Perfection
The Great Head.
Well speciation is not a simple process it takes a long time for it to occur. Its not that it doesn't happen its just that there is no defined point where two groups of animals becomedifferent species.
Creation vs Evolution
- Thread starter Total_cho
- Start date
- Status
Maj
Emperor
Humans vs...
Ado
Chieftain
Don't focus too much on direct competition. Think more along the lines of Darwin's finches.
If an existing species has adapted to a particular niche - lets use tough nuts - something unsuited to breaking these nuts would find it hard to push in, during leaner times the better suited would eat all the resources, the lesser suited then would starve.
Instead, one species arrives on a new island with two food sources, one is hard nuts, the other small worms in holes in trees. Those individuals with bigger, stronger beaks would have a better chance at cracking open the nuts than those with weaker beaks. However, thinner and longer beaks would get at the worms easier. Over time you would expect two distinct species to form - those with big, strong beaks, feeding on the nuts and those with long, thin beaks eating the worms. Other varieties of beak may exist from time to time, certainly in the beginning, but as better suited individuals evolve, the less suited ones would struggle to find food, and survive to reproduce.
For a good comflict style, think of the dodo - obviously was suited to stay away from whatever preditors it had and breed happliy. Along comes humans who were able to catch the birds easier - bang, gone.
If an existing species has adapted to a particular niche - lets use tough nuts - something unsuited to breaking these nuts would find it hard to push in, during leaner times the better suited would eat all the resources, the lesser suited then would starve.
Instead, one species arrives on a new island with two food sources, one is hard nuts, the other small worms in holes in trees. Those individuals with bigger, stronger beaks would have a better chance at cracking open the nuts than those with weaker beaks. However, thinner and longer beaks would get at the worms easier. Over time you would expect two distinct species to form - those with big, strong beaks, feeding on the nuts and those with long, thin beaks eating the worms. Other varieties of beak may exist from time to time, certainly in the beginning, but as better suited individuals evolve, the less suited ones would struggle to find food, and survive to reproduce.
For a good comflict style, think of the dodo - obviously was suited to stay away from whatever preditors it had and breed happliy. Along comes humans who were able to catch the birds easier - bang, gone.
I thank you for replying.
Darwins Finches are an excellent example of Creationism in action, but is no longer a good example of Evolution in action. Evolutionists have claimed that up to 31 species of finches evolved from some original pair of finches that migrated to those Islands. These species were divided into three genuses with one henus considered a new family. Today we know these different species finches all interbreed (making them one species), that the beak sizes can change rapidly in just a few years, and that the net evolution of finch features, such as their beaks, can change rapidly under environmental pressure such as a drought, but tends to return to the norm when the environment returns to normal. This is called variation around a mean, which always reults in a net evolution of zero.
Natural Selection is irrelevant to evolution theory, It can never be the cause of evolution, it can only act AFTER evolution occurs!
Antibiotic resistance is also variation around a mean. In absence of the antibiotic selection pressure, the bacteria wil resume its normal type of nonmutated healthier population.
The fossil record is the enemy of evolution. It shows that creature types appear abruptly in the fossil record and remain unchanged for their duration in the fossil record (Stasis).
Micro-evolution, also known as adaption, is fully compatible and predicted by Creation theory. Macro-evolution (i.e. common acestry of all creatures) is not at all supported by science.
No. Humans are not fighting over the same food source with other "species". We have been merely driving other species to extinction through many means.
We know extinctions occur, but ote, none of those other species are evolving into new types of Creatures (i,e, Evolution). Neither are we. No Evolution is observed, just death.
Ado
Chieftain
How so? Where do you see the hand of god in this?
The finches show exactly the process in operation, the fact this "variation around a mean" can occur. Your unwillingness to accept evolution makes you dismiss the next logical step, that isolated populations of the same species could diverge over time into populations that cannot interbreed.
It is not possible for every individual of every species to become fossilized - of course there will be holes. But to not see the obvious similarities between ancient and existing species is just hiding behind the bible. You do not accept the obvious physiological and genetic similarity between ourselves and chimps. I say that with utmost confidence. Your reply is "that's how god made it".
Perfection
The Great Head.
Your welcome, and thanks for the kind gesture its nice to know that two peopl can discuss an issue without a flame war
How is this affect creationism
No, NatSel is the driving force behind evolution, when a DNA mutation occurs it may affect the creatures phenotype and cause it to have a slighty better chance of survival, after this occurs over and over it builds up to evolution.
Can you show me a source
but it shows evolution by the way that they they show a progression from one species to another
since microevolution is going on by branching out now shouldn't have contiued earlier by brancing out as well showing the splits in species (Like Man's and Chimp's common ancester dividing into to species)
Look at domesticated animals, and the process of artificial selection.
Pigs from boars, milk over-producing cows from their sensibly-teated forebears, dogs thqat look like theyve been beaten with a concrete block.
Its the same principle as natural selection's influence on evolution, only speeded up to influence a result that will be preferred by humans.
Also it is proved logically by reasoning that this is what would happen given that DNA is hereditary material, and all we know of it.
Like any discussion, wee are only sharing our thoughts. It does not make a person bad or good if they believe in either Creation or Evolution. Our overall goal is the search for truth.
QUOTE]Originally posted by Perfection How is this affect creationism?[/QUOTE]
Devolution. Central to Creationism is that each kind of Creature God created were rich in genetic information. If Adam and Eve had only one child, half the genetic information they carried would be lost forever, since each contributes only half of their Genetic information during fertilization of an egg. However, its been rumoured that they had 53 children. having many direct offsprings guarantees that all their genetic information gets passed on to the next generation, and it remains in the population.
Similarly, when small populations get isolated, genetic information tends to get lost in these small subpopulations. The original finches that settled in the gallopagos Islands had all the genetic information that is found in all the different types of Finches we observe today, and maybe even more genetic diversity than what we see today.
In the absence of environmental stress, the offspring of the original finches would be very diverse. As their offspring spread throughout the Islands, they would occupy different ecolgical niches, each placing a different kind of stress on the finches. By way of natural selection, those traits that are optimal for producing the most offspring in a given niche will be expressed more in succeeding generations. Thus we would eventually see different types of Finches in different parts of the Islands.
When extreme stress occurs, such as a long term drought, this heavy selection pressure will reduce populations of those finches with traits least suitbale to handle the drought (short Beaks), and those with traits more suitable to the extreme stress, in the case of severe drought, long Beaks. When the drought ends, it is observed that the overall population of offspring will return to its prior "bushy" diversity. The end result of bushy is that the finches merely evolved around a mean, that is, no net evolution.
However, if severe selection pressure last a long time, it is quite possible that many ancestral traits may be permanently removed from their descendants (e.g. no offspring with short beaks). In this situation, devolution has occured.
The above examples are the microevolution you spoke of. This type of evolving os predicted by Creation theory, as I have just shown, and it can not account for new novel traits that Darwinian Evolution (you referred to it as "Macro") requires for it to be true.
About a thousand or so years ago, the only dogs that were around were wolves. All types of dogs living today, from the Great Dane to the Chihuahua. They came to be not by wolves evolving new genetic traits slowly over time, but by the loss of genetic information. Breeders breeding purebreds selectively remove traits from succeeding generations be repeatedly breeding only the most similar of dogs in order to get purebreds. This removal of genetic information is actually deleterious, in that it has created certain breeds that could only survive in domestication, and by this practice of "inbreeding", they fix genetic defects caused by mutations into the inbred descendants (e.g. the displaced hips in German Shepherds).
Perfection
The Great Head.
Im sorry but this is simply untrue genetic information changes every day from mistranslations this has been clinacally, physically, and environmentally prooven in multiple cases, I even did it in a career research project in biotechnology. These variations happen every day. So that genes are changing. And anyways develotion would state that things would become more homogonized over time not more different
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Tyrus88
Natural Selection is irrelevant to evolution theory, It can never be the cause of evolution, it can only act AFTER evolution occurs!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perfection writes: "No, NatSel is the driving force behind evolution, when a DNA mutation occurs it may affect the creatures phenotype and cause it to have a slighty better chance of survival, after this occurs over and over it builds up to evolution."
This has never been scientifically onserved and there is a lot of science that says this can't happen. I'll give one instance (more upon request if your really interested:
"The frequency with which a single non-harmful mutation is known to occur is 1 in 1000.The probability that two favorable mutations will occur is 1x10e3 x 10e3 = 1x10e6, 1 in a million. Studies of Drosophila have revealed that large numbers of genes are involved in the formation of separate structural elements. There are as many as 30 - 40 genes involved in a single wing structure.It is most unlikely that fewer than five genes could ever be involved in the formation of even the simplest new structure, previously unknown to the organism. The probability now becomes one in one thousand million million. We already know that mutations in living cells appear once in ten million to once in one hundred thousand million. It is evident that the probability of five favourable mutations occurring within the a single life cycle of an organism is effectively zero.
Let us consider the alternative possibility that five mutations occur spontaneously within a large population of interbreeding organisms. They will have to be brought together eventually in a single organism, if they are to generate the structure of a new level of complexity, favourable for natural selection.
According to our definition, each of the genes we are considering is due to a mutation which will give rise to hitherto unknown structure of additional complexity once it meets the other four genes in the fertilized egg cell. It would be indeed be surprising of any [one alone] of these mutations could, at the same time, modulate an existing structure in the manner that it would be selected favourably by natural selection. It is only when the five genes find themselves together that a selective advantage will emerge. They are more likely to be present independently, within the population, as so called neutral genes. ... In the absence of selective advantage, the probability of the five genes coming together simultaneously within a single organism is extremely small." [about i in 1x10e15].
"Improbability increases at an enormous rate as the number of genes Increases."
Evolutionist and cell biologist E.J. Ambrose, "The Nature and Origin of the Biological World", Ellis Horwood, 1982, pp 120-121, 123.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Tyrus88
Antibiotic resistance is also variation around a mean. In absence of the antibiotic selection pressure, the bacteria wil resume its normal type of nonmutated healthier population.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perfection writes: Can you show me a source
Yes.
Most anti-biotics are quite selective as to what bacteria they destroy. As biologists have discovered, these bacteria often have strands that are resistive to one antibiotic or another, or even several.
However, this resistance is not the result of some macro-evolutionary process. The resisting factor(s) in sub populations of bacteria targeted by the anti-biotic may have been acquired from genetic information received from other other bacteria via transduction, transmutation, or Conjugation (R-plasmids). It is also possible that a prior neutral (point) mutation may have altered the target site of an anti-biotic in such a way as to as make the anti-biotic ineffective (the mutation, initially neutral, thereby proves to be beneficial to the bacteria). Thus we observe micro-evolution which is most consistent with the creation model, but we observe not even a hint of macro-evolution in action.
Dr. Pierre Grasse writes ('Evolution of Living Organisms',
Academic Press, NY, 1977, p. 88):
"the mutations of bacteria and viruses are merely hereditary fluctuations around a median position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect. ... No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution."
Many other evolutionists (e.g. Ambrose above) agree with Grasse's assessment as they do not see how mutations are capable of giving rise to major divergences of structural-functional organization.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Tyrus88
Natural Selection is irrelevant to evolution theory, It can never be the cause of evolution, it can only act AFTER evolution occurs!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perfection writes: "No, NatSel is the driving force behind evolution, when a DNA mutation occurs it may affect the creatures phenotype and cause it to have a slighty better chance of survival, after this occurs over and over it builds up to evolution."
This has never been scientifically onserved and there is a lot of science that says this can't happen. I'll give one instance (more upon request if your really interested:
"The frequency with which a single non-harmful mutation is known to occur is 1 in 1000.The probability that two favorable mutations will occur is 1x10e3 x 10e3 = 1x10e6, 1 in a million. Studies of Drosophila have revealed that large numbers of genes are involved in the formation of separate structural elements. There are as many as 30 - 40 genes involved in a single wing structure.It is most unlikely that fewer than five genes could ever be involved in the formation of even the simplest new structure, previously unknown to the organism. The probability now becomes one in one thousand million million. We already know that mutations in living cells appear once in ten million to once in one hundred thousand million. It is evident that the probability of five favourable mutations occurring within the a single life cycle of an organism is effectively zero.
Let us consider the alternative possibility that five mutations occur spontaneously within a large population of interbreeding organisms. They will have to be brought together eventually in a single organism, if they are to generate the structure of a new level of complexity, favourable for natural selection.
According to our definition, each of the genes we are considering is due to a mutation which will give rise to hitherto unknown structure of additional complexity once it meets the other four genes in the fertilized egg cell. It would be indeed be surprising of any [one alone] of these mutations could, at the same time, modulate an existing structure in the manner that it would be selected favourably by natural selection. It is only when the five genes find themselves together that a selective advantage will emerge. They are more likely to be present independently, within the population, as so called neutral genes. ... In the absence of selective advantage, the probability of the five genes coming together simultaneously within a single organism is extremely small." [about i in 1x10e15].
"Improbability increases at an enormous rate as the number of genes Increases."
Evolutionist and cell biologist E.J. Ambrose, "The Nature and Origin of the Biological World", Ellis Horwood, 1982, pp 120-121, 123.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Tyrus88
Antibiotic resistance is also variation around a mean. In absence of the antibiotic selection pressure, the bacteria wil resume its normal type of nonmutated healthier population.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perfection writes: Can you show me a source
Yes.
Most anti-biotics are quite selective as to what bacteria they destroy. As biologists have discovered, these bacteria often have strands that are resistive to one antibiotic or another, or even several.
However, this resistance is not the result of some macro-evolutionary process. The resisting factor(s) in sub populations of bacteria targeted by the anti-biotic may have been acquired from genetic information received from other other bacteria via transduction, transmutation, or Conjugation (R-plasmids). It is also possible that a prior neutral (point) mutation may have altered the target site of an anti-biotic in such a way as to as make the anti-biotic ineffective (the mutation, initially neutral, thereby proves to be beneficial to the bacteria). Thus we observe micro-evolution which is most consistent with the creation model, but we observe not even a hint of macro-evolution in action.
Dr. Pierre Grasse writes ('Evolution of Living Organisms',
Academic Press, NY, 1977, p. 88):
"the mutations of bacteria and viruses are merely hereditary fluctuations around a median position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect. ... No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution."
Many other evolutionists (e.g. Ambrose above) agree with Grasse's assessment as they do not see how mutations are capable of giving rise to major divergences of structural-functional organization.
Perfection
The Great Head.
Only one letter has to be changed to change a structure, its like computer code one word can cause a program to crash or patch a memory leak. All these changes that occur subtiley alter the way a creature functions. Often when a mistranslation happens it affects more than one letter copying a gene or leaving one out. And evolution doesn't just suddenly happen it takes a vary long time for major changes to happen.
That is simply untrue! I have witnessed a mutation produce a different organism. In an expiriment I blasted plant seeds with mutagenic radiation when these plants grew they had tumors and deformities, the DNA change caused a change in the way the plant functions.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Tyrus88
The fossil record is the enemy of evolution. It shows that creature types appear abruptly in the fossil record and remain unchanged for their duration in the fossil record (Stasis).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perfection writes: but it shows evolution by the way that they they show a progression from one species to another.
No, it never did. That is a myth that has disolved over the past thirty years. Yes, It is what Darwin predicted, phylogenies - species by species of evolution over long periods of time that demonstrate major evolutionary transformations. The fossil record shows what the Creation model predicts, the sudden appearance of each type of creature, remaining basically unchanged for its total duration in the fossil record.
Millions of transitional series are needed to bridge all the gaps
between all the living species on earth today and their presumed
ancestry leading back to `bacteria' or `algae'. These transitional
series mysteriously do not exist in the fossil record . Science has spoken:
"There is no longer any need to apologize for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways it has become almost unmanageably rich. ..."
Evolutionist Neville George (`Fossils in Evolutionary Perspective',
Science Progress, Vol. 28, 1960).
"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least, I should hardly be accused of having started from a preconceived anti-Evolutionary standpoint. ... It may be firmly maintained that it is not even possible to make even a caricature of an Evolution out of paleo-biological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that it has been possible to construct new classes, and the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they never will be filled."
Botanist and evolutionist Dr. Heribert Nilsson (as quoted in Arthur C. Custance book: `The Earth Before Man', part 2, Doorway Publications, Ontario Canada, 1984).
Researcher Luther Sunderland, on behalf of the New
York State Board of Regents, Interviewed top paleontology experts from five of the world's greatest fossil museums. They were Dr. Raup of the Chicago Field Museum; Dr. Niles Eldredge of the New York City Museum of Natural History; Dr. David Pilbeam of, Curator of the Peabody Museum of Natural History at Yale; Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History in London, England; and Dr. Fisher of the New York State Museum of Natural History. The Result:
"No museum official offered any real fossil evidence that any one of the various invertebrates evolved into vertebrate fish" P. 63
"None of the museum officials could produce any fossil evidence of an intermediate ancestor connecting the amphibians with with fishes." p 64
"None of the five museum officials could offer a single example of a transitional series of fossilized organisms that would document the transformation of one basically different type to another." p. 88
Luther Sunderland, 'Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and other Problems', Master Books, 1988.
"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; Transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt." Stephen J. Gould, `Return oo the Hopeful Monster' Natural History, Vol. 86, 1977, p. 22)
"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persist as the trade secret of paleontology. 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." Stephen J. Gould, `Evolutions Erratic Pace' Natural History.
"The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition." Steven Stanley, `Macro-evolution: Pattern and Process' p. 39, W.M. Freeman and Company, 1979.
"As is now well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in the fossil record" Tom Kemp, Curator of the University Museum at Oxford University, `A Fresh Look at the Fossil Record', New Scientist, Vol 108, No: 1485, Dec. 5, 1985, p. 66)
"Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides us a means of `seeing' Evolution, It has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of `gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them." Evolutionary paleontologist David Kitts, Ph.D. Zoology, Head Curator of the Department of Geology of the Stoval Museum, `Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory', Evolution, Vol. 28, Sept. 1974, p 467.
Evolutionist Gordon Rattray Taylor, in his book "The Great Evolution Mystery" (1982) sarcastically quips `sure the fossil record is imperfect, but you'd think they'd find at least 1 or 2 phylogenies.'
As is often the case in evolution theory, hopeful confirmations along new lines of inquiry often end up to be bitter disappointments for the evolutionists.
" A. The Commitment in Theory: Darwinian theory asserts the physical descent with modification has been universal, which means that every modern species is the latest link in a phylogeny. There must therefore have been hundreds of thousands of phylogenies, and it was Darwin's expectation that these would be found. His followers, sharing his expectation, felt a duty to seek and find the phylogenies. ...
B. Another Miserable Failure: The expectations were in vain. In the 125 years since the Origin was published, nothing has been accomplished. No phylogenies have been established and the pursuit of them has fallen into dispute."
Evolutionists E. Saiff and Norman Macbeth. Evolution, 1985.
Francis Hitchings in his book, 'The Neck of the Giraffe' (1982) points out:
"The curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps; they are missing in all the important places."
" Because of all these problems, it is rare to find paleontologists offering ancestral species, or doing so with any conviction. Instead, they usually propose "ancestral groups", as approximations to the truth, with the claim the true ancestor, if found, would fall within the group. Yet these flawed artifacts play a central role in phylogenies- accounts of the evolutionary descendant of lineages. This raises yet another problem, for groups can not evolve- species are the largest units capable of change."
Colin Patterson. 'Cladistics and Classification', 94 New Scientist,
1982.
"Any reasonable graded series of forms can be thought to have a legitimacy. In fact, there is circularity in the approach that first assumes some sort of evolutionary relatedness and then assembles a pattern of relations from which to argue that relatedness must be true. This interplay of data and interpretation is the achilles heel of the second meaning of evolution." Evolutionist L. Thomson, Marginalia: The Meanings of Evolution, 70 Am. Scientists, 1982.
"In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationalist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the
theory of evolution as opposed to special creation..." Mark Ridley,
"Who Doubts Evolution", New Scientist, Vol. 90, No: 1259, June 25, 1981.
Dr. Edmund J. Ambrose, Emeritus Professor of Cell Biology at the
University of London, writes:
"At the present stage of geological research, we have to admit that there is nothing in the geological record that runs contrary to the view of conservative creationists, that God created each species separately, presumably from the dust of the earth."
Lipson, an agnostic physicist, goes on to show that the scientific
discoveries not only failed to support macro-evolution, but that, at
the same time, the evidence also supports creation theory:
"I have always been slightly suspicious of the theory of evolution because of it's ability to account for any property of living beings (the long neck of the giraffe, for example). I have therefore
tried to see whether biological discoveries over the last thirty years or so fit in with Darwins theory. I do not think they do. ...To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all."
"Evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit in with it."
"I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."
(Physics Bulletin, "A Physicist Looks at evolution," Lipson, 1980, Vol. 31,p. 138.)
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Tyrus88
Micro-evolution, also known as adaption, is fully compatible and predicted by Creation theory. Macro-evolution (i.e. common acestry of all creatures) is not at all supported by science.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
since microevolution is going on by branching out now shouldn't have contiued earlier by brancing out as well showing the splits in species (Like Man's and Chimp's common ancester dividing into to species)
There is no known ancestor of man and chimp, this is a mere assumption based upon belief that Evolution is true. It has no scientific sanction.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Tyrus88
The fossil record is the enemy of evolution. It shows that creature types appear abruptly in the fossil record and remain unchanged for their duration in the fossil record (Stasis).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perfection writes: but it shows evolution by the way that they they show a progression from one species to another.
No, it never did. That is a myth that has disolved over the past thirty years. Yes, It is what Darwin predicted, phylogenies - species by species of evolution over long periods of time that demonstrate major evolutionary transformations. The fossil record shows what the Creation model predicts, the sudden appearance of each type of creature, remaining basically unchanged for its total duration in the fossil record.
Millions of transitional series are needed to bridge all the gaps
between all the living species on earth today and their presumed
ancestry leading back to `bacteria' or `algae'. These transitional
series mysteriously do not exist in the fossil record . Science has spoken:
"There is no longer any need to apologize for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways it has become almost unmanageably rich. ..."
Evolutionist Neville George (`Fossils in Evolutionary Perspective',
Science Progress, Vol. 28, 1960).
"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least, I should hardly be accused of having started from a preconceived anti-Evolutionary standpoint. ... It may be firmly maintained that it is not even possible to make even a caricature of an Evolution out of paleo-biological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that it has been possible to construct new classes, and the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they never will be filled."
Botanist and evolutionist Dr. Heribert Nilsson (as quoted in Arthur C. Custance book: `The Earth Before Man', part 2, Doorway Publications, Ontario Canada, 1984).
Researcher Luther Sunderland, on behalf of the New
York State Board of Regents, Interviewed top paleontology experts from five of the world's greatest fossil museums. They were Dr. Raup of the Chicago Field Museum; Dr. Niles Eldredge of the New York City Museum of Natural History; Dr. David Pilbeam of, Curator of the Peabody Museum of Natural History at Yale; Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History in London, England; and Dr. Fisher of the New York State Museum of Natural History. The Result:
"No museum official offered any real fossil evidence that any one of the various invertebrates evolved into vertebrate fish" P. 63
"None of the museum officials could produce any fossil evidence of an intermediate ancestor connecting the amphibians with with fishes." p 64
"None of the five museum officials could offer a single example of a transitional series of fossilized organisms that would document the transformation of one basically different type to another." p. 88
Luther Sunderland, 'Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and other Problems', Master Books, 1988.
"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; Transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt." Stephen J. Gould, `Return oo the Hopeful Monster' Natural History, Vol. 86, 1977, p. 22)
"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persist as the trade secret of paleontology. 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." Stephen J. Gould, `Evolutions Erratic Pace' Natural History.
"The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition." Steven Stanley, `Macro-evolution: Pattern and Process' p. 39, W.M. Freeman and Company, 1979.
"As is now well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in the fossil record" Tom Kemp, Curator of the University Museum at Oxford University, `A Fresh Look at the Fossil Record', New Scientist, Vol 108, No: 1485, Dec. 5, 1985, p. 66)
"Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides us a means of `seeing' Evolution, It has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of `gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them." Evolutionary paleontologist David Kitts, Ph.D. Zoology, Head Curator of the Department of Geology of the Stoval Museum, `Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory', Evolution, Vol. 28, Sept. 1974, p 467.
Evolutionist Gordon Rattray Taylor, in his book "The Great Evolution Mystery" (1982) sarcastically quips `sure the fossil record is imperfect, but you'd think they'd find at least 1 or 2 phylogenies.'
As is often the case in evolution theory, hopeful confirmations along new lines of inquiry often end up to be bitter disappointments for the evolutionists.
" A. The Commitment in Theory: Darwinian theory asserts the physical descent with modification has been universal, which means that every modern species is the latest link in a phylogeny. There must therefore have been hundreds of thousands of phylogenies, and it was Darwin's expectation that these would be found. His followers, sharing his expectation, felt a duty to seek and find the phylogenies. ...
B. Another Miserable Failure: The expectations were in vain. In the 125 years since the Origin was published, nothing has been accomplished. No phylogenies have been established and the pursuit of them has fallen into dispute."
Evolutionists E. Saiff and Norman Macbeth. Evolution, 1985.
Francis Hitchings in his book, 'The Neck of the Giraffe' (1982) points out:
"The curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps; they are missing in all the important places."
" Because of all these problems, it is rare to find paleontologists offering ancestral species, or doing so with any conviction. Instead, they usually propose "ancestral groups", as approximations to the truth, with the claim the true ancestor, if found, would fall within the group. Yet these flawed artifacts play a central role in phylogenies- accounts of the evolutionary descendant of lineages. This raises yet another problem, for groups can not evolve- species are the largest units capable of change."
Colin Patterson. 'Cladistics and Classification', 94 New Scientist,
1982.
"Any reasonable graded series of forms can be thought to have a legitimacy. In fact, there is circularity in the approach that first assumes some sort of evolutionary relatedness and then assembles a pattern of relations from which to argue that relatedness must be true. This interplay of data and interpretation is the achilles heel of the second meaning of evolution." Evolutionist L. Thomson, Marginalia: The Meanings of Evolution, 70 Am. Scientists, 1982.
"In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationalist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the
theory of evolution as opposed to special creation..." Mark Ridley,
"Who Doubts Evolution", New Scientist, Vol. 90, No: 1259, June 25, 1981.
Dr. Edmund J. Ambrose, Emeritus Professor of Cell Biology at the
University of London, writes:
"At the present stage of geological research, we have to admit that there is nothing in the geological record that runs contrary to the view of conservative creationists, that God created each species separately, presumably from the dust of the earth."
Lipson, an agnostic physicist, goes on to show that the scientific
discoveries not only failed to support macro-evolution, but that, at
the same time, the evidence also supports creation theory:
"I have always been slightly suspicious of the theory of evolution because of it's ability to account for any property of living beings (the long neck of the giraffe, for example). I have therefore
tried to see whether biological discoveries over the last thirty years or so fit in with Darwins theory. I do not think they do. ...To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all."
"Evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit in with it."
"I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."
(Physics Bulletin, "A Physicist Looks at evolution," Lipson, 1980, Vol. 31,p. 138.)
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Tyrus88
Micro-evolution, also known as adaption, is fully compatible and predicted by Creation theory. Macro-evolution (i.e. common acestry of all creatures) is not at all supported by science.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
since microevolution is going on by branching out now shouldn't have contiued earlier by brancing out as well showing the splits in species (Like Man's and Chimp's common ancester dividing into to species)
There is no known ancestor of man and chimp, this is a mere assumption based upon belief that Evolution is true. It has no scientific sanction.
I wont dig in hardcore biology here. I wanted to say that I wont because it would not be useful to my point (what would be actually true), but the reason I wont is because I really do not understand it well enough.
Anyway, Ive seen arguing here in the lines that the notion of macro-evolution new species spawning from others is not a natural consequence of the undeniable micro-evolution (this one can be easily demonstrated, like in the antibiotics/bacteria example, and thus is harder to deny with sophism).
For the most part, if I understood correctly, creationism back this claim by saying that, despite pressing conditions in the elements still exist until today, we do not see new species being spawned by the natural selection. All the changes we witness are minimal and deep within the animals previous genetic material.
So, if new species spawn, why are they not spawning?
Well, first of all because its a very slow process, that takes so long periods of time that no one can witness (despite perhaps, if humanity lives long enough, the visual records that we are now able to create may come to prove it definitely some day). But that was said already, and I wouldnt reply to this just to be redundant.
What I wanted to do is show that this argument can be easily turned around. If God creates all creatures as they are, than why oh why are no new creatures being created?
Certainly, unless you are a literal young-earth creationist, you have to agree with the notion that the creatures that existed in this earth changed quite dramatically during the history. From Dinosaurs to Humanity, the fauna has had a number of eras, and they are significantly different.
Admitting this is admitting that God didnt crated all the creatures at once, but that in fact did it periodically.
Deepening this, as we look at what the scientists considers to be human ancestors, we can see that new species were created not only periodically, but, in terms of planet life, quite constantly (you can either admit that they were human ancestors or just species of monkey, but there is no denying that they were different species between each other), and up until very recent time.
So, the point is: why did it stop? Why Gods constant work have halted since humanity became able to record events? Why cant I look at my window and see a new species of flying purple platypus living in the vicinities of my house?
Evolution can answer this satisfactorily. We do witness its work in progress (accumulation of modifications in the genetic material of species), but its too slow and subtle to be visually noticed. Lets remember that even when the modifications cumulate enough to became a new species, it does not mean that we will see an alligator becoming an elephant; its more like the difference between a camels and dromedaries, or horses and donkeys.
But to answer this in creationism, you have to rely on the good old all-purpose God works in mysterious ways sophism.
So, as you see, the reason being presented to dismiss evolution should dismiss creation as well, for the sake of coherence. But I guess that admitting the possibility of bible being wrong is just too painful to quite a lot of people, and it have to be made right by all costs.
Ill never understand humanity.
Regards
.
Anyway, Ive seen arguing here in the lines that the notion of macro-evolution new species spawning from others is not a natural consequence of the undeniable micro-evolution (this one can be easily demonstrated, like in the antibiotics/bacteria example, and thus is harder to deny with sophism).
For the most part, if I understood correctly, creationism back this claim by saying that, despite pressing conditions in the elements still exist until today, we do not see new species being spawned by the natural selection. All the changes we witness are minimal and deep within the animals previous genetic material.
So, if new species spawn, why are they not spawning?
Well, first of all because its a very slow process, that takes so long periods of time that no one can witness (despite perhaps, if humanity lives long enough, the visual records that we are now able to create may come to prove it definitely some day). But that was said already, and I wouldnt reply to this just to be redundant.
What I wanted to do is show that this argument can be easily turned around. If God creates all creatures as they are, than why oh why are no new creatures being created?
Certainly, unless you are a literal young-earth creationist, you have to agree with the notion that the creatures that existed in this earth changed quite dramatically during the history. From Dinosaurs to Humanity, the fauna has had a number of eras, and they are significantly different.
Admitting this is admitting that God didnt crated all the creatures at once, but that in fact did it periodically.
Deepening this, as we look at what the scientists considers to be human ancestors, we can see that new species were created not only periodically, but, in terms of planet life, quite constantly (you can either admit that they were human ancestors or just species of monkey, but there is no denying that they were different species between each other), and up until very recent time.
So, the point is: why did it stop? Why Gods constant work have halted since humanity became able to record events? Why cant I look at my window and see a new species of flying purple platypus living in the vicinities of my house?
Evolution can answer this satisfactorily. We do witness its work in progress (accumulation of modifications in the genetic material of species), but its too slow and subtle to be visually noticed. Lets remember that even when the modifications cumulate enough to became a new species, it does not mean that we will see an alligator becoming an elephant; its more like the difference between a camels and dromedaries, or horses and donkeys.
But to answer this in creationism, you have to rely on the good old all-purpose God works in mysterious ways sophism.
So, as you see, the reason being presented to dismiss evolution should dismiss creation as well, for the sake of coherence. But I guess that admitting the possibility of bible being wrong is just too painful to quite a lot of people, and it have to be made right by all costs.
Ill never understand humanity.
Regards
.
Perfection
The Great Head.
You can see the spwning of different species all the time you hust have to know where to look
Maybe. I said I'm not very good at biology. But tell me where to look than, ands describe under which conditions it is happening.
Besides, keep in mind that my whole argument was aiming to show that tjis claim, held by the creationists, to deny evolution, is not very good to claim creationism.
I didn't certify that their main pressupost is correct, I just refuted it for what it is.
Regards.
Besides, keep in mind that my whole argument was aiming to show that tjis claim, held by the creationists, to deny evolution, is not very good to claim creationism.
I didn't certify that their main pressupost is correct, I just refuted it for what it is.
Regards
.
FearlessLeader2
Fundamentalist Loon
[quote -Ado]No, no, no. You are making the classic mistake of assuming natural selection ... oops, I mean NatSel, is working towards a desirable outcome. It's not. We didn't evolve to what we are because the current human form is the best one, at each step along the way, from single cell organisms to now the individuals with the best chance of survival and therefore the best chance to reproduce did so, passing on whatever genetic makeup they had. The choosing is not conscious, it's simply a matter of the best suited to survival/reproduction doing better than those not as well suited.[/quote]
Survival IS a desirable outcome. Consider:
If mutations manage to miraculously provide a creature with an advantage, and don't simultaneously kill it or make it sterile, the mutation will slowly spread through the local population. That's the mutation half. (Let's not worry about the fact that no one has ever seen it happen in any species in recorded history, let's just keep on trucking.)
Okay, we now have a population of creatures, some of which have the mutation, some of which do not. A natural disaster, disease, new predator, or what-have-you, convienently shows up, and begins destroying the population. That's the selection presure. Miraculously, that mutation that some of the population has just happens to be the one and only thing that will save them from this Natural Selection.
A miracle squared. You won't accept the Flood miracle, and I'm supposed to accept a miracle squared? Interesting double standard you have there.
Survival IS a desirable outcome. Consider:
If mutations manage to miraculously provide a creature with an advantage, and don't simultaneously kill it or make it sterile, the mutation will slowly spread through the local population. That's the mutation half. (Let's not worry about the fact that no one has ever seen it happen in any species in recorded history, let's just keep on trucking.)
Okay, we now have a population of creatures, some of which have the mutation, some of which do not. A natural disaster, disease, new predator, or what-have-you, convienently shows up, and begins destroying the population. That's the selection presure. Miraculously, that mutation that some of the population has just happens to be the one and only thing that will save them from this Natural Selection.
A miracle squared. You won't accept the Flood miracle, and I'm supposed to accept a miracle squared? Interesting double standard you have there.
CrazyScientist
Those crazy scientists...
I think you folks may be slightly misunderstanding the difference between micro and macro-evolution. Especially when I see a creationist using quotes by Gould and Ridley (emphatically NOT creationists of any stripe) intended to support macroevolution as the dominant force driving changes in form and body pattern over microevolution, and make it seem as if they're arguing for creationism.
Classic creationist tactic. Scientists have slightly divergent opinions about the specific way in which evolution operates, ergo, even they don't think evolution is true. See a gap in that logic?
All Gould was trying to argue is that evolution may sometimes cause major changes in form relatively rapidly, through mutations in basic patterning genes (like the Hox genes), rather than always operating at a very gradual pace with the accumulation of minor mutations. The former is macroevolution, the latter microevolution. Both are known to occur, the argument is only about which is predominantly responisble for changes in form.
Note however, the shift in the creationist argument. Before, they called it impossible that natural selection could cause any morphological changes, and certainly not speciation. When that argument finally lost the last vestiges of a leg to stand on, they shifted tactics. Now they claim that the existing variation within species upon which natural selection operates could not possibly have arisen naturally. Also wrong, but hey, the bible said it was God, so it must be true.
And as regards the argument that the theory of evolution contributes nothing valid, so that money could be better spent elsewhere, keep two things in mind. One, evolution doesn't take up a whole heck of a lot of funding. It's certainly the smallest section of the biology department both at my current school, and at my alma mater. Unless of course you take into account that all biology is related to evolution, which brings me to point two. All genetic breakthroughs, and advances in the biological sciences this century can be attributed at least in part to attacking problems from an evolutionary perspective. You couldn't hope to envision a cure for a disease like AIDS, without an understanding of how the organism evolves. Our understanding of cancer, or any other diseases with hereditary components also hinges on evolutionary thinking. That is all.
Classic creationist tactic. Scientists have slightly divergent opinions about the specific way in which evolution operates, ergo, even they don't think evolution is true. See a gap in that logic?
All Gould was trying to argue is that evolution may sometimes cause major changes in form relatively rapidly, through mutations in basic patterning genes (like the Hox genes), rather than always operating at a very gradual pace with the accumulation of minor mutations. The former is macroevolution, the latter microevolution. Both are known to occur, the argument is only about which is predominantly responisble for changes in form.
Note however, the shift in the creationist argument. Before, they called it impossible that natural selection could cause any morphological changes, and certainly not speciation. When that argument finally lost the last vestiges of a leg to stand on, they shifted tactics. Now they claim that the existing variation within species upon which natural selection operates could not possibly have arisen naturally. Also wrong, but hey, the bible said it was God, so it must be true.
And as regards the argument that the theory of evolution contributes nothing valid, so that money could be better spent elsewhere, keep two things in mind. One, evolution doesn't take up a whole heck of a lot of funding. It's certainly the smallest section of the biology department both at my current school, and at my alma mater. Unless of course you take into account that all biology is related to evolution, which brings me to point two. All genetic breakthroughs, and advances in the biological sciences this century can be attributed at least in part to attacking problems from an evolutionary perspective. You couldn't hope to envision a cure for a disease like AIDS, without an understanding of how the organism evolves. Our understanding of cancer, or any other diseases with hereditary components also hinges on evolutionary thinking. That is all.
CrazyScientist
Those crazy scientists...
Come now, you're misunderstanding this on purpose right? Mutations don't arise in response to environmental pressures. Traits are selected for in response to environmental pressures. The mutations could have been present in the genome for millenia before any environmental change occured. The change just gives them a chance to shine.
There is lots allelic variation within a given population, most of it just doesn't seem to matter until an event happens to occur where all of a sudden it does.
Take eye color for a crazy example. An allelic variation cause by a a mutation in a pigmentation gene. No selection against it because it doesn't make any difference to survival or reproduction what color a persons eyes are. Now pretend some form of cosmic radiation caused by whatever starts blinding blue-eyed people because they don't have that pigment. The frequency of that allele will change, because all of a sudden brown eyes would provide a selective advantage. Nothing deliberate about it. See?
FearlessLeader2
Fundamentalist Loon
Fred LC-
As to why no new species are being created...
"And He saw that it was good. On the 7th day, He rested."
Remember those days of creation? You know, on the first day God created the universe, on the second, the earth and sun, on the third the oceans and dry land, etc...? Remember how the Bible mentions that ocean life came first, then plants on land, and then animals, just like the fossil record says? God told Moses that He didn't do it all at once, so why would you even bring this up?
As to why no new species are being created...
"And He saw that it was good. On the 7th day, He rested."
- Status
