Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

most id/creationist theorists say macro evolution is impossible. there are really two definitions of macro evolution. macro evolution and therefore speciation can be achieved through many many cycles of microevolution, which HAS been observed and proved. microevolution is accepted by scientists and creationists and IDers alike.

if we accept that microevolution is a fact, then why do some creationists say macroevolution is not possible?

Chicken, this is the same kind of tripe that you've accused ushome of recently. It could easily go in about 3-4 different threads that are already open. And, well, it's only passingly defended. So good luck...both in keeping this open and in having enough data to defend your stance (which is fine in and of itself, but too brief to be thorough).

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Chicken, this is the same kind of tripe that you've accused ushome of recently. It could easily go in about 3-4 different threads that are already open. And, well, it's only passingly defended. So good luck...both in keeping this open and in having enough data to defend your stance (which is fine in and of itself, but too brief to be thorough).

i was hoping you'd explain the definition of macroevolution in a clear definite stance, and this could be the official thread on the theory...

however if no one wishs to participate, then ill just report it and get it closed i guess...

Originally posted by chickenlover98
i was hoping you'd explain the definition of macroevolution in a clear definite stance, and this could be the official thread on the theory...

however if no one wishs to participate, then ill just report it and get it closed i guess...

Heh. No worries. It's just that this could be dealt with in the topics we already have for evolution and/or ID. And beyond that, I actually defer to a few of the others when it comes to enunciating macroevolutionary theory and data. I forget if it was inamilist, xmarksthespot, bardock, or someone else but I was never terribly good at getting the point across.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Heh. No worries. It's just that this could be dealt with in the topics we already have for evolution and/or ID. And beyond that, I actually defer to a few of the others when it comes to enunciating macroevolutionary theory and data. I forget if it was inamilist, xmarksthespot, bardock, or someone else but I was never terribly good at getting the point across.

i think it was leonheartmm, seeing as he's usually the evolutionary defender. but you always seem well informed

i know it could be brought up in another thread, but then you'd always have to reference a page on a thread instead of directing them here.

Problem there is that we could in theory make a whole substrate of evolution or ID nuance-threads for specific topics like this. But collectively it would spam the forums with needless threads, so it's not a good precedent to set.

Maybe whatever mod sees the report will differ, though, so who knows.

If I hear one more creationist saying "Macroevolution has never been proven, only microevolution has" i'm going to ****ing kill them.

Originally posted by King Kandy
If I hear one more creationist saying "Macroevolution has never been proven, only microevolution has" i'm going to ****ing kill them.

mind if when u go on a creationist killing spree i bring my machete?

this is a stupid subject.

macroevolution is quite simply 2 or more occurances of microevolution. If one admits that micro is true, which it is, one must then explain why it is possible for this to happen only 1 time in any species and impossible for it to happen 2 or more times to negate macro (which ofcourse is futile as we've already bred 2 or more micro-evolved traits we've desired into animals).

"species" is a human idea. It is a category we made up to classify living things that closely resemble other living things. At the end of the day, we're all just animals.

example:

we have been using micro-evolution for years in breeding of animals. There are more than 150 breeds of canine we have created. Human selection is the process in which we have achieved this evolution. We, however, do not breed mutations we deem to be harmful and without warrant. What if we started to?

Canines by definition are quadropeds. What if we take multiple dogs with genetic mutations causing them to be born with 2 legs and breed them? After several generations of breeding this group strictly within this group, the mutation will breed true so as all the offspring produced will have this mutation. Now we have a dog that only has two legs, causing it to hop on it's hind legs or pull itself along with it's front legs to move.

We take the members of this population of newly created 2 legged dogs and only breed those with the largest leg muscles. Once this trait breeds true we decide to only breed the dogs with the least amount of hair. As generation after generation passes, breeding for little hair as possible, we arrive at a hairless animal. Next, say, we only breed for the shortest ears possible.....then we breed for no tails.....then for no legs at all.

what we now have is a no legged, hairless, tailess mammal with short pointy cat looking ears. A mongrel of an animal indeed. What is it? It's not a dog.......all of these traits have been bred true. The offspring of these animals could never have tails, floppy ears or legs. It would no more resemble a dog than it would a cat, hyena or deer. Genetically, it would not be a dog......we had bred mutation on top of mutation on top of mutation, all true. It's a new species, how 'bout that.

we humans can create a living thing in any image we want aswell as a god can, we don't because it's cruel to create such a useless waste of time.

Semantics.

chickenlover98-

The thread, "The Case for a Creator," may provide answers regarding micro/macroevolution and Intelligent Design; the thread is a video blog. I highly recommend that you watch it! Whether you agree (or disagree) with the presentation, it will serve as an educational tool.

If time does not favor your ability to watch the video presentation, perhaps you will be able to read, "Atheist Becomes Theist: Exclusive Interview with Former Atheist Antony Flew"?

There are 2 ways to address this question. The first is from the scientific, which I'll hit briefly at the end, as it is even a little complex scientifically.

However, more important to this topic, is how "macroevolution" is used by creationists.

To a creationist, the term "macroevolution" is a meme extraordinaire. It is used specifically as something that cannot be proven a priori, and then whenever any research shows mechanisms of evolution, they just say "oh thats not macroevolution"

So, for instance, when species are bred into new species in a lab, where they are entirely unable to reproduce with the previous "species", a creationist will say "that is only small change, and microevolution is not macroevolution", clearly ignoring the scientific uses of the terms, and blanket dismissing the research because it doesn't approach a goalpost they continue to move.

I don't even really like the term scientifically, however, I look at evolution from a more 'gene's-eye-view'. To me, small and incremental variation builds up over time, and thus, the appearance of macroevolution, even though it is only an illusion caused by LOTS of microevolution.

From an archeological perspective, things like speciation plays a much more important roll, so someone more versed in that perspective on evolution might be able to flesh this out more, but as far as I know, macroevolution refers to what is know as "punctuated equilibrium". Basically, if all that drove evolution was minor genetic variability, then all animals should be clear transitions, and should be constantly changing. What is seen in the fossil record, are periods of rapid change followed by periods of a plateau of change, where animals become definable species with very similar behaviours and qualities.

This question is exemplified in the debate between Richard Dawkins and Stephen J Gould, and I have no answer to it, aside from saying rapid changes in evolution are probably driven by massive changes in the environment, and punctuated equilibriums are probably driven by stable environments, which could also be a warning to the 'gene's-eye-view' perspective, to warn against ignoring that which affects the genes

inimalist-

Simply said, if Darwinian (macro) evolution were true, the fossil record would be the only requirement necessary to validate the theory; that would be seemingly impossible to refute, even with advancements in molecular biology. If transitional fossils were present in the fossil record, biologist would be forced to conclude that much work lies ahead to address the apparent contradiction.

But the fossil record is void of transitions. "Punctuated Equilibrium," proposed by Stephen J. Gould, confirms this, and it only serves as an embarrassment to Darwinian evolution.

And further more, to claim, "whenever any research shows mechanisms of evolution, they just say 'oh thats not macroevolution,'" is completely ignorant.

"...it was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed. --Jeffrey H. Schwartz, evolutionist

Hey ushome, Gould was a Darwinian. He didn't refute that evolution happened (he was one of its biggest champions) only HOW it happened. At least stick to your religious sources rather than taking legitimate scientists out of context.

Dude you are aware that Punctuated Equilibrium is a form of evolution, right?

Good story, inimalist.

Originally posted by ushomefree
And further more, to claim, "whenever any research shows mechanisms of evolution, they just say 'oh thats not macroevolution,'" is completely ignorant.

....

=

Originally posted by ushomefree
Simply said, if Darwinian (macro) evolution were true, the fossil record would be the only requirement necessary to validate the theory; that would be seemingly impossible to refute, even with advancements in molecular biology. If transitional fossils were present in the fossil record, biologist would be forced to conclude that much work lies ahead to address the apparent contradiction.

case, point, swish

Originally posted by ushomefree
But the fossil record is void of transitions. "Punctuated Equilibrium," proposed by Stephen J. Gould, confirms this, and it only serves as an embarrassment to Darwinian evolution.

on a side note, the prof I work for told me about taking a class with Gould while getting her degree. He would show up with all of these fossils to pick up and look at, and would stress in minuta how they demonstrated the progression of life forms.

Simply put, I don't think Gould would support his name being associated with creationism.

Originally posted by ushomefree
"...it was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed. --Jeffrey H. Schwartz, evolutionist

genetic engineering?

the lab rat is a specific species of rat...

You missed the point; I was arguing, since Gould developed "Punctuated Equilibrium" theory, it confirms that the fossil record contains zero transitions. Otherwise, the theory would not exist.



Yes I am; please read, "The Invalidity of Punctuated Equilibrium."

Originally posted by ushomefree
You missed the point; I was arguing, since Gould developed "Punctuated Equilibrium" theory, it confirms that the fossil record contains zero transitions. Otherwise, the theory would not exist.

Are you aware that's an incredibly stupid way of thinking?

Originally posted by ushomefree
"Punctuated Equilibrium" theory

means that evolution is driven at the species level, whereas the selfish gene theory means that evolution is driven at the level of the gene.

Symmetric Chaos-

The theory of "Punctuated Equilibrium" was developed to circumvent the fact that the fossil record contains no "transitional" forms. Hello... is anybody home?

inimalist-

Punctuated Equilibrium is based on two concepts:

(1) macromutations and

(2) population restrictions.

Macromutations have not been verified.

"The overall factor that has come up again and again is that mutation remains the ultimate source of all genetic variation in any evolutionary model. Being unsatisfied with the prospects of accumulating small point mutations, many are turning to macromutations to explain the origin of evolutionary novelties. Goldschmidt's hopeful monsters have indeed returned. However, though macromutations of many varieties produce drastic changes, the vast majority will be incapable of survival, let alone show the marks of increasing complexity. If structural gene mutations are inadequate because of their inability to produce significant enough changes, then regulatory and developmental mutations appear even less useful because of the greater likelihood of nonadaptive or even destructive consequences.... But one thing seems certain: at present, the thesis that mutations, whether great or small, are capable of producing limitless biological change is more an article of faith than fact." --Lane Lester, geneticist and Raymond Bohlin, biologist

And population restrictions provide a disadvantage for Darwinian evolution!

Far from developing in such a way as to give rise to new species, small populations give rise to serious genetic defects. The reason for this is that in restricted populations individuals must continually mate within a narrow genetic pool. For this reason, normally heterozygous individuals become increasingly homozygous. This means that defective genes which are normally recessive become dominant, with the result that genetic defects and sickness increase within the population.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Symmetric Chaos-

The theory of "Punctuated Equilibrium" was developed to circumvent the fact that the fossil record contains no "transitional" forms. Hello... is anybody home?

Conspiracy theories were developed to explain why some people on LSD see people as reptile men. The logic you're trying to is extremely poor.

Just because someone comes up with something doesn't mean anything.

Just ignore him fellas. It's his God of the Gaps logic that pervades everything he talks about. You'll never win because he's completely wrapped up in the meme that is ID. It has such a strong hold that literally nothing will displace it.

Originally posted by inimalist

the lab rat is a specific species of rat...

Well... these use different types of rats actually... New Zealand White, brown rats... But these aren't species are they? They're races within a species.

Punctuated Equilibrium is based on two concepts:

(1) macromutations and

(2) population restrictions.

Macromutations have not been verified.

"The overall factor that has come up again and again is that mutation remains the ultimate source of all genetic variation in any evolutionary model. Being unsatisfied with the prospects of accumulating small point mutations, many are turning to macromutations to explain the origin of evolutionary novelties. Goldschmidt's hopeful monsters have indeed returned. However, though macromutations of many varieties produce drastic changes, the vast majority will be incapable of survival, let alone show the marks of increasing complexity. If structural gene mutations are inadequate because of their inability to produce significant enough changes, then regulatory and developmental mutations appear even less useful because of the greater likelihood of nonadaptive or even destructive consequences.... But one thing seems certain: at present, the thesis that mutations, whether great or small, are capable of producing limitless biological change is more an article of faith than fact." --Lane Lester, geneticist and Raymond Bohlin, biologist

And population restrictions provide a disadvantage for Darwinian evolution!

Far from developing in such a way as to give rise to new species, small populations give rise to serious genetic defects. The reason for this is that in restricted populations individuals must continually mate within a narrow genetic pool. For this reason, normally heterozygous individuals become increasingly homozygous. This means that defective genes which are normally recessive become dominant, with the result that genetic defects and sickness increase within the population.

And DigiMark007, you are "acting" like an idiot; be fair. By the way, do you play Chess?

I'm not acting like anything. Acting implies something other than one's true feeling. And I truly feel you are an idiot whose debating tactics are disingenuous to true scientific study, or true anything for that matter, and that you deserve to be ignored.

Though, ironically enough, I'm not a proponent of punctuated equilibrium. Go figure. But our reasons for finding fault with the system are obviously quite different, as are the ends to which we use them. Ushome plays God of the Gaps with it. I simply see it as an offshoot of evolutionary theory that isn't as supported as traditional models.

Anyway, go back to the 5-6 threads you created for yourself as a platform to preach to the few who will listen to you. This thread is about science, not your incessant blathering.

And yeah, I play chess.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Symmetric Chaos-

The theory of "Punctuated Equilibrium" was developed to circumvent the fact that the fossil record contains no "transitional" forms. Hello... is anybody home?

i swear to god if you dont learn how to quote soon i willhunt you down and smack you

i believe the selfish gene theory to be more accurate. to say instant changes in a species causes any sort of evolution is rediculus. minor changes to an animals genome is the eventual cause. with many many changes of genes we come to speciation. how long this takes, is up to debate.

ushome i agree with you on this particular theory i dont think it really has any difference. however taking a valid evolutionary scientists words and twisting them, is not something i would do in your situation

Originally posted by DigiMark007
I'm not acting like anything. Acting implies something other than one's true feeling. And I truly feel you are an idiot whose debating tactics are disingenuous to true scientific study, or true anything for that matter, and that you deserve to be ignored.

Though, ironically enough, I'm not a proponent of punctuated equilibrium. Go figure. But our reasons for finding fault with the system are obviously quite different, as are the ends to which we use them. Ushome plays God of the Gaps with it. I simply see it as an offshoot of evolutionary theory that isn't as supported as traditional models.

Anyway, go back to the 5-6 threads you created for yourself as a platform to preach to the few who will listen to you. This thread is about science, not your incessant blathering.

And yeah, I play chess.

ushomefree i think you just got owned

LOL buddy! My bad. boxing

Originally posted by chickenlover98
i believe the selfish gene theory to be more accurate. to say instant changes in a species causes any sort of evolution is rediculus. minor changes to an animals genome is the eventual cause. with many many changes of genes we come to speciation. how long this takes, is up to debate.

ushome i agree with you on this particular theory i dont think it really has any difference. however taking a valid evolutionary scientists words and twisting them, is not something i would do in your situation

It is strange, however, that the phenotypic qualities of a species seem to stabilize over periods of time though, which does lend some credit to the theory

Originally posted by ushomefree
LOL buddy! My bad. boxing

HE LEARNED TO QUOTE!!!

maybe there is a god.

Originally posted by inimalist
It is strange, however, that the phenotypic qualities of a species seem to stabilize over periods of time though, which does lend some credit to the theory

most theories have some evidence but are then proven wrong. ie: the geocentric theory. once more complex technology arrives it is eventually disproven.

Originally posted by inimalist
It is strange, however, that the phenotypic qualities of a species seem to stabilize over periods of time though, which does lend some credit to the theory

Agreed, but I still think our definition of "stable" is working with such a limited time-frame (i.e. human) that evolutionary trends may be in slow but steady flux, but are largely undetectable by all but the most rigorous genome maps (and various similar techniques).

hey, as i said before, I certainly think gene level is the way to look at it, but keep in mind, these genes exist in an environment, and don't loose the forest through the trees

God, Digi, off topic I know, but I'm sorry I haven't posted in the memes or market thread... blah, let me get some shit together..

Originally posted by inimalist
hey, as i said before, I certainly think gene level is the way to look at it, but keep in mind, these genes exist in an environment, and don't loose the forest through the trees

God, Digi, off topic I know, but I'm sorry I haven't posted in the memes or market thread... blah, let me get some shit together..

Hehe. No worries. It's not like the threads (or either of us) are going anywhere. You don't have to feel obligated to post when there's other concerns....especially in such (comparatively) slow-moving threads.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Symmetric Chaos-

The theory of "Punctuated Equilibrium" was developed to circumvent the fact that the fossil record contains no "transitional" forms. Hello... is anybody home?
Yes, that is what we call an "improvement."

Science kinda does that, you know? Improves with time and new discoveries?

Los Locos! Every one nos it.

Originally posted by chickenlover98
i was hoping you'd explain the definition of macroevolution in a clear definite stance, and this could be the official thread on the theory...

however if no one wishs to participate, then ill just report it and get it closed i guess...

Do you always make digi defend your points for you?

lulz at posts in this thread.

Originally posted by Quark_666
Do you always make digi defend your points for you?

Usually.

On the one hand, it's kinda nice because he's like my personal fan club in this forum. On the other hand, he says some stupid sh*t occasionally, so I kinda have to be like "bad dog! Don't pee on the carpet!" or the human parallel.

313


....

Also, awesome quote there X. And completely true. Gould is second only to bulldogs like Dawkins and Shermer in debunking creationist perversion of science, but is too often misquoted for their purposes.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Usually.

On the one hand, it's kinda nice because he's like my personal fan club in this forum. On the other hand, he says some stupid sh*t occasionally, so I kinda have to be like "bad dog! Don't pee on the carpet!" or the human parallel.

313


....

Also, awesome quote there X. And completely true. Gould is second only to bulldogs like Dawkins and Shermer in debunking creationist perversion of science, but is too often misquoted for their purposes.

oh well all i can say to that is

Originally posted by Quark_666
Do you always make digi defend your points for you?

in all honesty im suprised it took this long for someone to say something

for the tuff stuff ya sure. particularly because he articulates things better and doesnt come off as.....overly eager i guess.

That's nice.

Originally posted by chickenlover98
in all honesty im suprised it took this long for someone to say something

for the tuff stuff ya sure. particularly because he articulates things better and doesnt come off as.....overly eager i guess.

One thing is certain...nobody debates quite like someone who used to agree with his opponents!

Who on this thread provided quotes by Stephen J. Gould?

Originally posted by ushomefree
Who on this thread provided quotes by Stephen J. Gould?

who gives a ****??? it is a known fact that he was an evolutionary biologist and just argued wit dawkins on how exactly evolution happened.

I agree, but Gould does expose weaknesses of Darwininan theory (indirectly). Is anyone willing to come to terms with that? That is precisely why Richard Dawkins disagrees with the theory--Punctuated Equilibrium.

Is there anyone who a) actually believes that is what the argument between Gould and Dawkins was or b) doesn't or wants to know?

chickenlover98... I quoted someone! jump

All I said was--and I can't believe people are actually bickering--is that the fossil record would contain transitions if Darwinian evolution were true; but the fossil record contains zero transitions. Anyone who is remotely interested in evolution knows this fact, and so did Stephen J. Gould--hence the theory of "Punctuated Equilibrium." Punctuated Equilibrium is an embarrassment to Darwinian evolution. Again, this is precisely why Richard Dawkins dismisses the theory. His credentials are on the line.

Originally posted by ushomefree
chickenlover98... I quoted someone! jump

All I said was--and I can't believe people are actually bickering--is that the fossil record would contain transitions if Darwinian evolution were true; but the fossil record contains zero transitions. Anyone who is remotely interested in evolution knows this fact, and so did Stephen J. Gould--hence the theory of "Punctuated Equilibrium." Punctuated Equilibrium is an embarrassment to Darwinian evolution. Again, this is precisely why Richard Dawkins dismisses the theory. His credentials are on the line.

I've met people at my school who try to disprove phyletic gradualism using the theory of punctuated equilibrium, but I've never seen any actual evidence that the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium tries to imply that cladogenesis is the only form of fossilized diversity. The fossil record contains zero transitions? NONE? I know you say we should all know that, but can you back that up for us anyway?

Yes, the concepts contradict, but you can't pretend only one of them has any evidence behind them.

Originally posted by ushomefree
chickenlover98... I quoted someone! jump

All I said was--and I can't believe people are actually bickering--is that the fossil record would contain transitions if Darwinian evolution were true; but the fossil record contains zero transitions. Anyone who is remotely interested in evolution knows this fact, and so did Stephen J. Gould--hence the theory of "Punctuated Equilibrium." Punctuated Equilibrium is an embarrassment to Darwinian evolution. Again, this is precisely why Richard Dawkins dismisses the theory. His credentials are on the line.

you quoting someone slowly reaffirms the growing belief in me that there is a higher power.

that higher power of course being the almighty Chuck Norris

Originally posted by ushomefree
Who on this thread provided quotes by Stephen J. Gould?

You did. Not quotes, but his ideas, which you falsely represented as backing ID (it does nothing of the sort).

Originally posted by ushomefree
I agree, but Gould does expose weaknesses of Darwininan theory (indirectly). Is anyone willing to come to terms with that? That is precisely why Richard Dawkins disagrees with the theory--Punctuated Equilibrium.

*slaps forehead*

They're both Darwinian.

This is classic disingenuous ID tactics. "Evolutionists disagree, so they can't even decide whether or not they agree with their theory!!!!!" Such worthless tripe.

Gould was a monstrous enemy of ID, and his work does nothing that you claim it does. Legit scientists don't debate whether or not evolution happened, just differ on some of the details. They refine the facts that the data give us, and they do so scientifically, not in the "A isn't 100% right, so B must be 100% right" methods of creationists like yourself.

Now quit trying to pull me into debate. You annoy me and I generally kick your ass anyway. You'd be better off preying on the fence-walkers.

{edit} Read the non-butchered Gould quote below. I think it summarizes his feelings eloquently.

Statements that I made about Stephen J. Gould were in direct consequence to the fossil record having zero transitions. Stephen J. Gould affirms this in the quote posted by xmarksthespot; but that is beside the point. And I never quoted Stephen J. Gould to begin with.

That fact that Stephen J. Gould developed the theory of punctuated equilibrium satisfies my primary statement: the fossil record contains zero transitions. If the fossil record contained transitions, the theory of punctuated equilibrium would be unwarranted. Who cares about the quote? Can't you read between the lines?

And the latter of my post contained statements about punctuated equilibrium being a source of embarrassment to Darwinian evolution--hence the distaste of Richard Dawkins. Why must you be difficult?

Moreover, I never stated that Stephen J. Gould claimed that evolution was false (or whatever). Stop applying notions to my posts that are clearly not evident.



And blah, blah, blah.... Talk about "tripe!" doh

When are we playing Chess?

Gould doesn't affirm anything you've said in that quote. He derides such an interpretation of punctuated equilibrium as either stupidity or disingenuousness. Ironically, you're either deliberately or densely misinterpreting his statement.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
This is classic disingenuous ID tactics. "Evolutionists disagree, so they can't even decide whether or not they agree with their theory!!!!!" Such worthless tripe.

Very mature...

Who cares about the quote; I never quoted the man. I based a claim--that the fossil record contained no transitions--in regard to the theory of punctuated equilibrium. Period. Does a reason exist to harp on this? Enlight on punctuated equilibrium theory, are we to conclude that the fossil record contains transitions? Absolutely not! Who cares if Creationists (or anybody with an opinion) misquoted him? I certainly did not, and my assumption--about the fossil record--is not unfair. Do something more constructive with your time, please.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Who cares about the quote; I never quoted the man. I based a claim--that the fossil record contained no transitions--in regard to the theory of punctuated equilibrium. Period. Does a reason exist to harp on this? Enlight on punctuated equilibrium theory, are we to conclude that the fossil record contains transitions? Absolutely not! Who cares if Creationists (or anybody with an opinion) misquoted him? I certainly did not, and my assumption--about the fossil record--is not unfair. Do something more constructive with your time, please. Misrepresentation isn't any better than misquotation. Gould & Eldridge (1977), in it the authors, the same who proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium, affirm an example of phyletic gradualism.

Your claim is false. You say the basis of your claim that there are no transitional fossils is asserted by the divergence theory proposed by Gould and Eldridge. One of the authors of the seminal paper proposing this divergence theory finds your misinterpretation, false and irritating, and either stupid or disingenuous.

Further its rather idiotic when transitional forms are documented.

Punctuated equilibrium and phyletic gradualism are not mutually exclusive. And even if they were, they are "competing" divergence theories, both at most a part, and neither a sum of evolution in its entirety. Mechanistic theories, both of which are aimed at explaining how evolution occurred, neither for a minute refuting that it did.

I consider dispelling misinformation quite constructive.

So the fossil record does contain transitions?

Do you enjoy asking fatuous questions? Bold, large type doesn't validate the things you say, JIA without the color text.

My response of yes, will of course lead to the quite typical creationist/cdesign proponentsist method of trying to redefine the term "transitional" (as it applies to evolution i.e. fossils showing features of both older and more recent organisms), to mean a fossil depicting the direct descendent and antecedent of an older and more recent species, respectively.

The invisible moving goalpost of the argumentum ad ignoratiam.

Digi, thus vindicated in his perception of you.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Now quit trying to pull me into debate. You annoy me and I generally kick your ass anyway. You'd be better off preying on the fence-walkers.

If you get tired of it, there are plenty of us who have a lot of fun defending evolution.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
My response of yes, will of course lead to the quite typical creationist/cdesign proponentsist method of trying to redefine the term "transitional" (as it applies to evolution i.e. fossils showing features of both older and more recent organisms), to mean a fossil depicting the direct descendent and antecedent of an older and more recent species, respectively.

The invisible moving goalpost of the argumentum ad ignoratiam.


So what is your style then? Just saying I AM RIGHT AND DON't ARGUE WITH ME.

Science is all about definition.

Originally posted by queeq
So what is your style then? Just saying I AM RIGHT AND DON't ARGUE WITH ME.

Science is all about definition.

thats the thing though

just because YOU don't like the definitions science uses, doesn't mean there isn't a good reason scientists use them.

YOU, as someone who isn't a scientist, are better suited to ask, "Why does science use X to define Y, when I like to use Z to describe Y."

The best example of this I can think of is when people discuss intelligence. I have talked with my friends, who largely do not have science backgrounds, about intelligence, and the debates we get into normally come to "Just because I get low grades doesn't mean I'm not smart" or "IQ tests aren't measuring my intelligence because I'm smarter than that guy with a higher IQ".

These are remarkable good objections, and show clear critical thinking, but it is just due to the fact that they don't know, and are never shown, the REAL debate about intelligence. They don't realize that when a scientist refers to intelligence (which is rare, because of the ambiguity) they have an operational definition, that is MORE important than the cultural definition of the term. That Intelligence is measured by the IQ test says nothing about colloquial "smartness", it simply says that there is a personality characteristic that is fairly stable and is moderately accurately measured through the IQ test. Whatever this characteristic is, for the sake of communication, it will be measured as intelligence.

So, for a transitional fossil, if scientists have laid out very specific guideline, based on past observation, about what characteristics make something a transitional fossil, it really doesn't matter in the slightest that YOU have a different idea about what a transitional fossil is. Whether the scientific transitional fossil actually proves anything is another matter, but the definition isn't something that is apt to change because someone doesn't like it. It's not there because people "like it" there.

Besides, from a "gene's-eye-view", we are each a generational transitional fossil, you are an organism that is the transition between the genetics of your parents and your children. Evolution is that process repeated over and over.

So the fossil record contains transitions?

transition fossils are an illusion created by accumulated diversity over periods of time unfathomable to the human mind. Our natural pattern seeking neurology plays a roll in the necessity we have of categorizing things as X or Y.

So the fossil record is irrelevant?

where did you get that from?

Originally posted by ushomefree
So the fossil record contains transitions?

YES

http://www.ucalgary.ca/~longrich/berlin.jpg

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/about-us/news/2005/dec/images/archaeopteryx-370_7322_1.jpg

http://facweb.bhc.edu/academics/science/harwoodr/Geol102/Study/Images/Mosasaur.jpg

There are a lot more.

Shakyamunison-

A member of this forum provided a quote by Stephen J. Gould (a number of posts ago); the quote--by Stephen J. Gould--stated that the fossil record contained no transitions. The quote entailed more:

"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists--whether through design or stupidity, I do not know--as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. The punctuations occur at the level of species; directional trends (on the staircase model) are rife at the higher level of transitions within major groups (bold for emphasis)."

I was attempting to get a straight answer regarding the absence of transitions in the fossil record (from xmarksthespot and inimalist). I was curious if they'd be honest enough to state, "Yes, the fossil record contains no transitions." So far, all I've recieved are post ignoring and/or sugar-coating the question.

And your posting pictures of an extinct bird and dinosaur does not help forward progress. They are not transitions.

Originally posted by queeq
Very mature...

It was a summary of ushome's tactics, so I'm not sure if that was directed at me or him. I backed up the statement though, so it's not like I was ranting without backing myself up.

Originally posted by Quark_666
If you get tired of it, there are plenty of us who have a lot of fun defending evolution.

I do, and have fun.



Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Digi, thus vindicated in his perception of you.

313

...

As for fossil records, fossils are hard to come by for the simple reason that not many skeletons survive to fossilization. But, relative to all of animal history, we have numerous fossils that we can carbon-date and use to form ancestry trees for the animal kingdom. The lack of every transitional form, when we do have several, is simple statistical certainty given the infrequency of fossilized remains surviving.

There's a joke that creationists love pointing out the holes in the fossil record (which they generally do). Then when a transitional form is found, they simply claim that there is twice as many holes unaccounted for on either side of the new fossil.

...not exactly hilarious, but an excellent microcosm of how frustrating and intellectually numbing it can be to debate an ID advocate.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Shakyamunison-

A member of this forum provided a quote by Stephen J. Gould (a number of posts ago); the quote--by Stephen J. Gould--stated that the fossil record contained no transitions. The quote entailed more:

"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists--whether through design or stupidity, I do not know--as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. The punctuations occur at the level of species; directional trends (on the staircase model) are rife at the higher level of transitions within major groups (bold for emphasis)."

I was attempting to get a straight answer regarding the absence of transitions in the fossil record (from xmarksthespot and inimalist). I was curious if they'd be honest enough to state, "Yes, the fossil record contains no transitions." So far, all I've recieved are post ignoring and/or sugar-coating the question.

And your posting pictures of an extinct bird and dinosaur does not help forward progress. They are not transitions.

It all depends on how you look at it. Species is something that humans have made to explain what they seen in nature. If you look at the fossil record with the idea that species exist, then you can find all kinds of transitions.

DigiMark007-

Billions of fossils have been discovered. Billions! And to this day, the fossil record contains no transitions. It ain't propaganda, and it ain't "tactics," my friend. It's the truth. Evolutionist Stephen J. Gould admits that! Why do you even have an opinion enlight of this? Dr. Gould isn't blind. glare

Originally posted by ushomefree
DigiMark007-

Billions of fossils have been discovered. Billions! And to this day, the fossil record contains no transitions. It ain't propaganda, and it ain't "tactics," my friend. It's the truth. Evolutionist Stephen J. Gould admits that! Why do you even have an opinion enlight of this? Dr. Gould isn't blind. glare

Did you not read my post? It all depends on how you look at. If you believe in species, then there are a lot of transitions. Stephen J. Gould has a far more complex view and probable accurate view, but to take what he said out of context is just stupid.

Originally posted by ushomefree
And your posting pictures of an extinct bird and dinosaur does not help forward progress. They are not transitions. Referring to Archaeopteryx lithographica as if it's just an extinct modern bird. Lulz.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
YES

http://www.ucalgary.ca/~longrich/berlin.jpg

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/about-us/news/2005/dec/images/archaeopteryx-370_7322_1.jpg

http://facweb.bhc.edu/academics/science/harwoodr/Geol102/Study/Images/Mosasaur.jpg

There are a lot more.

So how do you know these are transitions and not just extinct species? Because by that definition humans are also a transitional species. That way we can go a long way.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
It was a summary of ushome's tactics, so I'm not sure if that was directed at me or him. I backed up the statement though, so it's not like I was ranting without backing myself up.


Oh, so now it's someone else's fault?

Originally posted by queeq
So how do you know these are transitions and not just extinct species? Because by that definition humans are also a transitional species. That way we can go a long way. Why would being a transitional form - a mosaic of the features of more ancient and more recent organisms - be mutually exclusive from being an extinct species?

The only thing precluding humans from being a transitional form is that we are evolutionarily recent/current organism.

Originally posted by queeq
So how do you know these are transitions and not just extinct species? Because by that definition humans are also a transitional species. That way we can go a long way.

Well, then it would be interesting what it would take for you to accept something as a "transitional form" and if the answer is "there's nothing that could convince me", which seems the case for ushf, then why would you or he even ask whether there are transitional forms?

PART-TWO

Archaeopteryx and Other Ancient Bird Fossils

Some recently found fossils also invalidate the evolutionist scenario regarding Archaeopteryx in other respects. Lianhai Hou and Zhonghe Zhou, two paleontologists at the Chinese Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology, discovered a new bird fossil in 1995, and named it Confuciusornis. This fossil is almost the same age as Archaeopteryx (around 140 million years), but has no teeth in its mouth. In addition, its beak and feathers share the same features as today's birds. Confuciusornis has the same skeletal structure as modern birds, but also has claws on its wings, just like Archaeopteryx. Another structure peculiar to birds called the "pygostyle," which supports the tail feathers, was also found in Confuciusornis. In short, this fossil-which is the same age as Archaeopteryx, which was previously thought to be the earliest bird and was accepted as a semi-reptile-looks very much like a modern bird. This fact has invalidated all the evolutionist theses claiming Archaeopteryx to be the primitive ancestor of all birds.

Confuciusornis, which lived at the same time as Archaeopteryx, has many similarities to modern birds. Another fossil unearthed in China caused even greater confusion. In November 1996, the existence of a 130-million-year-old bird named Liaoningornis was announced in Science by L. Hou, L. D. Martin, and Alan Feduccia. Liaoningornis had a breastbone to which the muscles for flight were attached, just as in modern birds. This bird was indistinguishable from modern birds in other respects, too. The only difference was the teeth in its mouth. This showed that birds with teeth did not possess the primitive structure alleged by evolutionists. That Liaoningornis had the features of a modern bird was stated in an article in Discover, which said, "Whence came the birds? This fossil suggests that it was not from dinosaur stock."

Another fossil that refuted the evolutionist claims regarding Archaeopteryx was Eoalulavis. The wing structure of Eoalulavis, which was said to be some 25 to 30 million years younger than Archaeopteryx, was also observed in modern slow-flying birds. This proved that 120 million years ago, there were birds indistinguishable from modern birds in many respects, flying in the skies.

These facts once more indicate for certain that neither Archaeopteryx nor other ancient birds similar to it were transitional forms. The fossils do not indicate that different bird species evolved from each other. On the contrary, the fossil record proves that today's modern birds and some archaic birds such as Archaeopteryx actually lived together at the same time. It is true that some of these bird species, such as Archaeopteryx and Confuciusornis, have become extinct, but the fact that only some of the species that once existed have been able to survive down to the present day does not in itself support the theory of evolution.

PART-THREE

Archaeoraptor: The Dino-Bird Hoax

Unable to find what they were looking for in Archaeopteryx, the advocates of the theory of evolution pinned their hopes on some other fossils in the 1990s and a series of reports of so-called "dino-bird" fossils appeared in the world media. Yet it was soon discovered that these claims were simply misinterpretations, or, even worse, forgeries.

The first dino-bird claim was the story of "feathered dinosaur fossils unearthed in China," which was put forward in 1996 with a great media fanfare. A reptilian fossil called Sinosauropteryx was found, but some paleontologists who examined the fossil said that it had bird feathers, unlike modern reptiles. Examinations conducted one year later, however, showed that the fossil actually had no structure similar to a bird's feather. A Science article titled "Plucking the Feathered Dinosaur" stated that the structures named as "feathers" by evolutionary paleontologists definitely had nothing to do with feathers:

Exactly 1 year ago, paleontologists were abuzz about photos of a so-called "feathered dinosaur," which were passed around the halls at the annual meeting of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. The Sinosauropteryx specimen from the Yixian Formation in China made the front page of The New York Times, and was viewed by some as confirming the dinosaurian origins of birds. But at this year's vertebrate paleontology meeting in Chicago late last month, the verdict was a bit different: The structures are not modern feathers, say the roughly half-dozen Western paleontologists who have seen the specimens. Paleontologist Larry Martin of Kansas University, Lawrence, thinks the structures are frayed collagenous fibers beneath the skin-and so have nothing to do with birds.

A yet more sensational case of dino-bird hype broke out in 1999. In its November 1999 issue, National Geographic published an article about a fossil specimen unearthed in China which was claimed to bear both bird and dinosaur features. National Geographic writer Christopher P. Sloan, the author of the article, went so far as to claim, "we can now say that birds are theropods just as confidently as we say that humans are mammals." This species, which was said to have lived 125 million years ago, was immediately given the scientific name Archaeoraptor liaoningensis.

National Geographic's great hit, the perfect "dino-bird." Archaeoraptor soon turned out to be a hoax. All other "dino-bird" candidates remain speculative.
However, the fossil was a fake and was skillfully constructed from five separate specimens. A group of researchers, among whom were also three paleontologists, proved the forgery one year later with the help of X-ray computed tomography. The dino-bird was actually the product of a Chinese evolutionist. Chinese amateurs formed the dino-bird by using glue and cement from 88 bones and stones. Research suggests that Archaeoraptor was built from the front part of the skeleton of an ancient bird, and that its body and tail included bones from four different specimens.

The interesting thing is that National Geographic published a high-profile article about such a crude forgery-and, moreover, used it as the basis for claiming that "bird evolution" scenarios had been verified-without expressing any doubts or caution in the article at all. Dr. Storrs Olson, of the famous Smithsonian Institute Natural History Museum in the USA, later said that he warned National Geographic beforehand that this fossil was a fake, but that the magazine management totally ignored him. According to Olson, "National Geographic has reached an all-time low for engaging in sensationalistic, unsubstantiated, tabloid journalism."

In a letter he wrote to Peter Raven of National Geographic, Olson describes the real story of the "feathered dinosaur" hype since its launch with a previous National Geographic article published in 1998 in a very detailed way:

Prior to the publication of the article "Dinosaurs Take Wing" in the July 1998 National Geographic, Lou Mazzatenta, the photographer for Sloan's article, invited me to the National Geographic Society to review his photographs of Chinese fossils and to comment on the slant being given to the story. At that time, I tried to interject the fact that strongly supported alternative viewpoints existed to what National Geographic intended to present, but it eventually became clear to me that National Geographic was not interested in anything other than the prevailing dogma that birds evolved from dinosaurs.

Sloan's article takes the prejudice to an entirely new level and consists in large part of unverifiable or undocumented information that "makes" the news rather than reporting it. His bald statement that "we can now say that birds are theropods just as confidently as we say that humans are mammals" is not even suggested as reflecting the views of a particular scientist or group of scientists, so that it figures as little more than editorial propagandizing. This melodramatic assertion had already been disproven by recent studies of embryology and comparative morphology, which, of course, are never mentioned.

More importantly, however, none of the structures illustrated in Sloan's article that are claimed to be feathers have actually been proven to be feathers. Saying that they are is little more than wishful thinking that has been presented as fact. The statement that "hollow, hairlike structures characterize protofeathers" is nonsense considering that protofeathers exist only as a theoretical construct, so that the internal structure of one is even more hypothetical.

The hype about feathered dinosaurs in the exhibit currently on display at the National Geographic Society is even worse, and makes the spurious claim that there is strong evidence that a wide variety of carnivorous dinosaurs had feathers. A model of the undisputed dinosaur Deinonychus and illustrations of baby tyrannosaurs are shown clad in feathers, all of which is simply imaginary and has no place outside of science fiction.

Sincerely,

Storrs L. Olson
Curator of Birds
National Museum of Natural History
Smithsonian Institution

This revealing case demonstrates two important facts. First, there are people who have no qualms about resorting to forgery in an effort to find evidence for the theory of evolution. Second, some highly reputable popular science journals, which have assumed the mission of imposing the theory of evolution on people, are perfectly willing to disregard any facts that may be inconvenient or have alternative interpretations. That is, they have become little more than propaganda tools for propagating the theory of evolution. They take not a scientific, but a dogmatic, stance and knowingly compromise science to defend the theory of evolution to which they are so strongly devoted.

Another important aspect of the matter is that there is no evidence for the thesis that birds evolved from dinosaurs. Because of the lack of evidence, either fake evidence is produced, or actual evidence is misinterpreted. In truth, there is no evidence that birds have evolved from another living species. On the contrary, all discoveries show that birds emerged on the earth already in full possession of their distinctive body structures.

Latest Evidence: Ostrich Study Refutes the Dino-Bird Story

The latest blow to the "birds evolved from dinosaurs" theory came from a study made on the embryology of ostriches.

Drs. Alan Feduccia and Julie Nowicki of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill studied a series of live ostrich eggs and, once again, concluded that there cannot be an evolutionary link between birds and dinosaurs. EurekAlert, a scientific portal held by the American Association for the The Advancement of Science (AAAS), reports the following:

Drs. Alan Feduccia and Julie Nowicki of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill opened a series of live ostrich eggs at various stages of development and found what they believe is proof that birds could not have descended from dinosaurs.

Whatever the ancestor of birds was, it must have had five fingers, not the three-fingered hand of theropod dinosaurs," Feduccia said... "Scientists agree that dinosaurs developed 'hands' with digits one, two and three... Our studies of ostrich embryos, however, showed conclusively that in birds, only digits two, three and four, which correspond to the human index, middle and ring fingers, develop, and we have pictures to prove it," said Feduccia, professor and former chair of biology at UNC. "This creates a new problem for those who insist that dinosaurs were ancestors of modern birds. How can a bird hand, for example, with digits two, three and four evolve from a dinosaur hand that has only digits one, two and three? That would be almost impossible."

In the same report, Dr. Freduccia also made important comments on the invalidity-and the shallowness-of the "birds evolved from dinosaurs" theory:

There are insurmountable problems with that theory," he said. "Beyond what we have just reported, there is the time problem in that superficially bird-like dinosaurs occurred some 25 million to 80 million years after the earliest known bird, which is 150 million years old.

"If one views a chicken skeleton and a dinosaur skeleton through binoculars they appear similar, but close and detailed examination reveals many differences, Feduccia said. Theropod dinosaurs, for example, had curved, serrated teeth, but the earliest birds had straight, unserrated peg-like teeth. They also had a different method of tooth implantation and replacement."

This evidence once again reveals that the "dino-bird" hype is just another "icon" of Darwinism: A myth that is supported only for the sake of a dogmatic faith in the theory.

Long story.

Short story.

Feduccia: "Creationists are going to distort whatever arguments come up, and they've put me in company with luminaries like Stephen Jay Gould, so it doesn't bother me a bit. Archaeopteryx is half reptile and half bird any way you cut the deck, and so it is a Rosetta stone for evolution, whether it is related to dinosaurs or not. These creationists are confusing an argument about minor details of evolution with the indisputable fact of evolution: Animals and plants have been changing. The corn in Mexico, originally the size of the head of a wheat plant, has no resemblance to modern-day corn. If that's not evolution in action, I do not know what is."

Or maybe Darwinists are confusing the argument? By the way, what exatcly did you disagree with? More importantly, what was dishonest about the article? Did you read the letter sent to National Geographic by Storrs L. Olson?

It reads:

Prior to the publication of the article "Dinosaurs Take Wing" in the July 1998 National Geographic, Lou Mazzatenta, the photographer for Sloan's article, invited me to the National Geographic Society to review his photographs of Chinese fossils and to comment on the slant being given to the story. At that time, I tried to interject the fact that strongly supported alternative viewpoints existed to what National Geographic intended to present, but it eventually became clear to me that National Geographic was not interested in anything other than the prevailing dogma that birds evolved from dinosaurs.

Sloan's article takes the prejudice to an entirely new level and consists in large part of unverifiable or undocumented information that "makes" the news rather than reporting it. His bald statement that "we can now say that birds are theropods just as confidently as we say that humans are mammals" is not even suggested as reflecting the views of a particular scientist or group of scientists, so that it figures as little more than editorial propagandizing. This melodramatic assertion had already been disproven by recent studies of embryology and comparative morphology, which, of course, are never mentioned.

More importantly, however, none of the structures illustrated in Sloan's article that are claimed to be feathers have actually been proven to be feathers. Saying that they are is little more than wishful thinking that has been presented as fact. The statement that "hollow, hairlike structures characterize protofeathers" is nonsense considering that protofeathers exist only as a theoretical construct, so that the internal structure of one is even more hypothetical.

The hype about feathered dinosaurs in the exhibit currently on display at the National Geographic Society is even worse, and makes the spurious claim that there is strong evidence that a wide variety of carnivorous dinosaurs had feathers. A model of the undisputed dinosaur Deinonychus and illustrations of baby tyrannosaurs are shown clad in feathers, all of which is simply imaginary and has no place outside of science fiction.

Sincerely,

Storrs L. Olson
Curator of Birds
National Museum of Natural History
Smithsonian Institution

Originally posted by queeq
So how do you know these are transitions and not just extinct species? Because by that definition humans are also a transitional species. That way we can go a long way.

Transitional species are species. We are transitional; from what we used to be a million years ago, to what we will be a million years from now. I don't believe that species are ridged. It is like taking a photo of a fast flowing river. If you didn't know what a river was, and saw a photo of one, you might think that an eddy was a solid spinning ball of water.

http://i.pbase.com/u36/rsub8/large/32226749.PICT1638rock400.jpg

I hope this image works this time.
http://www.fish.washington.edu/classes/fish547/field_trip_photos/halder_creek_2003/eddy.JPG

Shakyamunison-

All we see are evidences of microevolution (variation), not macroevolution (transitions). But you would disagree with this statement?

Originally posted by ushomefree
Shakyamunison-

All we see are evidences of microevolution (variation), not macroevolution (transitions). But you would disagree with this statement?

The distinction between microevolution & macroevolution is man made. Life finds a way.

What are some of the ways?

Originally posted by ushomefree
What are some of the ways?

Life finds a way means that any rule us humans place on nature is not valid to nature.

100 million years ago most of the animals on the Earth were different then today. 200 million years ago most of the animals on the Earth were different then today or even 100 million years ago.

How did that happen?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Life finds a way means that any rule us humans place on nature is not valid to nature.

100 million years ago most of the animals on the Earth were different then today. 200 million years ago most of the animals on the Earth were different then today or even 100 million years ago.

How did that happen?

the earth is only 6000 years old, duh

Originally posted by inimalist
the earth is only 6000 years old, duh

hysterical

Wait Are you serious?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
hysterical

Wait Are you serious?

ya dude, God made man and the dinosaurs at the same time

The Flintstones was a docu-drama

I would like to point out that transitional species could very well exist. Just not in fossilized form. People tend to forget not all species or all animals become fossilized. In fact it is a very small percentage that would meet the requirements to become preserved.

So there could have in fact been billions upon billions of transitional species, each showing the next Genetic Advancement. Odds are though most didn't get preserved so we simply can not find them.

Originally posted by inimalist
ya dude, God made man and the dinosaurs at the same time

The Flintstones was a docu-drama

The way I see it, we did live during the time of the dinosaurs. However, we were quite different back then.

http://msnbcmedia3.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/070328/070328_mammal_hmed_12p.hmedium.jpg

Also dinosaurs?

Originally posted by queeq
Also dinosaurs?

What are you asking?

Nothing. I think it's an absurd idea that humans lived at the same time as dinosaurs. If you're saying we were different we prolly were a transitional species of dinosaur.

Originally posted by queeq
Nothing. I think it's an absurd idea that humans lived at the same time as dinosaurs. If you're saying we were different we prolly were a transitional species of dinosaur.

No, I'm not saying that Humans lived with dinosaurs. What I am saying is that there is an unbroken chain of life that extends from us, and all living things today, into the remote past. Therefore, at the time of the dinosaurs, our ancestors, ancestors, ancestors did live with them.

Who might have been dinosaurs.

Originally posted by queeq
Who might have been dinosaurs.

No, I'm not a reptile or a bird. I'm a mammal, and my distant ancestor from the time of the dinosaurs was a mammal like animal.

Ah... any preference?

Originally posted by queeq
Ah... any preference?

I'm sure someone does.

You're not ID-ing on us, are you now?

Originally posted by queeq
You're not ID-ing on us, are you now?

It all depends. What is the intelligent behind the design?

IS there an intelligence at all?

Originally posted by queeq
IS there an intelligence at all?

I don't know. What would an intelligence be?

True indeed; Darwinian evolution is a prime example.



This is absolutely true; but not in the sense that you prescribe. Animals--including human beings--have undergone "variation." Obviously "variation" produces changes within--not just animals (mammals)--but organisms as a whole! As the Cambrian Period reflects, it would be a mistake to assume that organisms today were drastically different in the finite past. Again, all we see are classic examples of microevolution in action.



Microevolution. C'mon now....

Originally posted by ushomefree
True indeed; Darwinian evolution is a prime example.

And that includes Christianity.

Originally posted by ushomefree
This is absolutely true; but not in the sense that you prescribe. Animals--including human beings--have undergone "variation." Obviously "variation" produces changes within--not just animals (mammals)--but organisms as a whole! As the Cambrian Period reflects, it would be a mistake to assume that organisms today were drastically different in the finite past. Again, all we see are classic examples of microevolution in action.

Microevolution. C'mon now....

Microevolution is evolution. There is no solid line between one species and another in the big picture.

Originally posted by ushomefree
True indeed; Darwinian evolution is a prime example.



This is absolutely true; but not in the sense that you prescribe. Animals--including human beings--have undergone "variation." Obviously "variation" produces changes within--not just animals (mammals)--but organisms as a whole! As the Cambrian Period reflects, it would be a mistake to assume that organisms today were drastically different in the finite past. Again, all we see are classic examples of microevolution in action.



Microevolution. C'mon now....

you realize macro evolution is like saying microevolution after say a certain period of time. their the same thing on a diferent time scale

Stay on topic, please. Religion has nothing to do with biology.



You are grossly in error, and "biological information" (DNA) confirms this.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Stay on topic, please. Religion has nothing to do with biology.



You are grossly in error, and "biological information" (DNA) confirms this.

This is a religious forum.

I am not in error, and I don't see DNA confirms anything.

Please keep you reply short.

Your statement is easy to conceptualize, but it isn't true. Human beings, for example, a billion years from now--or whatever time scale (or environmental conditions)--will not develop feathers or gills; information needed to develop such attributes are absent from the human genome (the total sum of DNA). Don't you understand that?!

Well... do the research.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Or maybe Darwinists are confusing the argument? By the way, what exatcly did you disagree with? More importantly, what was dishonest about the article? Did you read the letter sent to National Geographic by Storrs L. Olson?I'm rather bored of you so I'm just going to differ to Cracraft (1983) to describe pretty much exactly what Harun Yahya and his ridiculous websites and you, by association, are doing:
"Creationists have adopted three lines of argumentation against the existence of transitional forms: (1) they quote liberally from various paleontologists ... (2) they define the concept of "transitional form" in a way that is distinctly different from the evolutionists' use of the term; and (3) they simply deny the existence of intermediate taxa, whilst ignoring the vast scientific literature opposing their position."

(1) All Yahya is doing is quote-mining and distorting the words and intentions of Martin, Feduccia, Whetstone etc. etc. Distortion and false argumentum ad verecundiam. These authors disagree with a therapod origin for birds. However while they dispute from which reptiles birds originated they don't disagree that birds have a reptilian evolutionary origin.
(2) & (3) Lulz in general at a) any implication that proponents of therapod to modern bird evolution believe Archaeopteryx is part of a direct ancestral lineage from therapods to modern birds. b) that Archaeopteryx is "just a bird" with "insignificant" reptilian features, when it's clearly a mosaic of bird and reptilian features is thus an excellent example of a transitional form.

You're a "sceathers" strawman.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Well... do the research.

What a cop-out. I've already learned about evolution. Sure, there are things I don't know, but a general understanding is fine for me.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Your statement is easy to conceptualize, but it isn't true. Human beings, for example, a billion years from now--or whatever time scale (or environmental conditions)--will not develop feathers or gills; information needed to develop such attributes are absent from the human genome (the total sum of DNA). Don't you understand that?!

Then we will die out. Those who can adapt will, and all other will go extinct.

Precisely; nature is cut-throat. It's not a democracy. 50,000 animals and plants go extinct every year!

Originally posted by ushomefree
Precisely; nature is cut-throat. It's not a democracy. 50,000 animals and plants go extinct every year!

Then why haven't all the animals on the Earth gone extinct yet?

Are you stupid or what? Your really 40+ years old? Where in the hell have you been all of your life? boxed2

Originally posted by ushomefree
Are you stupid or what? Your really 40+ years old? Where in the hell have you been all of your life? boxed2

Is this a case of age discrimination?


Now, please answer my question.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Precisely; nature is cut-throat. It's not a democracy. 50,000 animals and plants go extinct every year!

...almost as if no one is watching us from above and protecting us.

*gasp*

Shakyamunison-

Animals and plants--at the rate of 50,000 a year--become extinct because of:

(1) human intervention,

(2) lose of habitat, or

(3) lack of consumables.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Shakyamunison-

Animals and plants--at the rate of 50,000 a year--become extinct because of:

(1) human intervention,

(2) lose of habitat, or

(3) lack of consumables.


But there have been several mass extinctions in the remote past. If animals are not capable of evolving into new species, why are there animals still alive on the Earth? It seems that, if you are right, then after the first mass extinction, life should have died out.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Shakyamunison-

Animals and plants--at the rate of 50,000 a year--become extinct because of:

(1) human intervention,

(2) lose of habitat, or

(3) lack of consumables.

if animals couldnt adapt and evolve, all life would have been destroyed when the meteor hit earth, during the i believe the cambrian era. it blotted out the sun and caused almost all life to die. now if that doesnt mean the animals evolved to cope with it, then how would u explain it?

Originally posted by ushomefree
Precisely; nature is cut-throat. It's not a democracy. 50,000 animals and plants go extinct every year!

Makes you wonder why we want wars to stop and crime and all... in the end, even for humans only the fit survive. Let evolution do its work.

Originally posted by queeq
Makes you wonder why we want wars to stop and crime and all... in the end, even for humans only the fit survive. Let evolution do its work.

But cooperation gives us an evolutionary advantage.

Caution, I never stated that organisms lack the ability to evolve; organisms do evolve, but not in Darwinian fashion. The fossil record and molecular biology--some would even argue astronomy--support this fact. Organisms do evolve, but only in "variation." This, of course, is dependent of the environment itself (and conditions therein). On the flip side, if the environment undergoes changes too rapidly, organisms--even human beings--will certainly die off. Enlight of "cyclic" global climate change, for example, polar bears have certainly seen better days.

The Cambrian period has nothing to do with meteorites impacting planet Earth. The Cambrian period--also known as the Cambrian "explosion"--dating about 550 million years--reveals all major phyla in full form (even soft-bodied organisms like jelly-fish). Prior to the Cambrian period, all we see are (for the most part) bacteria. The fossil record reveals almost nothing until the Cambrian period--hence the term, Cambrian "explosion." Let me explain.

Pretend you are walking down a football field; you pass the 10, 20, 30 yard line, and all you see are various forms of bacteria. Nothing major, but you keep walking... 40, 50, 60 and so on. When you walk upon the 20 yard line (on the opposite side of the football field), you embark on an explosion of phyla--the basic forms of life--which include mammals and reptiles! All at once!!

Significance?

Well... the Cambrian period turns Darwin's Tree of Life upside down. The Cambrian period shows life forms arising abruptly, not progressively in Darwinian fashion. It is common for "most"--if not all--Darwinists to ignore the Cambrian period (and for good reason).

Rather than wasting my time responding to your argumentum ad ignoratiam and other logical and scientific fallacies, from now on I'm simply going post links to responses to them or synonymous claims. 313

Claim: Species may undergo minor changes, but the range of variation is limited to variation within kinds.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901_1.html
Claim: No new phyla, orders, or classes have been observed appearing. Macroevolution remains unobserved.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901_2.html

Claim: Complex life forms appear suddenly in the Cambrian explosion, with no ancestral fossils.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html
In the Cambrian explosion, all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor, thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC301.html

Originally posted by ushomefree
Pretend you are walking down a football field; you pass the 10, 20, 30 yard line, and all you see are various forms of bacteria. Nothing major, but you keep walking... 40, 50, 60 and so on. When you walk upon the 20 yard line (on the opposite side of the football field), you embark on an explosion of phyla--the basic forms of life--which include mammals and reptiles! All at once!!

Significance?

Environment changes, remember?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But cooperation gives us an evolutionary advantage.

When we win we already have an evolutionary advantage. Proof is in the pudding.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Caution, I never stated that organisms lack the ability to evolve; organisms do evolve, but not in Darwinian fashion. The fossil record and molecular biology--some would even argue astronomy--support this fact. Organisms do evolve, but only in "variation." This, of course, is dependent of the environment itself (and conditions therein). On the flip side, if the environment undergoes changes too rapidly, organisms--even human beings--will certainly die off. Enlight of "cyclic" global climate change, for example, polar bears have certainly seen better days.

The Cambrian period has nothing to do with meteorites impacting planet Earth. The Cambrian period--also known as the Cambrian "explosion"--dating about 550 million years--reveals all major phyla in full form (even soft-bodied organisms like jelly-fish). Prior to the Cambrian period, all we see are (for the most part) bacteria. The fossil record reveals almost nothing until the Cambrian period--hence the term, Cambrian "explosion." Let me explain.

Pretend you are walking down a football field; you pass the 10, 20, 30 yard line, and all you see are various forms of bacteria. Nothing major, but you keep walking... 40, 50, 60 and so on. When you walk upon the 20 yard line (on the opposite side of the football field), you embark on an explosion of phyla--the basic forms of life--which include mammals and reptiles! All at once!!

Significance?

Well... the Cambrian period turns Darwin's Tree of Life upside down. The Cambrian period shows life forms arising abruptly, not progressively in Darwinian fashion. It is common for "most"--if not all--Darwinists to ignore the Cambrian period (and for good reason).

the sad part is what you just described is...MACROEVOLUTION. not minor changes. major ones. which is classified as macroevolution. SO HAHAHAHAHAHAHA U LOSE!

Semantics again.

Has ushome ever actually conceded something once someone like Xmarks or inamilist shows him evidence/proof/logic/etc?? He never did with me when I used to bother with lengthy rebuttals, but I don't really pay enough attention to the ever-escalating ID/Evolution war on the forums, so maybe he has at some point.

Dunno... who cares.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Has ushome ever actually conceded something once someone like Xmarks or inamilist shows him evidence/proof/logic/etc?? He never did with me when I used to bother with lengthy rebuttals, but I don't really pay enough attention to the ever-escalating ID/Evolution war on the forums, so maybe he has at some point.

Does it count if he says, "that is exactly my point"?

Everything counts.

Originally posted by queeq
Everything counts.

Is that a joke?

Nope.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Has ushome ever actually conceded something once someone like Xmarks or inamilist shows him evidence/proof/logic/etc?? He never did with me when I used to bother with lengthy rebuttals, but I don't really pay enough attention to the ever-escalating ID/Evolution war on the forums, so maybe he has at some point.

Originally posted by Quark_666
Does it count if he says, "that is exactly my point"?

Originally posted by queeq
Everything counts.

What I meant was, you can't make a point against someone who believes that every point fits into his own argument perfectly. THAT doesn't count.

But everybody does that.

That's my point exactly!

Originally posted by queeq
But everybody does that.

actually, I can list you things that would make me skeptical of pretty much anything I believe. There are very specific incidences of evidence, which I can describe for you, that would convince me that I am wrong.

THAT is the beauty of science.

It is.

Originally posted by inimalist
actually, I can list you things that would make me skeptical of pretty much anything I believe. There are very specific incidences of evidence, which I can describe for you, that would convince me that I am wrong.

THAT is the beauty of science.

That's what makes peer review so interesting I assume...

Why?