EVOLUTION vs CREATIONISM
- Thread starter xvenomousx
- Start date
It does appear that their approach as to just what was a transitional fossil changed and it appears from the books, research and encyclopedia's from 1960 to 80' had a much different perspective about what these fossils exemplified. I've been trying to understand the switch up for sometime now.
Did not Darwin say that the transitional forms must be innumerable?
Well aren't there some 2 billion fossils on file? That number didn't change significantly between the 6o's 80's and today...so why are there many on this forum that say that every fossil is transitional?
Because there are no permanent species. There are periods of relative stablity. One of the biggest driving forces for speciation is ecological disruption, so the adaptation to a new environment can happen rather quickly, after which the species may not appear to change very much. There are transitional fossils for many of these relatively stable and successful forms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse
The evolution of the horse involves the gradual development of the modern horse from the fox-sized, forest-dwelling Hyracotherium. Paleozoologists have been able to piece together a more complete picture of the modern horse's evolutionary lineage than that of any other animal.
[wiki]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse
Species can stay stable for a long time, as long as their environment doesn't go through radical changes.
For example, crocodiles haven't changed much since the time of the dinosaurs.
In contrast, bacteria and virus change very rapidly indeed. That's why we get new strains of the cold virus coming through every year. People become immune to the "old" viruses, and so the virus species are forced to adapt and change.
For example, crocodiles haven't changed much since the time of the dinosaurs.
In contrast, bacteria and virus change very rapidly indeed. That's why we get new strains of the cold virus coming through every year. People become immune to the "old" viruses, and so the virus species are forced to adapt and change.
No one cares what Darwin said about something like that. It's only religious people who spend lots of time quoting authorities about factual and theoretical matters.saquist said:
Arguments from authority carry no weight, in such matters. If Darwin had said that transitional fossils have to be everywhere for every transition, and absence of them disproved his theory, he would have been wrong, is all.
Then feel free to steer clear of the discussion.
I promise I won't take it personally.
But for how long? That's the question. The comparison to the period of change is equally important. Explanations are wonderful and abundant in scientific circles because their born from speculation. But where is the comparison?
Should there not be an analysis that attempts to log the point of change and see if it truely is coinciding wiith other specimens which may lead to the discovery of a comman evolutionary inducer at a specific time.? I would be intrested in seeing that. That would be some convincing corraborative information. To pin down an event as the point of change.
So how long are the periods os change?
How long is the period of stability?
Are they're any correlations across multiple species in the same enviorment?
Saquist,
Can I make the following observations with regard to what you said a few posts ago.
You show an almost complete ignorance of the scientific method. Unlike creationists, who are not willing to think beyond what appears in a book of doubtful provenance, scientists do not claim to have all the answers. At any time they offer what they regard as the best possible explanations that fit the observed evidence knowing that new evisdence may cause a rethink. As far as evolution is concerned, the evidence has become more and more convincing as time goes by.
You see a willingness to offer a better explanation as a weakness, whereas it is a sign that scientists are open minded with regard to possible change. The history of science shows this process at work.
What you wrote above concerning th case for creation is abysmal. A schoolboy could do better. I know you won't answer but for the benefit of young people who visit this site, and who may be misled by your nonsense. I will make just one point.
You claim man appeared 6,000 years. apparently because this is what it says in the bible. Having commited yourself to that figure you attempt to support it by telling us that writing first appeared 5, 000 years ago. This is a good example of how you fail to think things through and the weakness of your position when you rely on the bible for all your answers.
You have overlooked or are ignorant of a number of sites where cave paintings have been found depicting man, animals and hunting scenes. How old do you think these are ? Unlike the scientists you criticize, you will not change your outlook whatever evidence is presented to the contrary. Your mind is closed.
Can I make the following observations with regard to what you said a few posts ago.
You show an almost complete ignorance of the scientific method. Unlike creationists, who are not willing to think beyond what appears in a book of doubtful provenance, scientists do not claim to have all the answers. At any time they offer what they regard as the best possible explanations that fit the observed evidence knowing that new evisdence may cause a rethink. As far as evolution is concerned, the evidence has become more and more convincing as time goes by.
You see a willingness to offer a better explanation as a weakness, whereas it is a sign that scientists are open minded with regard to possible change. The history of science shows this process at work.
What you wrote above concerning th case for creation is abysmal. A schoolboy could do better. I know you won't answer but for the benefit of young people who visit this site, and who may be misled by your nonsense. I will make just one point.
You claim man appeared 6,000 years. apparently because this is what it says in the bible. Having commited yourself to that figure you attempt to support it by telling us that writing first appeared 5, 000 years ago. This is a good example of how you fail to think things through and the weakness of your position when you rely on the bible for all your answers.
You have overlooked or are ignorant of a number of sites where cave paintings have been found depicting man, animals and hunting scenes. How old do you think these are ? Unlike the scientists you criticize, you will not change your outlook whatever evidence is presented to the contrary. Your mind is closed.
Last edited:
Not unless there is some reason to think such a point exists. The people who understand the theory they are working with know that accoridng to that theory there is no such thing as "the point of change" necessarily (it would be a very unusual and unnecessary event), and looking for one is a waste of time under normal circumstances.saquist said:
You have had this pointed out to you many times. Arguing against a theory is one thing, refusing to bother to comprehend the basics of the theory you pretend to argue against is another matter entirely.
Varies. Bacteria in a test tube - a few days. Bison in Beringia - a few thousand years.saquist said:
Varies. Trilobites, couple hundred million years. Neandertal hominids, couple hundred thousand.saquist said:
Between every species and its parasites, for starters. Across all the plants as the climate changes. What are you asking for specifically ?saquist said:
Last edited:
JUST A THOUGHT
When there were fears that avian flu might might infect humans, President Bush spoke of the possibility of scientists finding a way of protecting us. There was no outcry from those that reject evolution that it would be a waste of taxpayers' dollars because god had not created such a flu virus. They passively accepted the notion of mutation, while continuing to deny evolution. Such is the level of ignorance.
When there were fears that avian flu might might infect humans, President Bush spoke of the possibility of scientists finding a way of protecting us. There was no outcry from those that reject evolution that it would be a waste of taxpayers' dollars because god had not created such a flu virus. They passively accepted the notion of mutation, while continuing to deny evolution. Such is the level of ignorance.
Stability in terms of evolution is measured by the number of fossils you can find of a recognizable species in layers of known ages. There was an explosion of speciation in the Cambrian period, and no one is completely sure why that was. Of course, the classification of a particular fossil as a specific species is difficult, since similar looking creatures can be different species.
Many transitional species can be seen today. There are lizards in the process of losing their legs. Some, like skinks, still use small functional legs, others have tiny vestigal legs that resemble flaps, some lizards have lost their legs, and some have gone even further and become snakes.
Many transitional species can be seen today. There are lizards in the process of losing their legs. Some, like skinks, still use small functional legs, others have tiny vestigal legs that resemble flaps, some lizards have lost their legs, and some have gone even further and become snakes.
there is no god. look it up on google. in this modern age everything is controlled by natural laws so there's no need for fairies and gods anymore. god was invented just because people didn't understand how the world worked. but now we do. it was a natural law that created the universe, not god.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
in this modern age everything is controlled by natural laws
I assure you that it has always been that way, not only in this modern age.
it was a natural law that created the universe
What natural law was that ?
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Ok, fair enough.
But where did it come from ? Afterall, there was no before.
Also I don't think you can call a random quantum fluctuation a natural law, especially since there has to be a universe first for the natural law to exist in..
So you're saying there is no enviromental stilumlie to be found?
Intresting.
What do you mean?
Let's say I were to favor evolution
It would make sense to me, the more of a similar type of fossil I found the more stable the creature was, which in some small way tell us how stable the eniviroment was. Would you agree with this or is it too presumptuous?
Yes, I think that's right.
: have you looked at the foramenifera or diatoms?Saquist said:
Some external calciferous shells, the shapes have persisted for hundreds of millions of years, so they found a stable form early on, and haven't changed much. The pelagic ocean environments haven't either.
Last edited: