keep breading horses and you will not find a newborn horse with wings!
what mechanism do you propose keeps genetic variation from compounding?
You can have as many combinations as you like within a population of organisms but these are limited to the gene pool as I mentioned above.
it's that there is no example you can think of that i can't fill with at least a few "transitional" species. (i dare you)
Well, whenever you encounter any example of fossils you will explain it in a hypothesis (pure imagiantion)that sound logical to you because it is based on your speculations.
so when we see a few fossils of soft creatures, and then tons and tons of harder creatures -- it's not really a suprise. there's no mystery here.
Ok! and you are willing to base all your hypotheses and believes on few fossils with soft tissues that you refer to as "precambrian" and ignore the tons of hard fossils that show rapid and enormous diversities in a short period of time which cannot be explained by an evolutionary process. (unless evolutionists make up a theory that the Cambrian explosion was 1 billion years old, since they seem to be very good at making up such imaginary theories to explain things they cant explain in reality)
um, the development of hard parts explains it rather well. hard parts fossilize better, thus more fossils. ta da.
Which is still an imaginary speculation that you invented when you said that at the Cambrian time there were only hard fossils while you have no way of proving such a claim.
what's imaginary here is the notion that humans are NOT apes. all of those skulls belong to apes, including the cromagnon one. but at what point do YOU say that it's an ape and not a human? each skull is remarkably like the one before it.
Ofcourse they remarkably resemble each other besause they are all skulls of apes. Claiming that such skulls resemble humans is based on speculations. It is like taking a skull of a dinosaur and caliming it to be the skull of a crocodile that could walk on two!
The reproduction you mentioned does create variations, but you cannot find species turning to different species as a result of variations,
yes, actually, you can. it has been observed in laboratory conditions. many, many forms of live reproduce and create successive generations much faster than humans.
Yes of course you can, if you assume that these "laboratory conditions" existed millions of years ago to evolve species by reproduction.
where in "natural selection" did you get "random?" evolution is anything but random. variation has a random aspect to that. but you accept that part. evolution is the combination of that, and the idea that there are factors (environmental, sexual, inter-species) that help "decide" who gets to pass their genes on, and who does not.
Again, you're elaborating further on reproduction and variations and they dont cause evolution into different organisms. Unless you chose to defy genetics and claim that they do!
So if you can make any more imaginary speculations regarding the fossil record, make sure to publish them and call them "scientific". Or it would be better to turn them into some japanese animes to be told as bed-time fantasy stories to kids.
Edited by mr_matrix, : No reason given.
Edited by mr_matrix, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by arachnophilia, posted 05-29-2006 7:16 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Belfry, posted 05-30-2006 9:09 PM mr_matrix has not replied
 Message 77 by MangyTiger, posted 05-30-2006 9:26 PM mr_matrix has not replied
 Message 84 by arachnophilia, posted 05-31-2006 1:40 AM mr_matrix has replied
 Message 90 by Percy, posted 05-31-2006 2:04 PM mr_matrix has not replied

  
mr_matrix
Inactive Member


Message 72 of 223 (316370)
05-30-2006 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by RickJB
05-30-2006 8:14 AM


Re: Speculations
ALL forms are transitional - including ourselves.
Realy? so does that mean that in the future we will evolve into X-men or ninja turtles?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by RickJB, posted 05-30-2006 8:14 AM RickJB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by RickJB, posted 05-31-2006 4:04 AM mr_matrix has not replied

  
mr_matrix
Inactive Member


Message 112 of 223 (317108)
06-02-2006 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by arachnophilia
05-31-2006 1:40 AM


Re: Speculations
bats wings are in no way similar to bird's wings.
Did I ever say that they are identical? The intention was to show similarity. There are differences between the wings of birds and bats but they are both designed for flight. However, back to the scenario, evolutionists would hypothesize that such differences were overcome by mutations since they already claim that all life forms diversified initially because of mutations.
the connection to "reptiles" and birds is far, far more obvious using only skeletons than the connection between birds and mammals.
Where is the logic in claiming that birds evolved from reptiles? Since you quickly recognized the large physiological differences between a wing of a bat and that of a bird, you said that evolutionists would not claim that birds evolved from bats because of these differences. However, evolutionists failed to see the termendous physiological differences between reptiles and birds and thats why they claim that they have evolved from each other. The vast differences between reptiles and birds will render any attempt of transition ineffective. Even random mutations are no way able to account for such evolution. But evolutionists are only willing to make a huge leap over this gap and just hope that evolution of birds from reptiles somehow occured without being able to explain how it happened. While daydreaming about transitional fossils for this scenario.
Now lets say that a mutation gave a reptile something that looks like a wing (replacing hands)in a primitive form that could not fly. This would not be considered advantagous to a reptile used to crawl or use its hands for other tasks. Such a handicap would be immediatly eliminated by nature. This is just one out of many other obstacles in the way of such transition. Mutations are not super changes that could cross these obstacles and provide advantages to a reptile use to live and function on land.
it's not according to science that bat are birds, but according to the bible:
First of all, before you quote any thing to me from the bible know that I am not christian. Second, if bats were birds in the bible, apes are humans in evolution. If there is no logic in the first claim, there is no logic in the second either.
no species adopts traits from other species. what you're thinking of hybridization.
Hybridization is not common in nature. Mostly introduced by human intervention and not purely by natural effects. However, hybrids have no advantages that can aid in evolution. The hybrid zygote either dies before maturation or results in an infertile offspring.
horses are tetrapods. actually, all land animals are tetrapods. find me a single vertbrate with more than four limbs.
Ok! how is that related to the point? There are no land animals with more than 4 limbs in reality. It is only found in evolution were evolutionsts claim fish with no limbs gaining legs, reptiles losing limbs, limbs turning to wings, legs turning to tails, and other fantasies.
in english, we are limited to 26 letters. look at what we can say.
True! with only 26 letters you get thousands of english words. But you dont find english words with chinese or indian letters. Similarly, populations vary in their own letters but do not aquire new letters from other languages. Because if they do, the word would not make sense with forign letters. But evolution is like putting a letter from another language randomly in an english word giving it a new meaning! Which is not realistic.
i would challenge you to provide me with a hole in the record. but it's obvious that you wouldn't present me with anything evolution is actually claiming -- just bats into birds and horses with wings and other things that demonstrate you don't actually have the foggiest idea WHAT evolution is.
Im not willing to hear stories or evolution fantasies. However, do you know that the so called human evolution is not a tree of gradual change. It is rather a "foggy" bush with either humans or apes and nothing in between except speculations or false links. (more details will be provided later).
we see more diversity in younger rock than we do in older rock.
NOt true, the cambrian explosion is like a rapid diversification at the base of the evolutionary tree and not in the branches. Most of the groups of organisms we know today have been established at the cambrian. Any claim that the cambrian explosion did not possess vast diversity is untrue. More than 60 phyla have been established at the cambrian explosion. 60 and not 2 or 3. This very old era was very diverse which alone invalidates the claim of "the younger the layer, the more complex".
no, i never said there were only hard fossils in the cambrian. i'm sure somebody's found a few soft creatures. but there are *NO* hard creatures in precambrian. none. at all. only softies. the "sudden explosion" is a product of the development of hard parts -- letting animals fossilize better.
This is what I mean, your hypothesis that hard parts developed to allow for more fossils is unproven and speculative. It is just to cover the lack of explanation and evidence. Just claiming that hard parts developed doesnot make it true because it is just a claim and no more. There are no fossils to show how a complex creature in the cambrian evolved from unicellular life forms. The abrupt appearance and disappearance of certain species cannot be explained by evolution but in only one phrase: "the fossil record is incomplete!".
reptiles splay their legs, to remain close to the ground for warmth. there is no cold-blooded animal alive today that walks with straight legs,
How can a cold-blooded reptile become a warm-blooded bird and with a much higher metabolism? I would like to see an answer with no usual fantasies but with a real scientific explanation.
"laboratory conditions" means controlled, observed, documented, and experimented upon. it doesn't mean it doesn't happen outside the lab, where things are much more complicated.
There is still a human intervention involved. Otherwise nature doesnot act by itself to form new species. The only speciation evolutionists refer to is when calling a descendant of a fish (for instance)from the hundridth generation a new species even though it is still a fish.
genetics tells us that we share about 99% of our DNA with chimps. heck, we share about half of our DNA with the banana the chimpanzee is eating.
Here is something that clearly defies genetics: the myth of the 99% similarity between humans and chimps. This is not true. This exaggerated estimation was based on an experiment in the 1980s whereby only a group of protien were compared and not the entire genomes. These protiens where in humans and chimps where found to be 99% similar. However, those are some of the most basic and necessary proteins found in almost all organisms and not only in humans and chimps.
As you mentioned, we share genetic similarity with the bannana but that does not mean we are descendants of the bannanas. Similarly, we share other similarities to worms, insects, and other plants. Therefore, relying on genetic similarity does not cleary show you evolutionary lines of descent.
sorry, no giant robots here.
NO giant robots such as transformers. But evolution has even more unrealistic living transformers.
In reality, the fossil record is actually full of gaps otherwise evolutionists wouldnt be still digging all over the world in search of imaginary trasitional links. Also, we should have seen countless transitionals both living and fossolized. But every species is cleary identified and isolated from others.
Here is an important fact. Evolutionists believe that they could fill the fossil record with transitionals by claiming that all species are considered transitional forms. However, this is a distortion of the actual meaning of transitional. A transitional link should be an intermeidiate species (in between) two other different species that shows mixed traits of both species. There are no such species in the fossil record. That is why evolutionist started placing a distinct species (ie. archaepteryx) between 2 other very distinct species of reptiles and birds, even though archaepteryx is not a transitional link with a mix of reptiles and birds because it is an identified and distict species by itslef.
Note: dont bother reply because im leaving the thread and wont be available to read replies.
Edited by mr_matrix, : No reason given.
Edited by mr_matrix, : No reason given.
Edited by mr_matrix, : No reason given.
Edited by mr_matrix, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by arachnophilia, posted 05-31-2006 1:40 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by anglagard, posted 06-02-2006 9:59 PM mr_matrix has not replied
 Message 114 by RAZD, posted 06-02-2006 10:49 PM mr_matrix has not replied
 Message 115 by Damouse, posted 06-03-2006 12:37 PM mr_matrix has not replied
 Message 150 by Percy, posted 06-05-2006 9:21 AM mr_matrix has not replied
 Message 154 by arachnophilia, posted 06-06-2006 11:12 AM mr_matrix 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