Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Darwinism states that complex phyla develop over time yet here we have organisms that suddenly appeared with no transitional forms or common ancestors with complex organs and appear out of nowhwere
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
...The fact that the focal record is incomplete and hard to read, dose not make a valid argument against evolution.
The Origin of the tetra pod
Quadrupeds( or Tetrapeds) is the general name given to vertebrate animals dwelling on land. Amphibians,reptiles,birds and mammals are included in this class.Darwinist believe these creatures evolved from fish living in the sea the problems with this claim is one
a fish would have to undergo great modifications to adapt to land.Basically, It's respiratory,excretory and skeletal systems would have to acquire the features of feet so that it could carry the wait of it's body and kidney. Also the whole excretory system would have to change to work in a terrestrial environment, and skin would have to develop new texture to prevent water loss. Unless these things happen a fish would only survive in land for a few minutes.
So how did they develop new organs?
"Let us imagine how a fish might emerge from the sea and adapt itself to the land: If the fish does not undergo a rapid modification in terms of its respiratory, excretory and skeletal systems, it will inevitably die. The chain of mutations that needs to come about has to provide the fish with a lung and terrestrial kidneys, immediately. Similarly, this mechanism should transform the fins into feet and provide the sort of skin texture that will hold water inside the body. What is more, this chain of mutations has to take place during the lifespan of one single animal"
"Group after group appears in the fossil record without any evidence of evolutionary ancestors. Paleontology attempts to explain this fact by saying that the fossil record is incomplete and that millions of years passed between the deposition of different layers. During these times, new creatures supposedly evolved. This view of an incomplete fossil record is essential if evolution is to be considered a viable theory. Darwin admits,
"We have seen in the last chapter that whole groups of species sometimes falsely appear to have abruptly developed; and I have attempted to give an explanation of this fact, which if true would be fatal to my views."1
After a century of further searching and examination of the fossil record, many paleontologists are beginning to believe that the fossil record is complete since none of the gaps in the fossil record that existed in Darwin's time has been filled by subsequent study. E.C. Olson observes,
"A third fundamental aspect of the record is somewhat different. Many new groups of plants and animals suddenly appear, apparently without any close ancestors .... This aspect of the record is real, not merely the result of faulty or biased collecting. A satisfactory theory of evolution must take it into consideration and provide an explanation."2
Evolutionists refuse to admit that this lack of transitional forms destroys the theory. Olson wants an explanation of the gaps, but I suspect he would not be pleased with the suggestion that the gaps are there because there was no evolution. There never has been a creature found with half-formed feet or a half-formed wing or feather. If Darwin's idea that all organs and organisms have arisen by slow, small modifications is correct, we should expect fossils like that to appear occasionally. Since the gaps are in the fossil record, these half-evolved monstrosities are postulated to have lived, but not to have been preserved. The gap, it seems, hides their existence.
Is this good-or fair-reasoning? Not really. In truth, it doesn't matter whether the fossil record is complete or not. If it is complete, meaning a large percentage of fossil life has been preserved, then the fossil record does not support evolution. If, however, the fossil record is very incomplete, meaning a small percentage of past life forms have been preserved, what right does science have to fill these gaps with imaginary animals for which there is not the slightest material evidence of their existence?"
Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time. That this happens is a fact.
Biological evolution also refers to the common descent of living organisms from shared ancestors. The evidence for historical evolution -- genetic, fossil, anatomical, etc. -- is so overwhelming that it is also considered a fact. The theory of evolution describes the mechanisms that cause evolution. So evolution is both a fact and a theory.
There’s absolutely zero evidence for creationism.
Palaeontologists have found a quite complete set of dinosaur-to-bird transitional fossils with no morphological "gaps" (Sereno 1999), represented by Eoraptor, Herrerasaurus, Ceratosaurus, Allosaurus, Compsognathus, Sinosauropteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, Velociraptor, Sinovenator, Beipiaosaurus, Sinornithosaurus, Microraptor, Archaeopteryx, Rahonavis, Confuciusornis, Sinornis, Patagopteryx, Hesperornis, Apsaravis, Ichthyornis, and Columba, among many others (Carroll 1997, pp. 306-323; Norell and Clarke 2001; Sereno 1999; Xu et al. 1999; Xu et al. 2000; Xu et al. 2002). All have the expected possible morphologies, including organisms such as Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, and the famous "BPM 1 3-13" (an unnamed dromaeosaur from China) which are flightless bipedal dinosaurs with modern-style feathers (Chen et al.1998 ; Qiang et al. 1998; Norell et al. 2002). Additionally, several similar flightless dinosaurs have been found covered with nascent evolutionary precursors to modern feathers (branched feather-like integument indistinguishable from the contour feathers of true birds), including Sinornithosaurus ("Bambiraptor"😉, Sinosauropteryx, Beipiaosaurus, Microraptor, and an unnamed dromaeosaur specimen, NGMC 91, informally called "Dave" (Ji et al. 2001). The All About Archaeopteryx FAQ gives a detailed listing of the various characters of Archaeopteryx which are intermediate between reptiles and modern birds.
Yes, living beings are complex. But the complexity of life doesn’t prove it was created by any divine being or beings. Nature also has quite a lot of organisms, that show features of appallingly bad design. This is because evolution via natural selection cannot construct traits from scratch; new traits must be modifications of previously existing traits. This is called historical constraint. A few examples of bad design imposed by historical constraint:
In human males, the urethra passes right through the prostate gland, a gland very prone to infection and subsequent enlargement. This blocks the urethra and is a very common medical problem in males. Putting a collapsible tube through an organ that is very likely to expand and block flow in this tube is not good design. Any moron with half a brain (or less) could design male "plumbing" better.
In African locust, the nerve cells that connect to the wings originate in the abdomen, even though the wings are in the thorax. This strange "wiring" is the result of the abdomen nerves being co-opted for use in flight. A good designer would not have flight nerves travel down the ventral nerve cord past their target, then backtrack through the organism to where they are needed. Using more materials than necessary is not good design.
There are gaps in the fossil record due to the rarity of preservation and the likelihood that speciation occurs in small populations during geologically short periods of time, transitions between species are uncommon in the fossil record. Transitions at higher taxonomic levels, however, are abundant. Evolutions, however, explaions the fossils. Creationists do not, and cannot account for the age of the fossils if the Earth is only 6000 years old (as Bishop Ussher calculated it to be according to the Bible).
(For old-timers. Yes, I copied my own post, I won't bother writing a new one 😄)
So, for the ... oh gigazillionth time... evolution is alive and kicking. No one has offered me one shred of evidence to prove Creationism.
No one. Not one single person after hundreds of pages.
So Mr. Creationist, let the fun begin... You are aware, that you do not PROVE Creationoism by providing (always false) claims against evolution, right?
You have to PROVE Creationism...
Give me your VERY best... I am challenging you...
My ruling: I am a Christian. Evolution is real, brought to happening through God. Thats the simplist and most truthful way to put the two together. For non-beleivers, they can still beleive that evolution is true because it is. For creationists: I dont see the big stink about not seeing how 2 and 2 go together. I think it is reasonable to beleive that evolution really is true because there is too much fact to prove it wrong but as a Christian I beleive it is brought about by God. But thats just my view and besides my point.
Blue Nocturne:Ive read most of what you have posted and the thinng i think you do not know is that evolution is not the same as Darwinism. Evolution is a theory of compiled proofs from hundreds of people put together, not just Darwin. Considering Darwin's voyage was so long ago, it is safe to say a lot of what he argued was incorrect, but his basic principle is what started the evolution theory.
Secondly, evolution is only a theory and not ALL of the information we have on it or how it comes about is completely accurate. It is REALLY GOOD information though and it is hard to disprove.
When you say a lot of times that there is no intermediary I think you are wrong because we have found plenty of intermediary fossils and examples of the process of things going from one thing to another. Evolution is a process that takes millions and millions of years and it is not very specific; like its not like there is just a sudden change from a fish to a bird of mammal. And it also isnt like they just start randomly growing legs over time from generation to generation. That is impossible. Evolution has three major components: enviroment, mutation, and genetics. EX: the ENVIROMENT of an animal causes creatures with certain characteristics to die out, or cause MUTATION in a certain organism. If the the creatures with the mutation of characteristics survives, its new genetic profile is mixed with another of its species and now there is offspring that share the GENETIC traits to an extent. Those offspring are the roots of a new species. But this takes a LONG time, like I said. I think that most people dont really know what evolution really is; they just think monkey>ape>human and are actually uneducated in the area of evolution.
And our expertise in fossil findings is relatively new in the scheme of things so naturally those links are difficult to find and that is why our fossil records are incomplete. I know a lot about fossil finding and let me tell you, it aint like flippin over rocks.
Originally posted by The Omega
Where the f... is the sexism in that???
The entire point is, that if the male gender was intelligently designed, the male "plumbing" would've been designed more... intelligently!
Well, that's not a proof against Intelligent Design though....since Intelligent Design doesn't mean that we need to find the Design Intelligent.....but I agree, no sexism in there....except if you claim that men, because of that, may not do something a woman may,....are you?...no you are not.
Originally posted by The Omega
Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time. That this happens is a fact.
Biological evolution also refers to the common descent of living organisms from shared ancestors. The evidence for historical evolution -- genetic, fossil, anatomical, etc. -- is so overwhelming that it is also considered a fact. The theory of evolution describes the mechanisms that cause evolution. So evolution is both a fact and a theory.
There’s absolutely zero evidence for creationism.
Evidence they haven't found any transitional forms and how does this complex change happen ..magic?
Originally posted by The OmegaPalaeontologists have found a quite complete set of dinosaur-to-bird transitional fossils with no morphological "gaps" (Sereno 1999), represented by Eoraptor, Herrerasaurus, Ceratosaurus, Allosaurus, Compsognathus, Sinosauropteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, Velociraptor, Sinovenator, Beipiaosaurus, Sinornithosaurus, Microraptor, Archaeopteryx, Rahonavis, Confuciusornis, Sinornis, Patagopteryx, Hesperornis, Apsaravis, Ichthyornis, and Columba, among many others (Carroll 1997, pp. 306-323; Norell and Clarke 2001; Sereno 1999; Xu et al. 1999; Xu et al. 2000; Xu et al. 2002). All have the expected possible morphologies, including organisms such as Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, and the famous "BPM 1 3-13" (an unnamed dromaeosaur from China) which are flightless bipedal dinosaurs with modern-style feathers (Chen et al.1998 ; Qiang et al. 1998; Norell et al. 2002). Additionally, several similar flightless dinosaurs have been found covered with nascent evolutionary precursors to modern feathers (branched feather-like integument indistinguishable from the contour feathers of true birds), including Sinornithosaurus ("Bambiraptor"😉, Sinosauropteryx, Beipiaosaurus, Microraptor, and an unnamed dromaeosaur specimen, NGMC 91, informally called "Dave" (Ji et al. 2001). The All About Archaeopteryx FAQ gives a detailed listing of the various characters of Archaeopteryx which are intermediate between reptiles and modern birds.
Post the a pic of this perfect transitonal gap.
Originally posted by The OmegaYes, living beings are complex. But the complexity of life doesn’t prove it was created by any divine being or beings. Nature also has quite a lot of organisms, that show features of appallingly bad design. This is because evolution via natural selection cannot construct traits from scratch; new traits must be modifications of previously existing traits. This is called historical constraint. A few examples of bad design imposed by historical constraint:
In human males, the urethra passes right through the prostate gland, a gland very prone to infection and subsequent enlargement. This blocks the urethra and is a very common medical problem in males. Putting a collapsible tube through an organ that is very likely to expand and block flow in this tube is not good design. Any moron with half a brain (or less) could design male "plumbing" better.
In African locust, the nerve cells that connect to the wings originate in the abdomen, even though the wings are in the thorax. This strange "wiring" is the result of the abdomen nerves being co-opted for use in flight. A good designer would not have flight nerves travel down the ventral nerve cord past their target, then backtrack through the organism to where they are needed. Using more materials than necessary is not good design.
Natural selection has never been observed to create new traits and how are these modifications passed on because traits accuired during a lifetime cannot be passed on.
Bardock> In human males, the urethra passes right through the prostate gland, a gland very prone to infection and subsequent enlargement. This blocks the urethra and is a very common medical problem in males. Putting a collapsible tube through an organ that is very likely to expand and block flow in this tube is not good design.
Causing common medixal problems in males in NOT good nor intelligent design, is it.
😄 Goodness. Why is that sexist? It's just a fact.
And I'm just pointing out flaws in the "Intelligent Design" hypothesis for the heck of it, and because it's so darn easy to do.
Maybe this time a Creationist will explain to me why it's "intelligent." 😄
Something to make time pass while we wait for someone to prove Creationism. Just some proof - anything -