Denial of Evolution VI.
- Thread starter garbonzo
- Start date
- Status
As was pointed out to you back on page 21, this conception of macroevolution is useless to you. The fact that recently the serious researchers in the field seem to have demonstrated that once an equilibrium has been closely approached in a given environmentleopold said:
once gradual evolution has produced an ecosystem of species well fitted, occupied most of the easily reached niches with organisms,
natural selection in this given environment tends to stabilize most of these species and prevent further large evolutionary changes in them, so that some kind of "punctuation" event (a sudden change in the "given" environment, from any of a variety of possible sources) is necessary for further large scale rapid speciation among the organisms that have so well adapted,
is interesting, but not an argument against natural selection or Darwinian evolution thereby. It is a property of the mechanism of Darwinian evolution, an emergent feedback effect, and it depends on the existence and ordinary workings of Darwinian evolution.
The punctuation observers ended up demonstrating that Darwinian mechanism is a more powerful agent of far more rapid evolutionary change than had been assumed, and that the stability we see is rapidly attained and dynamically maintained by its continual pressure rather than being a lull in its effects. That is not an argument against Darwinian evolution.
This is a misconception. The Yellowstone fires were a repetition of a regular occurrence in the area (the forest was long overdue for its regular burn) and the current landscape is a recurring stage in the life cycle of the ecosystem involved. Whether it will undergo the same successional development as before (eventually returning to the wide expanses of even aged and flammable trees the white folks encountered, ready to burn again), is unknown, due to the many influences of people - a new factor - but the burn itself and the resulting landscape are not "totally different" from the norm for the area.wellwisher said:
this is micro evolution.
it was the conclusion of these scientists that this process can't be extrapolated to macro evolution.
there were 50 there, not just 3 or 4 or 10.
don't you understand?
these scientists FOUND NO EVIDENCE for accumulating changes that lead to macro evolution.
these scientists had almost 200 years to find this stuff and it simply wasn't forthcoming.
to imply that we have all these wonderful transitional fossils that explains evolution is simply untrue.
see immediately above.
you can call this creationist until your tongue rots but it changes nothing.
More conspiracies:
Bizarre 500-Million-Year-Old Creature Unearthed
Looks like we're narrowing in one some of the transitional forms involved in the evolution of sea-urchins.
Bizarre 500-Million-Year-Old Creature Unearthed
Looks like we're narrowing in one some of the transitional forms involved in the evolution of sea-urchins.
leopold
And all 50 of them had insufficient information to come to any such conclusions, all 50 of them were wrong, as more than 3 decades of advances in science have shown. Their 200 years does not erase the 3 decades after the paper, 3 decades of new science and better tools applied to new fossil sources not available before then. We do have all these wonderful transitional fossils and they do explain evolution. You have nothing.
Grumpy
And all 50 of them had insufficient information to come to any such conclusions, all 50 of them were wrong, as more than 3 decades of advances in science have shown. Their 200 years does not erase the 3 decades after the paper, 3 decades of new science and better tools applied to new fossil sources not available before then. We do have all these wonderful transitional fossils and they do explain evolution. You have nothing.
Grumpy
Fifty scientists drawing conclusions on incomplete information.
Don't you understand?
In the last 30 years there have been advancements in science, technology and new fossils discovered that were undreamed of 50 years ago.
As we continue to explore the world by looking in areas where we have looked before with new eyes, areas we have never looked before, and even at things we have already collected we will continue to make new discoveries and we will continue to fill in gaps that exist even today.
I've given you seven very specific examples of transitional fossils that have been discovered since 1983 and you have yet to address that in anything even approaching a meaningful fashion.
well what do you know, it works.
it appears i did indeed lift the page number, which is even better because it places the onus DIRECTLY on paleontologists, those that are EXPERTS on fossils.
we were led to believe we had them before.
the article proves it.
Bullshit.
That was (in some cases anyway) the list that Rav provided. The 7 I mentioned were 7 that have been discovered since 1983, I even provided you with the dates of discovery.
By the way, it was me that pointed out that Rav's list included discoveries predating 1983 so don't try an pull that one over me, it won't work and makes you look like a liar.
Here's my list again.
And, my mistake, it was randwolf, not Rav that provided the more complete list.
All discovered between 1994 and 2004.
And, my mistake, it was randwolf, not Rav that provided the more complete list.
What it shows that you didn't have a clue as to what you copied and pasted. What a maroon.
what, exactly do you think they were missing, besides the fossils?
don't you think they would have ruled inconclusive instead?
this is a CLEAR NO, CLEAR as in plain as day.
1983, phds, paleontologists, these people were not stupid grumpy and it was/is a hot button topic and it was STILL a clear no.
these people KNEW they did not have the fossils, it's the ONLY way they could have reached their conclusion.
they CLEARLY did not have them.
how many "transitional fossils" have you seen or heard of pre 1983?
these scientists implied these fossils don't exist by their conclusion.
All new fossils are transitional fossils. Each new fossil discovered fills in another gap in the evolution of life on Earth.
in all honesty origin what does the article say to you about the conclusion and why they reached it.
if yoiu say inadequate information/ data then what was this information/ data?
these people seen, by the record that microevolution can't be extrapolated to macroevolution.
instead of saying, no, liar, creationist, dumbass how about a little thought on an answer.
edit:
let's see if anyone else gets it.
Last edited:
No, they don't say that. That's something you believe that has no basis in fact.
then how did they arrive at the clear no other than the record?
Randwolf posted a list for you of transitional fossils that includes transitional fossils from pre 1983. For example, Randwolf's list had Archeopteryx on it. Archeopteryx is one of the transitional fossils in the evolution of birds from dinosaurs. Archeopteryx was discovered in 1907.
I only need to provide one example to debunk you, and I'm choosing that one.
Addendum:
Here is Randwolfs list: Randwolfs list of transitional fossils
It contains transitional fossils that both pre and post date 1983.
- Status