Evolution - True Or False

It's

  • Total voters
    43
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Since I never got a response last time....

IceAge this question is for you, since you seem to KNOW evolution is false.

Can you please explain why animals have been OBSERVED and PROVEN to change ever so slightly over thousands of years, as indicated by the fossil record?
Please explain to us all how archaeologists can assemble a whole line of animals which appear very similar and change gradually over time, without the process of evolution. (Please note if you took a sample from the beginning and end of this line, you would claim it was NOT the same animal. But when viewed with all the pieces in between it is obvious it is the same animal.)
 
Baron Max said:
I read books!! I'm reading a good one right now ...."Revenge of the Swamp Monster from the Black Lagoon". Good book ...you should read it.

Hey, Nick, why do you think it's called the "THEORY" of evolution?

The theory of evolution is simple; tiny little creatures of the past deciding to become something different, so they huff n' puff and magically turn into whatever they wanted to be. See? The little fishy-lookin' thing comes out onto the land, looks around and thinks, "Hey, this place is a lot better than that damned polluted ocean!" So he huffs n' puffs and becomes an air-breathing creature who walks around on the land. Pretty neat, huh?

Baron Max
Click to expand...

Evolution is not a theory, evolution is fact.Mechanisms of evolution are theory, not fact, but regardless of that scientific theory is the closes thing to scientific fact. Most creationists who dismiss evolution get theory and hypothesis mixed up. Two VERY different words. Evolution doesn't dismiss god though. It's unlikely God exists, but I do believe in a "supernatural" power. There is evidence presenting itself everyday.

Your explanation of how fish turned into tetra-pods is precisely why theists don't believe in Evolution. Straw-man is the word for it. One explanation that makes more sense would be that the sex cells of the "fish" or whatever you want to call it, mutated because of some outside factor. (Sex cells mutate all the time but sometimes they yield change for the better) evolution is only caused by mutation in sex cells, biologists at least agree on that much. So this mutation caused a change in the alleles of the sperm OR egg and caused the bone structure of the flappy things on the fish(don't care what they are called... forgot) to change favorably for walking and swimming. This explanation isn't well worded, but I am pretty sure the bones found of that fish with limbs shows something similar to what I typed. Sorry you know the missing link thing.
 
The Cambrian explosion was a geologically event that marked the sudden appearance in the fossil record of the ancestors of all familiar animals known today and is extremely important for understanding the evolution of mammals. Almost all known animal phyla today made their first appearance during the Cambrian. The Burgess Shale Formation dates vertebrates to 530 mya. This was the beginning of the origin of vertebrates, reptiles and then mammals <clarifying the above post>.

I meant to say that small rodent/mammals "made it through the Mesozoic" - through the Permian-Triassic Extinction 248 mya (95% of all species became extinct) and then through the KT extinction. The ancestor of primates was an ancestral small rodent, similar to a tree shrew. Primate-rodent divergence may have even occurred as early as ~320 mya during the late Paleozoic. During the Jurassic Period to Cretaceous (206-65 mya) dinosaurs dominated and mammals also flourished. The KT extinction wiped out the dinosaurs, but small rodent-like mammals made it through.

In any case, to understand the evolution of humans, and most all other animal phyla in existence today, one must start with the Cambrian explosion of animal phyla and the post-KT radiations. The traditional view is that the diversity in speciaziation and radiation of modern mammals and birds was the result of the vacant niches being filled that were left by the extinction of dinosaurs, although this view is challenged. Molecular DNA supports this hypothesis but new evidence shows that smaller species have a higher divergence rate than larger species, and this is the basis of current contentions. Even without the vacant niches, there seems to have been a high divergence rate amonst small mammals before the KT extinction, and part of this divergence probably led to an earlier divergence of the primate lineage than is indicated in by sequence analysis. And so it goes.
 
Last edited:
valich said:
I meant to say that small rodent/mammals "made it through the Mesozoic" - through the Permian-Triassic Extinction 248 mya (95% of all species became extinct) and then through the KT extinction. The ancestor of primates was an ancestral small rodent, similar to a tree shrew. Primate-rodent divergence may have even occurred as early as ~320 mya during the late Paleozoic.
Click to expand...

I've never read anything that suggests mammals appearing in the palaeozioc. Where did you read this?
 
Ok spur, here you go:

D.G. Shu, "Lower Cambrian Vertebrates," Nature 402 (Nov. 4, 1999): 42.

J. Hecht, "Large Mammals once Dined on Dinosaurs, NewScientist.com (Jan. 15, 2005).

Fossils are aften found where they're not supposed to be, according to Darwinian dogma, the presence of just one casts more great doubt on their scheme.
 
IceAgeCivilizations said:
D.G. Shu, "Lower Cambrian Vertebrates," Nature 402 (Nov. 4, 1999): 42.
Click to expand...

I just read the article and can't find anything about [ENC]fossil[/ENC]s out of place.

This particular article shows a find that pushes the origin of certain lineages to an earlier timepoint.

The discovery of these Lower Cambrian vertebrates has implications for the likely timing of chordate evolution. The occurrence of Myllokunmingia and Haikouichthys in the Chengjiang Lagerstätte shows that even more primitive hagfish-like vertebrates had almost certainly evolved by the beginning of the Atdabanian Stage of the Lower Cambrian.
Click to expand...

Did you ever read the article in question?
 
matthyaouw said:
I've never read anything that suggests mammals appearing in the palaeozioc. Where did you read this?
Click to expand...
A word to the wise. Valich is a very efficient data miner. He can quote large chunks of seemingly relevant material with an air of confidence and seeming competence. The truth is he understands very little of what he reads, even less of what he posts. The consequence is bloomer after bloomer as he betrays to those with even a little knowledge how pathetic his own hold any sound science basis is.
But don't believe me, whom you don't know from Adam. Ask Invert Nexus, or just read any of his mindless posts.
 
Evolution doesn't rely on the assumption that mammals were tiny during the dinosaur age, but it's a fact that mammals in general did not become really diverse until the dinosaurs were gone.
 
For decades it was taught that the mammals during the "dinousaur age" were tiny and defenseless, like our suppsosed ancestor, the proto tree shrew, but now, we see that mammals eating dinos (and why?), because the fossil record indicates many deviations from the Darwinian scheme.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top