PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Fossil record supports evoluti

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

We're getting too diffuse in our discussions, let's stick to one subject at a time.  Here, I'll try to show why the fossil record supports only the theory of evolution and falsifies creationism.
When the fossil record is viewed chronologically, from the oldest fossils to the youngest, it is obvious that they show successive change.  We see groups of organisms arise, flourish and go extinct, with new but related groups taking their place.
Using only relative dating techniques, geologists and biologists noticed this over 150 years ago.  Today with much more sophisticated and accurate dating methods, this observation has been continually confirmed.  Now, according to creationism the bulk of the fossil record was laid down by Noah's worldwide flood.  If this were true we would expect to see a mix of fossils, with fossils of similar sized creatures at approximately the same levels.  Protoceratops and rhinos, pterosaurs and eagles, trilobites and fiddler crabs.  But this is exactly what we DON'T see.  Groups that the evidence says went extinct are never found with modern organisms of roughly the same size.  In fact, groups that went extinct are never found with any modern organisms.  No dinosaur fossil has ever been found with a modern mammal fossil, no thecodonts found with ostritches.  No out of place fossils ever found.  This is a major line of supporting evidence for evolution and a major line of falsification for creationism.
Secondly, the thousands of transitional fossils found in the fossil record support evolution and falsify creationism.  According to classic creationism, life doesn't evolve.  So even one transitional would be enough to falsify creationism.  What we have found are lirterally thousands of transitional fossils.  We have found series of transitionals that can only be explained by evolution.  Yes, there are many gaps in the fossil record but that's because most organisms don't fossilize when they die and we haven't found every fossil.  But what we have found supports only evolution.  I think the therapsid series of fossils is an excellent illustration of transitionals changing into a completely different type of organism.
As I said above, the existance of transitional fossils completely falsifies creationism.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 04:47 AM on May 29, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 04:47 AM on May 29, 2005 :
We're getting too diffuse in our discussions, let's stick to one subject at a time.  Here, I'll try to show why the fossil record supports only the theory of evolution and falsifies creationism.
When the fossil record is viewed chronologically, from the oldest fossils to the youngest, it is obvious that they show successive change.  We see groups of organisms arise, flourish and go extinct, with new but related groups taking their place.
Using only relative dating techniques, geologists and biologists noticed this over 150 years ago.  Today with much more sophisticated and accurate dating methods, this observation has been continually confirmed.  Now, according to creationism the bulk of the fossil record was laid down by Noah's worldwide flood.  If this were true we would expect to see a mix of fossils, with fossils of similar sized creatures at approximately the same levels.  Protoceratops and rhinos, pterosaurs and eagles, trilobites and fiddler crabs.  But this is exactly what we DON'T see.  Groups that the evidence says went extinct are never found with modern organisms of roughly the same size.  In fact, groups that went extinct are never found with any modern organisms.  No dinosaur fossil has ever been found with a modern mammal fossil, no thecodonts found with ostritches.  No out of place fossils ever found.  This is a major line of supporting evidence for evolution and a major line of falsification for creationism.
Secondly, the thousands of transitional fossils found in the fossil record support evolution and falsify creationism.  According to classic creationism, life doesn't evolve.  So even one transitional would be enough to falsify creationism.  What we have found are lirterally thousands of transitional fossils.  We have found series of transitionals that can only be explained by evolution.  Yes, there are many gaps in the fossil record but that's because most organisms don't fossilize when they die and we haven't found every fossil.  But what we have found supports only evolution.  I think the therapsid series of fossils is an excellent illustration of transitionals changing into a completely different type of organism.
As I said above, the existance of transitional fossils completely falsifies creationism.


You an say anything. This is just one interpretation of the evidence. Just because you don't like the Creationist interpretation does not make it wrong.

Nothing has falsified creation. That is a political /religious statement. You cannot falsify a belief.



If evolution was true there were be infinatly more transistionals than complete forms. There are not. Name one transistional and I will find numerous evolutionist that will argue about it.

"As by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? The number of intermediate links between all living and extinct species must have been inconceivably great!" (Charles Darwin)

Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History, in an interview on BBC television, said...
I mean the stories, the narratives about change over time. How the dinosaurs became extinct, how the mammals evolved, where man came from. These seem to me to be little more than story-telling. And this is the result about cladistics because as it turns out, as it seems to me, all one can learn about the history of life is learned from systematics, from groupings one finds in nature. The rest of it is story-telling of one sort or another. We have access to the tips of a tree, the tree itself is a theory and people who pretend to know about the tree and to describe what went on with it, how the branches came off and the twigs came off are, I think, telling stories

Is Dr. Colin Patterson a liar an and idiot? He has the world's largest fossil collection and says you are wrong!
r. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History, in an interview on BBC television, said...
I mean the stories, the narratives about change over time. How the dinosaurs became extinct, how the mammals evolved, where man came from. These seem to me to be little more than story-telling. And this is the result about cladistics because as it turns out, as it seems to me, all one can learn about the history of life is learned from systematics, from groupings one finds in nature. The rest of it is story-telling of one sort or another. We have access to the tips of a tree, the tree itself is a theory and people who pretend to know about the tree and to describe what went on with it, how the branches came off and the twigs came off are, I think, telling stories








-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 8:23 PM on May 29, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Sorry, I posted this in the wrong thread, I've moved it to 'Basic mistake about evolution' where it belongs...

(Edited by Demon38 5/29/2005 at 9:37 PM).
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:09 PM on May 29, 2005 | IP
Lord Iorek

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Damn! that's a kick in the rear if I ever saw one.


-------
"At the age of six I wanted to be a cook. At seven I wanted to be Napoleon. And my ambition has been growing steadily ever since." - Salvador Dali

Guide the future by the past, long ago the mould was cast. - Rush
 


Posts: 121 | Posted: 9:13 PM on May 29, 2005 | IP
Box of Fox

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wow, Demon, wow. I so envy you-- your passion, your observance to scientific metholody, but mostly just your free time :-)..
 


Posts: 85 | Posted: 9:31 PM on May 29, 2005 | IP
Peter87

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Peddler you ask for a transition fossil, go look in the mirror. Every fossil and evry creture are transistions, becuase evolution has not ended, it nether will.
Humans have tail bones, why would god give us tail bones but no tail? We are in a state of transistion to having tails and being completly tail-less.
There are also a string of transition fossils from ape to human, are you surgesting that god placed these on earth to test us? what kind of a sick fuck kind of thing to do would that be.


-------
Why should we bow to the will of anyone? Especialy a man who our country but another voted for?
 


Posts: 301 | Posted: 9:49 PM on May 29, 2005 | IP
Lord Iorek

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

damn right.

Oh yeah

The population evolution only ends when they become extinct. Just thought I'd say that because it is common sense.


-------
"At the age of six I wanted to be a cook. At seven I wanted to be Napoleon. And my ambition has been growing steadily ever since." - Salvador Dali

Guide the future by the past, long ago the mould was cast. - Rush
 


Posts: 121 | Posted: 10:00 PM on May 29, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Nothing has falsified creation. That is a political /religious statement. You cannot falsify a belief.

You even got this wrong, I never said creation was falsified, I said creatinISM was falsified.

If evolution was true there were be infinatly more transistionals than complete forms. There are not. Name one transistional and I will find numerous evolutionist that will argue about it.

It's still obvious you don't understand the theory of evolution.  Every fossil, indeed, every organism that has ever lived or will live is a transitional, there are no 'complete forms', I don't even know what that means.  But of the clearly transitional fossils, there is Archaeopteryx, Acanthostega, the therapsid line, the series showing hos\rse evolution, the series showing whale evolution...

"As by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? The number of intermediate links between all living and extinct species must have been inconceivably great!" (Charles Darwin)"

So what, that statement was made 150 years ago, since then thousands of clearly transitional fossils have been discovered and more are discovered every day.

Is Dr. Colin Patterson a liar an and idiot? He has the world's largest fossil collection and says you are wrong!

no he doesn't this is just another example of lieing creationists misquoting and qoute mining a real scientist and twisting what they say to make it appear like they are saying something else.

here's what Patterson REALLY thinks about the fossil record:
""In several animal and plant groups, enough fossils are known to bridge the wide gaps between existing types. In mammals, for example, the gap between horses, asses and zebras (genus Equus) and their closest living relatives, the rhinoceroses and tapirs, is filled by an extensive series of fossils extending back sixty-million years to a small animal, Hyracotherium, which can only be distinguished from the rhinoceros-tapir group by one or two horse-like details of the skull. There are many other examples of fossil 'missing links', such as Archaeopteryx, the Jurassic bird which links birds with dinosaurs (Fig. 45), and Ichthyostega, the late Devonian amphibian which links land vertebrates and the extinct choanate (having internal nostrils) fishes. . ." "

Sorry peddler, you're wrong again!

I mean the stories, the narratives about change over time. How the dinosaurs became extinct, how the mammals evolved, where man came from. These seem to me to be little more than story-telling.

That's because you do no research, you don't understand science, biology or evolution and you dogmatically believe in ancient myths over modern scientific facts.

And I see you didn't even touch on why the fossil record falsifies creationism, guess it was too much for you....
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:01 PM on May 29, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 10:01 PM on May 29, 2005 :
Nothing has falsified creation. That is a political /religious statement. You cannot falsify a belief.

You even got this wrong, I never said creation was falsified, I said creatinISM was falsified.
You are saying special creation is falsified. If not you are saying evolution is a scenario , not a fact. Can't have both.


It's still obvious you don't understand the theory of evolution.  Every fossil, indeed, every organism that has ever lived or will live is a transitional, there are no 'complete forms', I don't even know what that means.  But of the clearly transitional fossils, there is Archaeopteryx, Acanthostega, the therapsid line, the series showing hos\rse evolution, the series showing whale evolution...
No serious scientist use the tired horse scenario any more.
What series showing whale evolution?
Archaeopteryx was a bird. We already talked about Acanthostega .

"The theory of the transmutation of species is a scientific mistake, untrue in its facts, unscientific in its method, and mischievous in its tendency." (Prof. J Agassiz, of Harvard in Methods of Study in Natural

History)

"We have to admit that there is nothing in the geological records that runs contrary to the views of conservative creationists." (Evolutionist

Edmund Ambrose)
"As by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? The number of intermediate links between all living and extinct species must have been inconceivably great!" (Charles Darwin)"

So what, that statement was made 150 years ago, since then thousands of clearly transitional fossils have been discovered and more are discovered every day.
There is not one that is not contested by evolutionist themselves. It is just a say so. If all animals are in transistion how do you explain that statis is the norm. It is what we observe. Animals basically unchanged since the beginning of time.

Is Dr. Colin Patterson a liar an and idiot? He has the world's largest fossil collection and says you are wrong!

no he doesn't this is just another example of lieing creationists misquoting and qoute mining a real scientist and twisting what they say to make it appear like they are saying something else.

here's what Patterson REALLY thinks about the fossil record:
""In several animal and plant groups, enough fossils are known to bridge the wide gaps between existing types. In mammals, for example, the gap between horses, asses and zebras (genus Equus) and their closest living relatives, the rhinoceroses and tapirs, is filled by an extensive series of fossils extending back sixty-million years to a small animal, Hyracotherium, which can only be distinguished from the rhinoceros-tapir group by one or two horse-like details of the skull. There are many other examples of fossil 'missing links', such as Archaeopteryx, the Jurassic bird which links birds with dinosaurs (Fig. 45), and Ichthyostega, the late Devonian amphibian which links land vertebrates and the extinct choanate (having internal nostrils) fishes. . ." "

Sorry peddler, you're wrong again!

He made his statements to save his carrer but he did say those things. To call me a liar shows your character.
This he said on the BBC!

Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History, in an interview on BBC television, said...
I mean the stories, the narratives about change over time. How the dinosaurs became extinct, how the mammals evolved, where man came from.
These seem to me to be little more than story-telling. And this is the result about cladistics because as it turns out, as it seems to me, all
one can learn about the history of life is learned from systematics, from groupings one finds in nature. The rest of it is story-telling of one sort or another. We have access to the tips of a tree, the tree itself is a theory and people who pretend to know about the tree and to
describe what went on with it, how the branches came off and the twigs came off are, I think, telling stories
That is a matter of public record not a creatonist lie. Those are his words . There is no taking them back ! It is the truth!



That's because you do no research, you don't understand science, biology or evolution and you dogmatically believe in ancient myths over modern scientific facts.
What scientific facts?
Long ago and far far away is not science!

"Eighty to eighty-five percent of earth's land surface does not have even 3 geological periods appearing in 'correct' consecutive order ...
it becomes an overall exercise of gargantuan special pleading and imagination for the evolutionary-uniformitarian paradigm to maintain
that there ever were geologic periods." (John Woodmorappe, geologist)

"The entire hominid collection known today would barely cover a billiard table, but it has spawned a science because it is distinguished by two
factors which inflate its apparent relevance far beyond its merits.
First, the fossils hint at the ancestry of a supremely self- important animal - ourselves. Secondly, the collection is so tantalizingly
incomplete, and the specimens themselves often so fragmented and inconclusive, that more can be said about what is missing than about what is present. Hence the amazing quantity of literature on the subject ever since Darwin's work inspired the notion that fossils linking modern man and extinct ancestor would provide the most convincing proof of human evolution, preconceptions have led evidence by the nose in the study of fossil man."
(John Reader, Whatever Happened to Zinjanthropus? New Scientist Vol. 89,

No.12446 (March 26,1981) pp 802-805))

"The only competing explanation for the order we all see in the biological world is the notion of Special Creation." (Niles Eldridge,

PhD., paleontologist and evolutionist, American Museum of Natural

History).


And I see you didn't even touch on why the fossil record falsifies creationism, guess it was too much for you....

Touch on it? Are you crazy?
Animals appearing with no fossil ancestors is evidence for creation. Saying extinction proves evolution is absurd!


"In most people's minds, fossils and Evolution go hand in hand. In reality, fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation. If Evolution were true, we should find literally millions of fossils that show how one kind of life slowly and gradually changed to another kind of life. But missing links are the trade secret, in a sense, of paleontology. The point is, the links are still missing. What we really find are gaps that sharpen up the boundaries between kinds. It's those gaps which provide us with the evidence of Creation of separate kinds. As a matter of fact, there are gaps between each of the major kinds of plants and animals.

Transition forms are missing by the millions. What we do find are separate and complex kinds, pointing to Creation." (Dr Gary ParkeBiologist/paleontologist and former ardent Evolutionist.)


"The curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps; the fossils are missing in all the important places." (Francis Hitching,
archaeologist).

"The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately. Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning if it insists on using the only temporal concepts, because circularity is inherent in the derivation of time scales." (J.E. O'Rourke, "Pragmatism versus Materialism in Stratigraphy," American Journal of Science, vol. 276 - January 1976 - p. 53)

"It is easy enough to make up stories, of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favored by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test." (Luther D Sutherland, Darwin's Enigma, Master Books 1988, p89)






-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 12:37 AM on May 30, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You are saying special creation is falsified.

Yes, I'm sying special creation has been falsified, it is a part of creationism, isn't it?

No serious scientist use the tired horse scenario any more.

Why not, it's still valid and perfectly illustrates evolution.  Here's a site that shows some of the fossils for horse evolution:
Horse

And from here:
HorseEvo
"One of the best studied cases in the fossil record concerns the evolution of horses. Modern-day members of the Equidae include horses, zebras, donkeys and asses, all of which are large, long-legged, fast-running animals adapted to living on open grasslands. These species, all classified in the genus Equus, are the last living descendants of a long lineage that has produced 34 genera since its origin in the Eocene Period, approximately 55 million years ago. Examination of these fossils has provided a particularly well-documented case of how evolution has proceeded by adaptation to changing environments."

No, the fossil record showing horse evolution is still an outstanding example of evolution, one that you can't refute.  Please show use the empirical evidence that makes you say
"No serious scientist use the tired horse scenario any more", because this is a lie.  Every bilogist knows it's valid, no biologist doubts it.

What series showing whale evolution?

The whale series described here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/

Archaeopteryx was a bird.

No it wasn't it is a transitional fossil and in no way completely a bird.  Let's look a twhat
Dr. Feduccia, another scientist you're found of misquoting, has to say about it, from here:
Archy
"...The creature thus memorialized was Archaeopteryx lithographica, and, though indisputably birdlike, it could with equal truth be called reptilian.... The Archaeopteryx fossil is, in fact, the most superb example of a specimen perfectly intermediate between two higher groups of living organisms--what has come to be called a "missing link," a Rosetta stone of evolution.... "
So while Feduccia doesn't think Archy is a transitional that supports dino to bird evolution, he certainly thinks it IS a transitional fossil.

We already talked about Acanthostega .

Maybe I missed something, you never talked about Acanthostega, you had some irrelevant BS about icthyostega that never falsified fish to amphibian evolution but you never mentioned acanthostega.  From here:
Acanthostega
"The large number of digits fits the hypothesis that early in limb evolution, digit number was not fixed. All of these characters suggest that not only was Acanthostega aquatic, but that it was primitively so, and not derived from a more terrestrial forebear. Its structure supports the idea that limbs with digits evolved for use in water, only later to be used on land, rather than the more conventional view that it was among sarcopterygian fishes that excursions over land first began (Clack 1997, Clack and Coates 1995, Coates and Clack 1995)."

And s[eaking of Icthyostega, from here:
Icthyostega
"Ichthyostega, a tetrapod from Devonian streams, was about 1.5 m long and probably amphibious. It had seven digits on its rear legs (its hands are unknown). Its limbs and spine were more robust than those of Acanthostega, and its rib cage was massive. It had fishlike spines on its tail, but these were fewer and smaller than Acanthostega's. Its skull had several primitive fishlike features, but it probably did not have internal gills (Murphy 2002). "
So since it had fish AND tetrapod characteristics, it is a transitional fossil.

I think your problem here is you don't understand what a transitional fossil is.

Prof. J Agassiz, of Harvard

Prof. Agassiz?!?!?  The one who died in 1873?  You've got to be kidding me!  How could a man 130 years out of date be relevant to a discussion of evolution???

How about this from the AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE:
" The contemporary theory of biological evolution is one of the most robust products of scientific inquiry. It is the foundation for research in many areas of biology as well as an essential element of science education. To become informed and responsible citizens in our contemporary technological world, students need to study the theories and empirical evidence central to current scientific understanding."
Virtually every major scientific organisation in the world accpets evolution.  And 130 year old out of date quotes doesn't change that one bit.

We have to admit that there is nothing in the geological records that runs contrary to the views of conservative creationists

you forgot to print the rest of that quote:

"My own view is that this does not strengthen the creationists' arguments."

And Ambrose went on to say in the same book:
"It is strikingly clear in the geological records, when life had reached the stage where organisms were capable of living in a previously unoccupied region of the planet, such as the move from estuaries to dry land, the appearance of plants growing to great heights which provided a location (habitat) for climbing animals, or when birds and insects actually moved up and flew in theair[sp] above the earth's surface. Large numbers of new species appeared at these times; this has been called radiation, a spreading out of life."

There is not one that is not contested by evolutionist themselves. It is just a say so. If all animals are in transistion how do you explain that statis is the norm.

None of the transitional fossils I named are contested by ANY evolutionists as being transitional.  Sure they debate what the actual linaeages of some lines are, but no one doubts Archaeopteryx is a transitional, no one doubts Acanthostega and Icthyostega are transitional, no one doubts the therapsids were transitional.  And you have provided no evidence that any biologists or paleontologists
agree with you!

He made his statements to save his carrer but he did say those things. To call me a liar shows your character.
This he said on the BBC!


No, you are a liar.  Pastterson's quote was taken out of context, he himself said so.  Look at this quote from his book Evolution:
""In several animal and plant groups, enough fossils are known to bridge the wide gaps between existing types. In mammals, for example, the gap between horses, asses and zebras (genus Equus) and their closest living relatives, the rhinoceroses and tapirs, is filled by an extensive series of fossils extending back sixty-million years to a small animal, Hyracotherium, which can only be distinguished from the rhinoceros-tapir group by one or two horse-like details of the skull. There are many other examples of fossil 'missing links', such as Archaeopteryx, the Jurassic bird which links birds with dinosaurs (Fig. 45), and Ichthyostega, the late Devonian amphibian which links land vertebrates and the extinct choanate (having internal nostrils) fishes. . ." "
Explain that...

Eighty to eighty-five percent of earth's land surface does not have even 3 geological periods appearing in 'correct' consecutive order ...
it becomes an overall exercise of gargantuan special pleading and imagination for the evolutionary-uniformitarian paradigm to maintain
that there ever were geologic periods." (John Woodmorappe, geologist)


Why use Woodmorappe as a source, he's been proven wrong many times and doesn't even have a Phd.  
As to the Geological record, here's a list of where the entire geological record is found, from here:
Geocolumn
The Ghadames Basin in Libya
The Beni Mellal Basin in Morrocco
The Tunisian Basin in Tunisia
The Oman Interior Basin in Oman
The Western Desert Basin in Egypt
The Adana Basin in Turkey
The Iskenderun Basin in Turkey
The Moesian Platform in Bulgaria
The Carpathian Basin in Poland
The Baltic Basin in the USSR
The Yeniseiy-Khatanga Basin in the USSR
The Farah Basin in Afghanistan
The Helmand Basin in Afghanistan
The Yazd-Kerman-Tabas Basin in Iran
The Manhai-Subei Basin in China
The Jiuxi Basin China
The Tung t'in - Yuan Shui Basin China
The Tarim Basin China
The Szechwan Basin China
The Yukon-Porcupine Province Alaska
The Williston Basin in North Dakota
The Tampico Embayment Mexico
The Bogata Basin Colombia
The Bonaparte Basin, Australia
The Beaufort Sea Basin/McKenzie River Delta

So Woodmorappe (and you) are wrong again.

"The entire hominid collection known today would barely cover a billiard table, but it has spawned a science because it is distinguished by two
factors which inflate its apparent relevance far beyond its merits.


This is another lie.  From here:
Hominid
"AL 333 Site, "The First Family", Australopithecus afarensis?
Discovered in 1975 by Donald Johanson's team at Hadar in Ethiopia (Johanson and Edey, 1981). Estimated age is 3.2 million years. This find consisted of remains of at least 13 hominid individuals"
The fossils found by ONE MAN, 30 years ago, the remains of 13 individuals, is much more than would fit on a billiard table.  You are completely wrong here!

Animals appearing with no fossil ancestors is evidence for creation. Saying extinction proves evolution is absurd!

And you have yet to show us an animal appearing with no fossil ancestor!  I see you're back to your only refutation, "that's absurd", with nothing but lies and bad information to back it up.

From the AMERICAN GEOPHYSICAL UNION:
" The American Geophysical Union affirms the central importance of scientific theories of Earth history and organic evolution in science education. An educated citizenry must understand these theories in order to comprehend the dynamic world in which we live and nature's complex balance that sustains us."

From the AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES:
" The theory of evolution is the only scientifically defensible explanation for the origin of life and development of species. A theory in science, such as the atomic theory in chemistry and the Newtonian and relativity theories in physics, is not a speculative hypothesis, but a coherent body of explanatory statements supported by evidence. The theory of evolution has this status. The body of knowledge that supports the theory of evolution is ever growing: fossils continue to be discovered that fill gaps in the evolutionary tree and recent DNA sequence data provide evidence that all living organisms are related to each other and to extinct species. These data, consistent with evolution, imply a common chemical and biological heritage for all living organisms and allow scientists to map branch points in the evolutionary tree.
Biologists may disagree about the details of the history and mechanisms of evolution. Such debate is a normal, healthy, and necessary part of scientific discourse and in no way negates the theory of evolution. As a community, biologists agree that evolution occurred and that the forces driving the evolutionary process are still active today. This consensus is based on more than a century of scientific data gathering and analysis.
Because creationism is based almost solely on religious dogma stemming from faith rather than demonstrable facts, it does not lend itself to the scientific process. As a result, creationism should not be taught in any science classroom."

From the  ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHEASTERN BIOLOGISTS:
" Evolution is the only currently acceptable scientific theory for the development of life on earth, and is supported by an enormous body of evidence from a wide variety of disciplines, including, but not limited to, biology, chemistry, geology, and physics. Across all of these scientific disciplines, the data are in congruence with regards to the theory of evolution, and there are no data that contradict the fundamental truth of evolution. Such consilience gives credence and support to the concept that all life is related and that it has evolved over time primarily through the process of natural selection. The Association believes that the study of evolution is crucial if students are to gain a proper understanding of life on earth."

I can play the quote game too!





 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 01:54 AM on May 31, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 01:54 AM on May 31, 2005 :
You are saying special creation is falsified.

Yes, I'm sying special creation has been falsified, it is a part of creationism, isn't it?
You keep talking about creationism and have no idea what that means. Any person who belives God created the heavens and the earth and all that in them is is a creationist. Someone could study the evidence on the assumtion everything was created whether they believe it was or not. Same holds true with evolution, one can study the evidence with that assumption whether they believe it or not. It is called being the devils advocate.
What you are saying the existence of a Creator God is falsified. Say what you mean, mean what you say.
What you are saying is that science has falsified my religion. Since that is impossible then you are saying science is a superior religion.
You argument is religious /political . Just say that science trumps Christianity, that is what you mean. For someone who calls me a liar all the time your personal honesty I find lacking.


Why not, it's still valid and perfectly illustrates evolution.  

this is a lie.  Every bilogist knows it's valid, no biologist doubts it.
Seems like a paleontoligist or zoologist would be the person to ask first.
If I give you evidence will you apopogize for calling me a liar? Of course not. You are an atheist and therefore your own god. Right and wrong are of your own making. You have no soul, you are nothing. A pile of chemicals .
The well-known paleontologist Colin Patterson, a director of the Natural History Museum in London, where "evolution of the horse" diagrams were on public display at that time on the ground floor of the museum, said the following about the exhibition:

There have been an awful lot of stories, some more imaginative than others, about what the nature of that history [of life] really is. The most famous example, still on exhibit downstairs, is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps fifty years ago. That has been presented as the literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that is lamentable, particularly when the people who propose those kinds of stories may themselves be aware of the speculative nature of some of that stuff.
Eohippus (Hyracotherium) was most likely not related to horses at all, but to modern conies (creatures like rabbits). Indeed, the first specimen was named Hyracotherium by its discoverer, Robert Owen, because of its resemblance to the genus Hyrax (cony). Later specimens, found in North America, were named Eohippus (‘dawn horse’), but there is no sound reason for linking it with horses. So the horse family tree has a false origin.

The horse series was constructed from fossils found in many different parts of the world, and nowhere does this succession occur in one location. The series is formulated on the assumption of evolutionary progression, and then used to ‘prove’ evolution!

The number of ribs varies within the series, up and down, between 15, 19, and 18. The number of lumbar vertebrae also changes from six to eight and then back to six.

There is no consensus on horse ancestry among palaeontologists, and more than a dozen different family trees have been proposed, indicating that the whole thing is only guesswork.



"It would not be fitting in discussing the implications of Evolution to leave the evolution of the horse out of the discussion. The evolution of the horse provides one of the keystones in the teaching of evolutionary doctrine, though the actual story depends to a large extent upon who is telling it and when the story is being told. In fact one could easily discuss the evolution of the story of the evolution of the horse." (Kerkut, Gerald A. [Emeritus Professor of Neuroscience, University of Southampton, UK], "Implications of Evolution," in Kerkut G.A., ed. "International Series of Monographs on Pure and Applied Biology, Division: Zoology," Volume 4, Pergamon Press: New York, 1960, pp.144-145).

"From 1860 onward the more distant fossil record became a big issue, and over the next two decades discoveries were made that at first seemed to give support to the theory particularly the claimed discovery of a well-ordered sequence of fossil horse' dating back about 45 million years. Successes like this continue to be emphasized both to students and the public, but usually without the greater failures being mentioned. Horses according to the theory should be connected to other orders of mammals, which common mammalian stock should be connected to reptiles, and so on backward through the record. Horses should thus be connected to monkeys and apes, to whales and dolphins, rabbits, bears. ... But such connections have not been found. Each mammalian order can be traced backward for about 60 million years and then, with only one exception the orders vanish without connections to anything at all. The exception is an order of small insect-eating mammal that has been traced backward more than 65 million years..." (Hoyle, Fred [late mathematician, physicist and Professor of Astronomy, Cambridge University], "Mathematics of Evolution," [1987], Acorn Enterprises: Memphis TN, 1999, p.107

The evolutionist science writer Gordon R. Taylor explains this little-acknowledged truth in his book The Great Evolution Mystery:

But perhaps the most serious weakness of Darwinism is the failure of paleontologists to find convincing phylogenies or sequences of organisms demonstrating major evolutionary change... The horse is often cited as the only fully worked-out example. But the fact is that the line from Eohippus to Equus is very erratic. It is alleged to show a continual increase in size, but the truth is that some variants were smaller than Eohippus, not larger. Specimens from different sources can be brought together in a convincing-looking sequence, but there is no evidence that they were actually ranged in this order in time

You must get your views from the people who gave us the "Piltdown" Bird.




The whale series described here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/

Archaeopteryx was a bird.

No it wasn't it is a transitional fossil and in no way completely a bird.  Let's look a twhat
Dr. Feduccia, another scientist you're found of misquoting, has to say about it, from here:
Archy
"...The creature thus memorialized was Archaeopteryx lithographica, and, though indisputably birdlike, it could with equal truth be called reptilian.... The Archaeopteryx fossil is, in fact, the most superb example of a specimen perfectly intermediate between two higher groups of living organisms--what has come to be called a "missing link," a Rosetta stone of evolution.... "
So while Feduccia doesn't think Archy is a transitional that supports dino to bird evolution, he certainly thinks it IS a transitional fossil.
That in itself proves it is speculation not scientific fact!
"Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it's not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that."  Dr. J. Alan Feduccia,
Prof. Avian Evolution and world authority on birds at the University of North Carolina. Archaeopteryx: Early Bird Catches a Can of Worms by V. Morell, Science 259(5096):764–65, 5 February 1993

Maybe I missed something, you never talked about Acanthostega, you had some irrelevant BS about icthyostega that never falsified fish to amphibian evolution but you never mentioned acanthostega.  From here:
Acanthostega
"The large number of digits fits the hypothesis that early in limb evolution, digit number was not fixed. All of these characters suggest that not only was Acanthostega aquatic, but that it was primitively so, and not derived from a more terrestrial forebear. Its structure supports the idea that limbs with digits evolved for use in water, only later to be used on land, rather than the more conventional view that it was among sarcopterygian fishes that excursions over land first began (Clack 1997, Clack and Coates 1995, Coates and Clack 1995)."
It is pure speculation , not fact. So what if it fit's a preconcieved belief ? That is not science. When it does not disprove your religious belief that life created itself you call it proof. When it does you make up a new story or just call anyone that points it out a liar.
It is circular reasoning. What would it show if the theory did not exist first? The only logical assumption would be an intelligent mind created it.

you forgot to print the rest of that quote:

"My own view is that this does not strengthen the creationists' arguments."
Thanks for pointing that out. That strengthens my argument that it is a political/religious belief .
Anything that is against evolution is for creation, there is no third theory.


And Ambrose went on to say in the same book:
"It is strikingly clear in the geological records, when life had reached the stage where organisms were capable of living in a previously unoccupied region of the planet, such as the move from estuaries to dry land, the appearance of plants growing to great heights which provided a location (habitat) for climbing animals, or when birds and insects actually moved up and flew in theair[sp] above the earth's surface. Large numbers of new species appeared at these times; this has been called radiation, a spreading out of life."
You arguments get dumber all the time.
If you can't see the circular reasoning in this you are brain dead:
" such as the move from estuaries to dry land, the appearance of plants growing to great heights which provided a location (habitat) for climbing animals"
Where did these animal climb before? It is circular reasoning at it's worse. Or you could say the plants came first because they knew the animals were coming. This only solidifies my argument there was a design, and therefore a designer. Random muations cannot plan ahead.

None of the transitional fossils I named are contested by ANY evolutionists as being transitional.  Sure they debate what the actual linaeages of some lines are, but no one doubts Archaeopteryx is a transitional, no one doubts Acanthostega and Icthyostega are transitional, no one doubts the therapsids were transitional.  And you have provided no evidence that any biologists or paleontologists
agree with you!
Again you are reasoning in a circle. If an evolutionist did not believe in evolution he would be a creationist.
If there were no transistionals there would be no evolution. There is no scientific proof that one animal became a different type of animal. Common characteristics are just as much evidence of a common designer.

.  Pastterson's quote was taken out of context,

The BBC probably hired an imposter , an evil creationist. the BBC is a Creationist front like talk/origins and Nature, everybody knows that.




Why use Woodmorappe as a source, he's been proven wrong many times and doesn't even have a Phd.  
As to the Geological record, here's a list of where the entire geological record is found, from here:
Geocolumn
The Ghadames Basin in Libya
The Beni Mellal Basin in Morrocco
The Tunisian Basin in Tunisia
The Oman Interior Basin in Oman
The Western Desert Basin in Egypt
The Adana Basin in Turkey
The Iskenderun Basin in Turkey
The Moesian Platform in Bulgaria
The Carpathian Basin in Poland
The Baltic Basin in the USSR
The Yeniseiy-Khatanga Basin in the USSR
The Farah Basin in Afghanistan
The Helmand Basin in Afghanistan
The Yazd-Kerman-Tabas Basin in Iran
The Manhai-Subei Basin in China
The Jiuxi Basin China
The Tung t'in - Yuan Shui Basin China
The Tarim Basin China
The Szechwan Basin China
The Yukon-Porcupine Province Alaska
The Williston Basin in North Dakota
The Tampico Embayment Mexico
The Bogata Basin Colombia
The Bonaparte Basin, Australia
The Beaufort Sea Basin/McKenzie River Delta

So Woodmorappe (and you) are wrong again.

You really are an airhead. He did not say it did not exist he said that 3 layers in correct order were absent from 80% of the earths surface. All of them in order only exist on .4% of the earths surface. It is an incredible exception not the norm.
I think a Master of Geology is qualified to read a book. This is what the data says, it is not an opinion.


This is another lie.  From here:
Hominid
"AL 333 Site, "The First Family", Australopithecus afarensis?
Discovered in 1975 by Donald Johanson's team at Hadar in Ethiopia (Johanson and Edey, 1981). Estimated age is 3.2 million years. This find consisted of remains of at least 13 hominid individuals"
The fossils found by ONE MAN, 30 years ago, the remains of 13 individuals, is much more than would fit on a billiard table.  You are completely wrong here!
Are yiu trying to set a record for calling me a liar. Is that what you consider an intellectual argument?
There is not close to one complete skeleton. Java man would fit in your glove box with room to spare.! No where does it contradict that statement, made by an evolutionist BTW. You call me a liar and don't back it up. That statement is true.

And you have yet to show us an animal appearing with no fossil ancestor!  I see you're back to your only refutation, "that's absurd", with nothing but lies and bad information to back it up.
Your lost. Man has no fossil ancestor. Only apes you imagine evolved into them. Dogs, cats , as a matter of fact there is not one solid piece of evidence that cannot be interpreted as evidence of a common designer.
Opinions are not facts!




-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 09:59 AM on May 31, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

From your link.

“This species is a recent discovery, announced in September 1994 (White et al.1994; Wood, 1994). It is the oldest known hominid species, dated at 4.4 million years. Most remains are skull fragments . Indirect evidence suggests that it was possibly bipedal”


note : indirect in this case mean  very  speculative, a scenario.

The material consists of 9 fossils, mostly found in 1994, from Kanapoi in Kenya, and 12 fossils, mostly teeth
Nebraska Man Returns?


This species is known from one major specimen, the Black Skull discovered by Alan Walker, and a couple of other lower jaw specimens  which may belong to the same species.

May be they don’t !


Most remains are teeth, but there is also a partial lower jaw of a child, a partial cranium base, and arm bone fragments  from 2 individuals.

ARA-VP-6/1 consists of 10 teeth from a single individual.
ARA-VP-7/2 consists of parts of all three bones from the left arm of a single individual, with a mixture of hominid and ape features.

I could go on but this proves you called me a liar and then provided evidence that I am correct. Even if I was wrong to call me a liar shows your character. As you can see I was not. All the bone fragments of every hominoid  will fit on a billiard table, easily.
But why would a chemical accident be able to tell right from wrong?
How could they know anything for certain?



-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 11:33 AM on May 31, 2005 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from peddler8111 at 09:59 AM on May 31, 2005 :
There is not close to one complete skeleton.


Yes, there is.  And this is only one example, how many do you want?  While the Homo erectus  Java man find may have fit in a shoe box, other erectus examples such as Turkana boy below are  farily complete.




-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:36 AM on May 31, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 11:36 AM on May 31, 2005 :
Quote from peddler8111 at 09:59 AM on May 31, 2005 :
There is not close to one complete skeleton.


Yes, there is.  And this is only one example, how many do you want?  While the Homo erectus  Java man find may have fit in a shoe box, other erectus examples such as Turkana boy below are  farily complete.




Okay that is close enough to qualify.
That is however only one. It would take a lot more than 1 to cover a billiard table.
I will need a Lot more than one.
For example many of the bones you presented as evidence I was {b] A LIAR [/b] not merely mistaken would fit in my shirt pocket.




-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 1:16 PM on May 31, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You keep talking about creationism and have no idea what that means. Any person who belives God created the heavens and the earth and all that in them is is a creationist.

Creationism is the belief that the earth was created 6000 years ago, that there was a world wide flood and animals were created unchanging and by kind.  A creationist believes all these tennets.  Many evolutionists believe in creation, they just believe God created by natural means, like evolution.

Seems like a paleontoligist or zoologist would be the person to ask first.

Yes it would, as long as the zoologist or paleontologist is taken in context.

Colin Patterson from his book Evolution:
""In several animal and plant groups, enough fossils are known to bridge the wide gaps between existing types. In mammals, for example, the gap between horses, asses and zebras (genus Equus) and their closest living relatives, the rhinoceroses and tapirs, is filled by an extensive series of fossils extending back sixty-million years to a small animal, Hyracotherium, which can only be distinguished from the rhinoceros-tapir group by one or two horse-like details of the skull."

And you're still twisting and misquoting to present something that is simply not true.  You Keep using Colin Patterson as a quote source, despitthe fact that much more research has been done since his time.  Despite the fact that you mistinterprete him every time you use him.  Despite the fact that he is one man, one voice, and a small minority opinion.  Horse evolution is valid.  Let's look at some up to date qauotes from the experts who study it.
From here:
HorseI
" MacFadden, who is the vertebrate-paleontology curator at the Florida Museum of Natural History in Gainesville, said horses have proved especially popular with evolutionary scientists.
"There is a long, continuous fossil sequence of horses extending 55 million years in North America, providing the tangible evidence to trace individual steps or changes in evolution over a prolonged period," he said."

From the same site:
" Kathleen Hunt, a biologist at the University of Washington in Seattle, said the modern-day horse is "merely one twig on a once flourishing bush of equine species. We only have the illusion of straight-line evolution because Equus is the only twig that survived." "

And from this site:
HorsesII
" “The old ideas about how horses evolved made for a fairly simple and tidy story,” said MacFadden, whose 1992 book “Fossil Horses” is considered the definitive work on the subject. “But many of the concepts about horse evolution that came into being during the 20th century are now outmoded, giving way to an understanding of the fossil horse sequence that is much more complex.” "
This is the current view of horse evolution, this is what the experts accept.  You can bring all the out of date quotes you want, it doesn't change the fact that horse evolution is well traced in the fossil record, no biologist doubts it's veracity.

That in itself proves it is speculation not scientific fact!

Once again, you're ignorance of a subject shows.  Archaeopteryx has teeth, what bird has teeth?  Archaeopteryx has a long bony tail, what bird has a long bony tail.  In fact, Archaeopteryx has more dinosaurian characteristics than avian characteristics. The first Arcaeopteryx fossils found were thought to be a therapod dinosaur because there were no feathers apparent.  

You use this quote as if it means anything:
" "Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it's not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that."  Dr. J. Alan Feduccia,"

And while Feduccia is in the minority here, he is saying that Archaeopteryx is not a feathered dinosaur, he is NOT saying Archaeopteryx is not a transitional fossil.
As my quote clearly demonstrates, Feduccia DOES accept Archy as a transitional:
""...The creature thus memorialized was Archaeopteryx lithographica, and, though indisputably birdlike, it could with equal truth be called reptilian.... The Archaeopteryx fossil is, in fact, the most superb example of a specimen perfectly intermediate between two higher groups of living organisms--what has come to be called a "missing link," a Rosetta stone of evolution.... " "

Archaeopteryx has teeth like a reptile, it has a tail like a reptile, it has unfused trunk vertebrae like a reptile, it has the brain case of a reptile, it's neck attaches to the skull like a reptile, it has cervical vertabrae like a reptile, it has ribs like a reptile.
Now it does have an opposable hallux like a bird and a furcula like a bird.  And it does have feathers, but since feathers have been discovered on dinosaurs, that is no longer a strictly avian feature.  As I said before you don't know what a transitional is, Archaeopteryx clearly has both reptilian and avian characteristics, actually it has more reptilian characteristics than avian characteristics.  Whether it evolved directly from dinosaurs, as the majority opinion of paleontologists holds or whether it evolved along side of dinosaurs from an earlier common ancestor as Feduccia believes, doesn't change the FACT that it is clearly transitional.  I defy you to find one biologist who doesn't think it is transitional!

On acanthostega and icthyostega,
It is pure speculation , not fact. So what if it fit's a preconcieved belief ? That is not science

Untrue, this is the best interpretation of the evidence.  how else do you explain fossils that become progressively less fish like and more amphibian like as time goes on.  how do you explain a fish with legs and lungs?  Looking at the progression of fossils makes it clear that fish did indeed evolve into amphibians.  Combine this with DNA evidence and morphological evidence, and the independent conclusions of the fossil record are verified.
How do you explain this progression of evolving fossils with any other explaination?

It is circular reasoning. What would it show if the theory did not exist first

You keep saying it's circular reasoning, but you never explain what you mean.  What would it show if the theory of evolution did not exist?
Fish fossils progressively becoming more amphibian like through time, until the fish had legs and lungs, what other explaination is there that is supported by that evidence?  Add to that the genetic evidence, fish' closest genetic relatives are the amphibians, add to that, all vertabrate eyes are best adapted to work under water.  Multiple lines of evidence from different disciplines of science converge, fish evolved into amphibians.

Thanks for pointing that out. That strengthens my argument that it is a political/religious belief .

Since a religion requires faith in a supernatural entity, you still haven't explained how evolution is religious.

You arguments get dumber all the time.
If you can't see the circular reasoning in this you are brain dead:


You're the one ignoring the evidence...

Where did these animal climb before? It is circular reasoning at it's worse. Or you could say the plants came first because they knew the animals were coming.

of course the plants came first, not because they knew the animals were coming, but because it was an advantageous mutation.  The fossil record shows plants colonized dry land before animals.  Once amphibians appeared, the trunks of these plants were an unexploited niche, so with evolution, it was inevitable that they would be exploited, no circular reasoning, just simple logic, IF you understand evolution.

This only solidifies my argument there was a design, and therefore a designer. Random muations cannot plan ahead.

Random mutations don't plan ahead, but random mutations are selected for by the environment, this is a powerful force for unintelligent design.  And you still haven't given us one shred of evidence for intelligent design.

Again you are reasoning in a circle. If an evolutionist did not believe in evolution he would be a creationist.
If there were no transistionals there would be no evolution. There is no scientific proof that one animal became a different type of animal.


But there is overwhelming evidence that one animal became another, thransitional fossils.
What else do you call a fossil like Archaeopteryx that blends reptilian and avian characteristics, what else do you call a fossil that blends fish and amphibian characteristics like acanthostega, what else do you call a fossil that blends mammalian and reptilian characteristics, like the therapsids?  Your argueing against reality again, these fossils and many more posses characteristics of 2 different classes of animals, that can't be argued, how do you explain them?

Common characteristics are just as much evidence of a common designer.

yet common characteristics would indicate that an intelligent designer would be an idiot.  Why would an intelligent designer give land animals eyes that work best underwater?  why would an intelligent designer make an entirely aquatic animal breath air?  why would an intelligent designer make an animal that dives thousands of feet deep to hunt food get the bends?  Intelligent desgin is non existant, too many unintelligent designs.  But evolution, which simply works with what it has, which makes due, is a much better explaination.

The BBC probably hired an imposter , an evil creationist. the BBC is a Creationist front like talk/origins and Nature, everybody knows that.

The quote was taken from a cladistics meeting and was in reference to cladistics effect on evolution.

You really are an airhead. He did not say it did not exist he said that 3 layers in correct order were absent from 80% of the earths surface. All of them in order only exist on .4% of the earths surface. It is an incredible exception not the norm.

But if the geologic column exists ANTWHERE on earth, your point is disproven!  geologists know how the earth works, they know that all the data shows an old earth.  If the column exists anywhere, how do you explain it, exception to the norm or not?

Are yiu trying to set a record for calling me a liar. Is that what you consider an intellectual argument?

No, I post the facts to back up my assertions.
You have lied numerous times.

There is not close to one complete skeleton.

Liar, see the picture in Apoapsis' post.  By the way, welcome back Apo, nice to see you return!

Your lost. Man has no fossil ancestor.

Then how do you explain:
Ardipithecus ramidus
A. anamensis
A. afarensis
A. africanus
P. aethiopicus
P. boisei
P. robustus
Homo  rudolfensis
H. habilis
H. ergaster
H. erectus
H. antecessor
H. heidelbergensis

How do you explain the fact that modern humans and chimpanzees share 7 ERV's and the only logical explaination for that it that we share a common ancestor with the chimps?
And are you going to retract that lie you posted:
"The entire hominid collection known today would barely cover a billiard table,"?

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 1:17 PM on May 31, 2005 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from peddler8111 at 1:16 PM on May 31, 2005 :

Okay that is close enough to qualify.
That is however only one. It would take a lot more than 1 to cover a billiard table.
I will need a Lot more than one.
For example many of the bones you presented as evidence I was {b] A LIAR [/b] not merely mistaken would fit in my shirt pocket.


For the record, I have never accused you of lying.

My take on it would be that you are uncritically repeating misinformation given to you by others without checking whether or not it is true.

As to the number of human fossils currently recorded, I wouldn't have a good idea.  I know that the British museum published the Catalogue of Fossil Hominids, Vols I,II,III which detailed about 4000 fossils found from 1969 through 1976.    How many have found since then would take a tedious literature search, but I would invite you to visit your local university library and check for yourself rather than speculate about it.

I do remember that one site in China produced fossils of 15 Homo erectus individuals, but they were lost when the Japanese invaded in 1942.

And a side note, could you possibly preview you posts before submitting?  It might help you get the tags in the proper places.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 3:02 PM on May 31, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 1:17 PM on May 31, 2005 :
Creationism is the belief that the earth was created 6000 years ago, that there was a world wide flood and animals were created unchanging and by kind.  A creationist believes all these tennets.  Many evolutionists believe in creation, they just believe God created by natural means, like evolution.
Okay so you disagree with those tenets. I disagree with yours. That means yours are falsified according to your logic.


Colin Patterson from his book Evolution:
""In several animal and plant groups, enough fossils are known to bridge the wide gaps between existing types. In mammals, for example, the gap between horses, asses and zebras (genus Equus) and their closest living relatives, the rhinoceroses and tapirs, is filled by an extensive series of fossils extending back sixty-million years to a small animal, Hyracotherium, which can only be distinguished from the rhinoceros-tapir group by one or two horse-like details of the skull."

And you're still twisting and misquoting to present something that is simply not true.  You Keep using Colin Patterson as a quote source, despitthe fact that much more research has been done since his time.  Despite the fact that you mistinterprete him every time you use him.  Despite the fact that he is one man, one voice, and a small minority opinion.  Horse evolution is valid.  Let's look at some up to date qauotes from the experts who study it.
From here:
HorseI
" MacFadden, who is the vertebrate-paleontology curator at the Florida Museum of Natural History in Gainesville, said horses have proved especially popular with evolutionary scientists.
"There is a long, continuous fossil sequence of horses extending 55 million years in North America, providing the tangible evidence to trace individual steps or changes in evolution over a prolonged period," he said."

Quoting Nat Geographic as experts is funny.
As far as Patterson these are his words from his BBC interview -word for word.
"Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History, in an interview on BBC television, said...
I mean the stories, the narratives about change over time. How the dinosaurs became extinct, how the mammals evolved, where man came from. These seem to me to be little more than story-telling. And this is the result about cladistics because as it turns out, as it seems to me, all one can learn about the history of life is learned from systematics, from groupings one finds in nature. The rest of it is story-telling of one sort or another. We have access to the tips of a tree, the tree itself is a theory and people who pretend to know about the tree and to describe what went on with it, how the branches came off and the twigs came off are, I think, telling stories"

This is also word for word:

COLIN PATTERSON, Senior Paleontologist, British Museum of Nat. History, "You say I should at least 'show a photo of the fossil from which each type or organism was derived.' I will lay it on the line-there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument." "It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another. ... But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test. ... I don't think we shall ever have any access to any form of tree which we can call factual." HARPER'S, Feb. 1984, p.56

I don't care what else he said this is public information. It cannot be disputed. Call me a liar if you want . I did not twist or misquote anything. If he regrets saying it so be it.



From the same site:
" Kathleen Hunt, a biologist at the University of Washington in Seattle, said the modern-day horse is "merely one twig on a once flourishing bush of equine species. We only have the illusion of straight-line evolution because Equus is the only twig that survived." "
And how does she know that? Long ago and far far away.

And from this site:
HorsesII
" “The old ideas about how horses evolved made for a fairly simple and tidy story,” said MacFadden, whose 1992 book “Fossil Horses” is considered the definitive work on the subject. “But many of the concepts about horse evolution that came into being during the 20th century are now outmoded, giving way to an understanding of the fossil horse sequence that is much more complex.” "
This is the current view of horse evolution, this is what the experts accept.  You can bring all the out of date quotes you want, it doesn't change the fact that horse evolution is well traced in the fossil record, no biologist doubts it's veracity.
That is not true that no biologist disputes that. That is a bold face lie.

Once again, you're ignorance of a subject shows.  Archaeopteryx has teeth, what bird has teeth?  Archaeopteryx has a long bony tail, what bird has a long bony tail.  In fact, Archaeopteryx has more dinosaurian characteristics than avian characteristics. The first Arcaeopteryx fossils found were thought to be a therapod dinosaur because there were no feathers apparent.  
So it had teeth, so what? Some people have teeth, some don't. That proves there was a bird that had teeth.
It had all the feature of a bird, it was a bird .

Evolutionists conclude from cladistic studies (i.e. of shared common features) that bird-like dinosaurs would have lived in the Cretaceous period, which according to evolutionary dating methods was long after Archaeopteryx had supposedly become extinct. That leaves evolutionists back at square one: where are those countless missing links required by the theory, had birds evolved from reptiles?


You use this quote as if it means anything:
" "Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it's not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that."  Dr. J. Alan Feduccia,"

It means one of the world's most respected experts on birds is saying that evolutionist babble on about impossible ideas because they decide the theory in advance and torture the data until it agrees. He is saying they are telling stories. "paleobabbler" It is not an endorsement a scientist would like to be labeled with.

And while Feduccia is in the minority here, he is saying that Archaeopteryx is not a feathered dinosaur, he is NOT saying Archaeopteryx is not a transitional fossil.
As my quote clearly demonstrates, Feduccia DOES accept Archy as a transitional:
""...The creature thus memorialized was Archaeopteryx lithographica, and, though indisputably birdlike, it could with equal truth be called reptilian.... The Archaeopteryx fossil is, in fact, the most superb example of a specimen perfectly intermediate between two higher groups of living organisms--what has come to be called a "missing link," a Rosetta stone of evolution.... " "
Again I don't care. That is circular logic. He is an evolutionist , it is priori to believe that . If he did not he would be a creationist . Please don't use such stupid circular arguments.
Most evolutuionist believe in evolution-DUH!


Archaeopteryx has teeth like a reptile, it has a tail like a reptile, it has unfused trunk vertebrae like a reptile, it has the brain case of a reptile, it's neck attaches to the skull like a reptile, it has cervical vertabrae like a reptile, it has ribs like a reptile.
Now it does have an opposable hallux like a bird and a furcula like a bird.  And it does have feathers, but since feathers have been discovered on dinosaurs, that is no longer a strictly avian feature.  As I said before you don't know what a transitional is, Archaeopteryx clearly has both reptilian and avian characteristics, actually it has more reptilian characteristics than avian characteristics.  Whether it evolved directly from dinosaurs, as the majority opinion of paleontologists holds or whether it evolved along side of dinosaurs from an earlier common ancestor as Feduccia believes, doesn't change the FACT that it is clearly transitional.  I defy you to find one biologist who doesn't think it is transitional!
No feather has ever been found on any dinosaur. There have been markings on fossils interpreted as "proto-feathers" .
This is not scientific proof as no one could possibly know what a "proto-feather" look looked or even if they exist unless you found a fossil of a creature with that still intact-skin and all.
How could you recognize the internal structure of a thing you don't know exists?
many scientist believe the markings called protofeathers are an anomaly to the the way many things fossilize in China. You cite is as something that science has proved. It has not.


Untrue, this is the best interpretation of the evidence.  how else do you explain fossils that become progressively less fish like and more amphibian like as time goes on.  how do you explain a fish with legs and lungs?  Looking at the progression of fossils makes it clear that fish did indeed evolve into amphibians.  Combine this with DNA evidence and morphological evidence, and the independent conclusions of the fossil record are verified.
How do you explain this progression of evolving fossils with any other explaination?

That is your opinion that it is the best interpretation. What DNA evidence do you refer to?
What fish has legs? The coleocanth was supposed to have legs , lungs , and a mammals brain. That was proved 100% false. So what if you can make up a story how this animal evolved from that one. It is outside the realm of science. If evolution was true there would be animals know with 2 lungs and half a wing . There are not . there never where.

You keep saying it's circular reasoning, but you never explain what you mean.  What would it show if the theory of evolution did not exist?
Fish fossils progressively becoming more amphibian like through time, until the fish had legs and lungs, what other explaination is there that is supported by that evidence?  Add to that the genetic evidence, fish' closest genetic relatives are the amphibians, add to that, all vertabrate eyes are best adapted to work under water.  Multiple lines of evidence from different disciplines of science converge, fish evolved into amphibians.
No . You would see that some animals died out and some did not. You would see animals appearing and disapearring. This progression has to be imagined. Fossils don't talk. All they tell you is it died not if it had kids.
See my new post on circular reasoning.
Since a religion requires faith in a supernatural entity, you still haven't explained how evolution is religious.
Time and chance are represented in Pagan culture as cronos and chaos. Since it is impossible to know if time and chance can create new life forms a belief, faith , in these ancient pagan gods is necessary.


of course the plants came first, not because they knew the animals were coming, but because it was an advantageous mutation.  The fossil record shows plants colonized dry land before animals.  Once amphibians appeared, the trunks of these plants were an unexploited niche, so with evolution, it was inevitable that they would be exploited, no circular reasoning, just simple logic, IF you understand evolution.

If you believe in fairy tales. Why would plants be an advantageous mutation? That is silly.



Random mutations don't plan ahead, but random mutations are selected for by the environment, this is a powerful force for unintelligent design.  And you still haven't given us one shred of evidence for intelligent design.
How does the environment select things? The Universe is evidence of intelligent design. we are evidence. The cell is Prima Facia evidence.

But there is overwhelming evidence that one animal became another, thransitional fossils.
What else do you call a fossil like Archaeopteryx that blends reptilian and avian characteristics, what else do you call a fossil that blends fish and amphibian characteristics like acanthostega, what else do you call a fossil that blends mammalian and reptilian characteristics, like the therapsids?  Your argueing against reality again, these fossils and many more posses characteristics of 2 different classes of animals, that can't be argued, how do you explain them?
they are argued all the time. What on earth are you smoking. So what is an animal has different characteristics from another? That prove they have different charachteristics. Nothing more. It is just as reasonable to say God made them that way .
You can take the lug nuts of a chevy and use them on a cadillac. That does not mean it is evolving into a bus. It is evidence of a common designer.


yet common characteristics would indicate that an intelligent designer would be an idiot.  Why would an intelligent designer give land animals eyes that work best underwater?  why would an intelligent designer make an entirely aquatic animal breath air?  why would an intelligent designer make an animal that dives thousands of feet deep to hunt food get the bends?  Intelligent desgin is non existant, too many unintelligent designs.  But evolution, which simply works with what it has, which makes due, is a much better explaination.
i cannot answer that question . Some day we will both know. I hope we are in the same place to finish discussing it then .

The quote was taken from a cladistics meeting and was in reference to cladistics effect on evolution.
No this was BROADCAST LIVE ON THE BBC you are refering to a conference in Chicago .
Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History, in an interview on BBC television, said...
I mean the stories, the narratives about change over time. How the dinosaurs became extinct, how the mammals evolved, where man came from. These seem to me to be little more than story-telling. And this is the result about cladistics because as it turns out, as it seems to me, all one can learn about the history of life is learned from systematics, from groupings one finds in nature. The rest of it is story-telling of one sort or another. We have access to the tips of a tree, the tree itself is a theory and people who pretend to know about the tree and to describe what went on with it, how the branches came off and the twigs came off are, I think, telling stories




But if the geologic column exists ANTWHERE on earth, your point is disproven!  geologists know how the earth works, they know that all the data shows an old earth.  If the column exists anywhere, how do you explain it, exception to the norm or not?
Lets see. What is a word for something that is exceedingly rare. An anamoly .
It proves my point. The sediments are said to date the fossils. It order is almost non existent-less than 1/2 of 1  percent of the earths surface that is a wrong idea.

Are yiu trying to set a record for calling me a liar. Is that what you consider an intellectual argument?

No, I post the facts to back up my assertions.
You have lied numerous times.
No you have found someone who agrees with you and claim it as proof. Half the time you don't even know what they said. You make up stories like the Origin og Reality theory and call me a liar. How old are 12 ? 13?

Liar, see the picture in Apoapsis' post.  By the way, welcome back Apo, nice to see you return!
I acknowledged that . I said it was close enough. I did not lie. In that case I was mistaken. You are really a low person without any class at all.
I still maintain that the billiard table analogy is true. How about the Origin of Reality?

Then how do you explain:
Ardipithecus ramidus
A. anamensis
A. afarensis
A. africanus
P. aethiopicus
P. boisei
P. robustus
Homo  rudolfensis
H. habilis
H. ergaster
H. erectus
H. antecessor
H. heidelbergensis

How do you explain the fact that modern humans and chimpanzees share 7 ERV's and the only logical explaination for that it that we share a common ancestor with the chimps?
And are you going to retract that lie you posted:
"The entire hominid collection known today would barely cover a billiard table,"?


Logical to whom? There are bones in the dirt. Some where human, some monkeys, some apes. So what?
No , I believe it is correct. Are you going to retract calling me a liar . Are you going to be a vile low person all your life?
I refuse to talk to you anymore. there is no point in talking to a stupid child that says anyonre who disagrees with him is a liar.
cya





-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 5:58 PM on May 31, 2005 | IP
Lord Iorek

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from peddler8111 at 1:16 PM on May 31, 2005 :
Quote from Apoapsis at 11:36 AM on May 31, 2005 :
Quote from peddler8111 at 09:59 AM on May 31, 2005 :
There is not close to one complete skeleton.


Yes, there is.  And this is only one example, how many do you want?  While the Homo erectus  Java man find may have fit in a shoe box, other erectus examples such as Turkana boy below are  farily complete.




Okay that is close enough to qualify.
That is however only one. It would take a lot more than 1 to cover a billiard table.
I will need a Lot more than one.
For example many of the bones you presented as evidence I was {b] A LIAR [/b] not merely mistaken would fit in my shirt pocket.





Yet you use the bible as your only argument of proof. Yes I know you quote scientists but every quote has been completely dismissed by Demon over here who I might add delievers a intellectual punch while inserting the hilarity of the situation... keep up the fantastic work


-------
"At the age of six I wanted to be a cook. At seven I wanted to be Napoleon. And my ambition has been growing steadily ever since." - Salvador Dali

Guide the future by the past, long ago the mould was cast. - Rush
 


Posts: 121 | Posted: 6:00 PM on May 31, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 3:02 PM on May 31, 2005 :
Quote from peddler8111 at 1:16 PM on May 31, 2005 :

Okay that is close enough to qualify.
That is however only one. It would take a lot more than 1 to cover a billiard table.
I will need a Lot more than one.
For example many of the bones you presented as evidence I was {b] A LIAR [/b] not merely mistaken would fit in my shirt pocket.


For the record, I have never accused you of lying.
For the record I apologize. I have become oversensitive lately but that is not your fault.

My take on it would be that you are uncritically repeating misinformation given to you by others without checking whether or not it is true.
That is possible to some extent. However it may apply to you as well.
There are a lot less fossils than many people think . If you are use to seeing artist renedtions of what extinct animals may have lookes like it is sometimes hard to imagine the only evidence was a few teeth or a fragment of a skull cap. But more often than that it is the case.


As to the number of human fossils currently recorded, I wouldn't have a good idea.  I know that the British museum published the Catalogue of Fossil Hominids, Vols I,II,III which detailed about 4000 fossils found from 1969 through 1976.    How many have found since then would take a tedious literature search, but I would invite you to visit your local university library and check for yourself rather than speculate about it.
Good idea.

I do remember that one site in China produced fossils of 15 Homo erectus individuals, but they were lost when the Japanese invaded in 1942.


If I remenber right Java Man came up missing too.

Leakey said this:
"Echoing the criticism made of his father's habilis skulls, he added that Lucy's skull was so incomplete that most of it was 'imagination made of plaster of Paris', thus making it impossible to draw any firm conclusion about what species she belonged to."
Referring to comments made by Richard Leakey (Director of National Museums of Kenya) in The Weekend Australian, 7-8 May 1983, Magazine, p. 3

The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone.'"

Dr. Tim White (anthropologist, University of California, Berkeley). As quoted by Ian Anderson "Hominoid collarbone exposed as dolphin's rib", in New Scientist, 28 April 1983, p. 199

The biggest problem with Palentology is that the reasoning is circular. Instead of looking for bones to discove they are looking for bones them presume to exist. It is circular reasonong.




-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 6:32 PM on May 31, 2005 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.