Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * - - 5 votes

Scientific Evidence of Creationism


  • Please log in to reply
1541 replies to this topic

#1306    Copasetic

Copasetic

    438579088 what am I?

  • Member
  • 4,227 posts
  • Joined:12 Apr 2008
  • Gender:Male

Posted 18 September 2008 - 03:21 AM

IrishAidan on Sep 17 2008, 10:20 PM, said:

No, I quoted a known evolutionist who said that major evolutionary changes in the fossil record are yet to be observed. I mean, if you have it - an article or picture or something, I'd be glad to see it.

Not learning anything I didn't already know. How many times I gotta say I'm playing DA? I said that before all the arguing, debating, throat gouging, et cetera...started.

Well, I did learn a few things from your little examples - but for the most part, I know what evidence there is and isn't for evolution. I also know that I.D. is, basically, a philosophical theory.

I just like arguing. lol.



Sorry got to ask, didn't you just think that "microevolution" and "macroevolution" were two different things? You were aware that "microevolution" and reproductive isolation over time causes "macroevolution". You understand genetics? Systematics, cladistics, phylogenetics, Bioinformatics, Biomathematics, Coalescent theory, Computational phylogenetics, Game Theory, Molecular phylogeny, Distance matrices, Jukes-Cantor model matrix, Cell Theory, Gene theory, Epigenetics, Physiology , Anatomy, Ecophysiology, Behavioral ecology, Population ecology, Systems ecology, Evolutionary psychology, Evolutionary computation, Ecological selection, evolutionary developmental biology, Auxology, Bioenergetics, Genetic drift, Dysgenics, Microbiology, Microbial genetics, Immunology, Evolutionary microbiology, Zoology, Comparative anatomy, Phylogeography, Biogeography, Population genetics, Dual inheritance theory, Ecological genetics, Muller's ratchet, Neutral theory of molecular evolution, Quantitative genetics, Genetic erosion, Genetic hitchhiking, Koinophilia, Negative selection, Ring Speciation, Genetic algorithms, punctuated equilibrium, Hybrid vigor, adaptive evolution, Selective sweep, Background selection, Sexual selection, Geometric progression, Genetical Theory of Natural Selection, evolutionarily stable strategies, antagonistic co-evolution, Phylogenetic comparative methodology, functional morphology and ethology?

Because all of these ideas and disciplins in biology not only provide evidences for evolution (this is but a fraction), but are all linked by the common denominator of evolution. Modern evolutionary theory is truly the unifying theory of biology.

In fact, I would say that Evolutionary theory and Quantum mechanics are the most time "proven" theories in science, as far how correct they are about our world.


#1307    IrishAidan07

IrishAidan07

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,681 posts
  • Joined:23 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Michigan, United States

  • If you can't describe what you are doing as a process, you don't know what you're doing.

Posted 18 September 2008 - 03:27 AM

Quote

With this information are you willing to accept that maybe you weren't as familiar with the evidence as you thought?


I don't recall saying I was omniscient. I do recall, however, posting a quote from a known evolutionist in which he said no major evolutionary changes have been noted in the fossil record. That quote, however, was from the 1970s. So, considering that I am not a biologist, I would have no reason to have a continual education in the field. I surmise this find is relatively recent?

Furthermore, I fail to see how this is a major evolutionary find. Is there actual proof that our ear bones were once the third and fourth jaw bone of a reptile, or is it another theory?

Also, micro-evolution can be observed. Macro-evolution cannot. It can be theorized, but not observed firsthand like micro-evolution. So, that's why I'm asking if there has been any major changes noted in the fossil record. Link me up to a site, if you know one, where I can see the charts of fossils they have found. Thanks. And I am really interested in seeing such a site.

Edited by IrishAidan, 18 September 2008 - 03:30 AM.

"There is not a Liberal America, a Conservative America, a Red America or Blue America, there is the United States of America." ~ Barack Obama

Posted Image

~~Irish~~

#1308    Copasetic

Copasetic

    438579088 what am I?

  • Member
  • 4,227 posts
  • Joined:12 Apr 2008
  • Gender:Male

Posted 18 September 2008 - 03:39 AM

IrishAidan on Sep 17 2008, 11:27 PM, said:

I don't recall saying I was omniscient. I do recall, however, posting a quote from a known evolutionist in which he said no major evolutionary changes have been noted in the fossil record. That quote, however, was from the 1970s. So, considering that I am not a biologist, I would have no reason to have a continual education in the field. I surmise this find is relatively recent?

Furthermore, I fail to see how this is a major evolutionary find. Is there actual proof that our ear bones were once the third and fourth jaw bone of a reptile, or is it another theory?

Also, micro-evolution can be observed. Macro-evolution cannot. It can be theorized, but not observed firsthand like micro-evolution. So, that's why I'm asking if there has been any major changes noted in the fossil record. Link me up to a site, if you know one, where I can see the charts of fossils they have found. Thanks. And I am really interested in seeing such a site.



Irish,

Did you look at Dr. Cuffey's website? Is there actual proof that our ear bones were once the third and fourth jaw bone of a reptile? Yes, from EvoDevo. One can watch the development of the embryos and see the differentiation as well as HOX controls. Knowing that we would expect there to be fossils representing this transition of jaw to ear bones. As I linked, displayed and pointed out there. Not only are there such fossils, but the times they appear in the geological record is sequential as well.

"that's why I'm asking if there has been any major changes noted in the fossil record" -I'm not sure what you are asking then. Is the evolutionary development of mammals from a reptilian ancestor the kind of major change you prefer? If not then be more specific please.

Many of those fossil finds are from the 70's and 80's. Some even as far back as the 1920's. What known "evolutionist" did you quote? Was he just an "evolutionist" or a biologist? And are you sure you are looking at the full context of the quote? (Often time's "anti-evolution" quote providers mine the quotes to take them from context to support their argument).


#1309    IrishAidan07

IrishAidan07

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,681 posts
  • Joined:23 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Michigan, United States

  • If you can't describe what you are doing as a process, you don't know what you're doing.

Posted 18 September 2008 - 03:44 AM

Stephen Gould, the late Professor of Geology and Paleontology at Harvard University said:

The history of most fossil species includes two features inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Statis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear… 2. Sudden Appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed'. 6 The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.

Edited by IrishAidan, 18 September 2008 - 03:44 AM.

"There is not a Liberal America, a Conservative America, a Red America or Blue America, there is the United States of America." ~ Barack Obama

Posted Image

~~Irish~~

#1310    Copasetic

Copasetic

    438579088 what am I?

  • Member
  • 4,227 posts
  • Joined:12 Apr 2008
  • Gender:Male

Posted 18 September 2008 - 03:57 AM

IrishAidan on Sep 17 2008, 11:44 PM, said:

Stephen Gould, the late Professor of Geology and Paleontology at Harvard University said:

The history of most fossil species includes two features inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Statis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear… 2. Sudden Appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed'. 6 The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.



That is not the full quote in context, you have copied this from popular creation or ID websites.

The Full quote:

Quote

Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. We believe that Huxley was right in his warning. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. It is gradualism we should reject, not Darwinism.The history of most fossil species includes tow features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:
1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change I usually limited and directionless.
2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed'.

Evolution proceeds in two major modes. In the first, phyletic transformation, an entire population changes from one state to another.  If all evolutionary change occurred in this mode, life would not persist long.  Phyletic evolution yields no increase in diversity, only a transformation of one thing into another.  Since extinction (by extirpation, not by evolution into something else) is so common, a biota with no mechanism for increasing diversity would soon be wiped out.  The second mode, speciation, replenishes the earth. New species branch off from a persisting parental stock.

Darwin, to be sure, acknowledged and discussed the process of speciation. But he cast his discussion of evolutionary change almost totally in the mold of phyletic transformation. In this context, the phenomenon of stasis and sudden appearance could hardly be attributed to anything but imperfection of the record; for if new species arise by transformation of entire ancestral populations, and if we almost never see the transformation (because species are essentially static through their range), then our record must be hopelessly incomplete.

Eldredge and I believe that speciation is responsible for almost all evolutionary change. Moreover, the way in which it occurs virtually guarantees that sudden appearance and stasis shall dominate the fossil record.


Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution’s Erratic Pace", Natural History, Vol. 86, No. 5, 1977, p. 14

Edit: Formatted quote added emphasis.
Edit2: Source!


Edited by Copasetic, 18 September 2008 - 04:08 AM.


#1311    Karlis

Karlis

  • Member
  • 8,614 posts
  • Joined:19 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

Posted 18 September 2008 - 03:58 AM

IrishAidan on Sep 18 2008, 01:44 PM, said:

Stephen Gould, the late Professor of Geology and Paleontology at Harvard University said:

The history of most fossil species includes two features inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Statis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear… 2. Sudden Appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed'. 6 The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.
Thanks for posting this, Irish. thumbsup.gif
Years ago I read either this very quote, or something very similar. When I was on this topic some months back, I tried to find it to post on the evolution thread, but had no luck.

Looking forward to how evolutionists will reply to your post.
Karlis.



#1312    Copasetic

Copasetic

    438579088 what am I?

  • Member
  • 4,227 posts
  • Joined:12 Apr 2008
  • Gender:Male

Posted 18 September 2008 - 03:58 AM

IrishAidan on Sep 17 2008, 11:44 PM, said:

Stephen Gould, the late Professor of Geology and Paleontology at Harvard University said:

The history of most fossil species includes two features inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Statis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear… 2. Sudden Appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed'. 6 The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.



Jeez, as a writer I thought you be all about verification of sources  wink2.gif


#1313    Copasetic

Copasetic

    438579088 what am I?

  • Member
  • 4,227 posts
  • Joined:12 Apr 2008
  • Gender:Male

Posted 18 September 2008 - 04:07 AM

Karlis on Sep 17 2008, 11:58 PM, said:

Thanks for posting this, Irish. thumbsup.gif
Years ago I read either this very quote, or something very similar. When I was on this topic some months back, I tried to find it to post on the evolution thread, but had no luck.

Looking forward to how evolutionists will reply to your post.
Karlis.



Gould also follows that up in another essay with:

Quote

The supposed lack of intermediary forms in the fossil record remains the fundamental canard of current antievolutionism.  Such transitional forms are scarce, to be sure, and for two sets of good reasons - geological (the gappiness of the fossil record) and biological (the episodic nature of evolutionary change, including patterns of punctuated equilibrium and transition within small populations of limited geographic extent). But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life’s physical genealogy.


Stephen Jay Gould, "Hooking Leviathan by Its Past", Natural History, May 1994, p. 8



#1314    IrishAidan07

IrishAidan07

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,681 posts
  • Joined:23 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Michigan, United States

  • If you can't describe what you are doing as a process, you don't know what you're doing.

Posted 18 September 2008 - 04:09 AM

Copasetic on Sep 17 2008, 11:58 PM, said:

Jeez, as a writer I thought you be all about verification of sources  wink2.gif


I verified it - Gould said it. And I still don't see how your "full quote" illuminates anything. Perhaps you could elaborate?

"There is not a Liberal America, a Conservative America, a Red America or Blue America, there is the United States of America." ~ Barack Obama

Posted Image

~~Irish~~

#1315    Copasetic

Copasetic

    438579088 what am I?

  • Member
  • 4,227 posts
  • Joined:12 Apr 2008
  • Gender:Male

Posted 18 September 2008 - 04:21 AM

IrishAidan on Sep 18 2008, 12:09 AM, said:

I verified it - Gould said it. And I still don't see how your "full quote" illuminates anything. Perhaps you could elaborate?



Read the left out sentences, Gould is saying that we do find the processes in the fossil record we would expect to find in Darwinian evolution. He is saying the gradual change of transitional forms is rare, not that it's not present or so weak that it calls into question evolution.

What it boils down too, is Gould is arguing that there are more examples of punctuated equilibrium (PE) then there are gradualism. In other words, Gould is arguing that the role of PE in evolution is greater than gradualistic cladogenesis.

Edited by Copasetic, 18 September 2008 - 04:22 AM.


#1316    Whangarei

Whangarei

    Astral Projection

  • Closed
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 685 posts
  • Joined:27 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Female

  • "Don't be sorry, just improve."

Posted 18 September 2008 - 04:23 AM



I don't get the questions about the transitional fossils.   Do we expect to find a midlength necked giraffe or something?

Seek peace, and pursue it.
http://nl.youtube.co...feature=related

#1317    IrishAidan07

IrishAidan07

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,681 posts
  • Joined:23 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Michigan, United States

  • If you can't describe what you are doing as a process, you don't know what you're doing.

Posted 18 September 2008 - 04:23 AM

Copasetic on Sep 18 2008, 12:21 AM, said:

Read the left out sentences, Gould is saying that we do find the processes in fossil record we would expect to find in Darwinian evolution. He is saying the gradual change of transitional forms is rare, not that is not present or so weak that it calls into question evolution.

What it boils down too, is Gould is arguing that there are more examples of punctuated equilibrium (PE) then there are gradualism. In other words, Gould is arguing that the role of PE in evolution is greater than gradualistic cladogenesis.



So, basically, you evolutionists are scurrying to find other evidence to support the theory instead of relying on the one thing that would, without doubt, convince fair-minded people?

Just seems funny to me that the fossils in which would vindicate you all are missing....... Maybe 'cause it didn't happen like that, no? Maybe it's a myth? Maybe God is mind [edit] us all... Who knows.





"There is not a Liberal America, a Conservative America, a Red America or Blue America, there is the United States of America." ~ Barack Obama

Posted Image

~~Irish~~

#1318    Copasetic

Copasetic

    438579088 what am I?

  • Member
  • 4,227 posts
  • Joined:12 Apr 2008
  • Gender:Male

Posted 18 September 2008 - 04:33 AM

IrishAidan on Sep 18 2008, 12:23 AM, said:

So, basically, you evolutionists are scurrying to find other evidence to support the theory instead of relying on the one thing that would, without doubt, convince fair-minded people?

Just seems funny to me that the fossils in which would vindicate you all are missing....... Maybe 'cause it didn't happen like that, no? Maybe it's a myth? Maybe God is mind [edit] us all... Who knows.



Sigh,

No Irish -No one is scurrying to find any other evidence. As Gould says in the next essay,

"But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life’s physical genealogy."

There is plenty of fossils that "vindicate" us evil biologist. Check out these lists HERE. This list is out of date however and many of the 'gaps' it puts in are now filled with finds for even more complete transition of features. It's late and I need to go to bed so I don't feel like pointing out which ones at the moment, maybe you could do a little research on your own?

The point you are missing though, is that biologists know (Gould included) evolution happened and still happens. We know it is the explanation for the biodiversity present on Earth. What we bicker amongst ourselves about is what processes are dominant to other processes. That's it.

This bickering may seem pointless then to you, but we're scientists and understanding things in the extreme is what we do. So while understanding evolution by natural selection alone maybe adequate for layfolk, it is not going to cut it for professional scientists. Unfortunately this creates prime opportunities for 'anti-evolutionists' to quote mine the sh*t out of us and portray a false impression to a generally uneducated public about the state and nature of evolutionary theory.

I need to sleep, 3 -13 hour days puts to many miles on the brain. If you answer those questions or think of specific "changes" you wish to see in the fossil record, I'll get to them tomorrow night.

Edited by Copasetic, 18 September 2008 - 04:34 AM.


#1319    IrishAidan07

IrishAidan07

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,681 posts
  • Joined:23 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Michigan, United States

  • If you can't describe what you are doing as a process, you don't know what you're doing.

Posted 18 September 2008 - 05:04 AM

LOL.

If you KNOW evolution occurred (macro-evolution), then why, by God, do you scientifical folks stills calls evolutions a theorys? I mean, Suh, we unscientifical folks gettins confused easy when it comes to this stuff. Iffen you could explains thats, Suh, I thinks Id be right fine with the xplanation.



"There is not a Liberal America, a Conservative America, a Red America or Blue America, there is the United States of America." ~ Barack Obama

Posted Image

~~Irish~~

#1320    Karlis

Karlis

  • Member
  • 8,614 posts
  • Joined:19 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

Posted 18 September 2008 - 05:29 AM

IrishAidan on Sep 18 2008, 03:04 PM, said:

LOL.

If you KNOW evolution occurred (macro-evolution), then why, by God, do you scientifical folks stills calls evolutions a theorys? I mean, Suh, we unscientifical folks gettins confused easy when it comes to this stuff. Iffen you could explains thats, Suh, I thinks Id be right fine with the xplanation.
Hi Irish -- be as it may, Copasetic's link: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transi...art1a.html#gaps *does* answer the problems about gaps, etc.

I think I'll have to stay with my personal belief that us folks who believe that God created life and sentient humans, will have to take our belief on faith. Why? Because we can find holes in the theories of evolution -- but evolutionist happily admit such holes do exist, and in fact according to their own studies insist that such holes need to exist; just as explained in the above link.

Anyway, these discussions are interesting, and informative. thumbsup.gif  
Karlis





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users