The Flat Earth Society

Other Discussion Boards => Technology, Science & Alt Science => Topic started by: babsinva on September 28, 2012, 08:28:32 PM

Title: Deep Ravine in Evolution
Post by: babsinva on September 28, 2012, 08:28:32 PM
Most of us can agree that fossils have been found and have provided tangible evidence for the variety of life that existed long before man's arrival.  BUT what they have NOT provided or produced evidence for is the expected backing for the evolutionary view of how life BEGAN or how NEW KINDS got started thereafter.

There are major gaps or a gulf between the major divisions of animal life, such as fish for example.  Fish are thought to have evolved from invertebrates and bam, boom fish jump into the fossil record?  Huh?

Evolutionary theory presumes that fish became amphibians; some amphibians became reptiles; from the reptiles came both mammals and birds; and eventually some mammals became men.

Here's the problem though > > >
IT was the backbone that distinguished the fish from the invertebrates, and that very backbone would have had to undergo major modifications for the fish to become an amphibian (for water and land).

* a pelvis would have to be added
* in some amphibians the entire backbone would have to change so much as to be unrecognizable
* skull bones are different
* fish fins must become jointed limbs with wrists and toes (for amphibian formation)
* major alterations in muscles and nerves
* Gills must change to lungs
* In fish there is a 2 chambered heart and in amphibians it is 3 chambered

If evolution was correct, then how is it that there are no fossils showing these changes?  But Boom we have fish !

Title: Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
Post by: Rushy on September 28, 2012, 08:48:05 PM
Did you know that if you disproved Evolution, Creationism is still not a viable option because it has zero evidence? Just a thought.
Title: Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
Post by: Pongo on September 28, 2012, 08:55:41 PM
There aren't new types of life being created. And if there ever was a new type, it was likely destroyed by ours. All DNA has the same language, A C G T, which is very strong evidence of a common ancestor for all living things.

Reptiles did not evolve from what you know as amphibians.
Title: Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on September 28, 2012, 08:57:13 PM
Did you know that if you disproved Evolution, Creationism is still not a viable option because it has zero evidence? Just a thought.

But the infallible word of God!
Title: Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on September 28, 2012, 09:00:32 PM
Did you know that if you disproved Evolution, Creationism is still not a viable option because it has zero evidence? Just a thought.

If you eliminate the all the possibilities of evolution, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
Title: Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
Post by: babsinva on September 28, 2012, 09:01:50 PM
There aren't new types of life being created. And if there ever was a new type, it was likely destroyed by ours. All DNA has the same language, A C G T, which is very strong evidence of a common ancestor for all living things.

Reptiles did not evolve from what you know as amphibians.

There are no intermediate forms in the fossil records, because there are NO intermediate forms period.  Bam fish!
Title: Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
Post by: Pongo on September 28, 2012, 09:14:48 PM
This is akin to me making this argument:

Sea turtles evolved from gophers. There are no transitional forms between the two, therefore evolution is false!!!

The error is in my erroneous assumption that turtles evolved from gophers.
Title: Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
Post by: Particle Person on September 28, 2012, 09:17:50 PM
There aren't new types of life being created. And if there ever was a new type, it was likely destroyed by ours. All DNA has the same language, A C G T, which is very strong evidence of a common ancestor for all living things.

Reptiles did not evolve from what you know as amphibians.

There are no intermediate forms in the fossil records, because there are NO intermediate forms period.  Bam fish!

Every form is intermediate.
Title: Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
Post by: babsinva on September 28, 2012, 09:20:40 PM
This is akin to me making this argument:

Sea turtles evolved from gophers. There are no transitional forms between the two, therefore evolution is false!!!

The error is in my erroneous assumption that turtles evolved from gophers.

There are no intermediate forms showing changes in which animals evolved.  No fossils have been found.  We see a fossil and we see a fossil of another animal and there is no link.  Simply put we do not have a common ancestor because of DNA.  The DNA arguement falls flat.

Now you guys can argue that for ahwile, I'm going to bed it's after midnight here.
Title: Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
Post by: Saddam Hussein on September 28, 2012, 09:24:09 PM
Did you know that if you disproved Evolution, Creationism is still not a viable option because it has zero evidence? Just a thought.

If you eliminate the all the possibilities of evolution, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

That's true, but you're prematurely conflating creationism and "whatever remains."  There are more theories to disprove than just evolution before we can settle on creationism.  For example, there is my theory that all new species on this planet have been secretly delivered to us by benevolent aliens.
Title: Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
Post by: Particle Person on September 28, 2012, 09:33:35 PM
Did you know that if you disproved Evolution, Creationism is still not a viable option because it has zero evidence? Just a thought.

If you eliminate the all the possibilities of evolution, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

Holmes would be disappointed. Evolution and Christian creationism are not the only two possibilities.
Title: Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
Post by: Rushy on September 28, 2012, 09:34:13 PM
Anyone who thinks they have found a magical piece of evidence that biologists missed is deluding themselves. I see arguments against evolution a lot and they all stem from a basic misunderstanding of what evolution is. The Pope recognized evolution a long time ago, I'm not sure why other religions are having such a hard time following suit.

Title: Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
Post by: Nomad on September 28, 2012, 09:34:25 PM
Hi babs.  There are MANY transitional fossilized skeletons found for many different families of animal (including Humans).  Here's some of the problems with your argument, in easy to digest bullet format:

* You misunderstand what constitutes a transitional feature.
* You are ignoring the large number of fossils found.
* You are denying what the transitions those fossils represent.
* You are creating an expectation of accuracy far beyond what is necessary to illustrate transition.
* You are dismissing definitive examples of transitional forms, focusing on the ones that remain undiscovered.
* Your argument essentially moves the hypothetical goalposts every time a "gap" is filled, as each discovery of a transitional form creates two new gaps.
Title: Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
Post by: Pongo on September 28, 2012, 09:45:16 PM
This is akin to me making this argument:

Sea turtles evolved from gophers. There are no transitional forms between the two, therefore evolution is false!!!

The error is in my erroneous assumption that turtles evolved from gophers.

There are no intermediate forms showing changes in which animals evolved.  No fossils have been found.  We see a fossil and we see a fossil of another animal and there is no link.  Simply put we do not have a common ancestor because of DNA.  The DNA arguement falls flat.

Now you guys can argue that for ahwile, I'm going to bed it's after midnight here.

I don't even know if I have the energy to do this anymore. Go stick your head in the sand for all I care. Ignoring facts and regurgitating lies is not a show of faith. It's stupidity. If you took the time to actually learn just the basic principals (I know, you think you're the Mr. Wizard of evolution) you would feel so ashamed of how painfully ignorant you look.

I dunno, maybe I'll be in a better mood tomorrow but why would I waste my time trying to educate you? You'll never listen.
Title: Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
Post by: Beorn on September 29, 2012, 04:09:28 AM
I should've known that your evidence is just a pile of misconception of evolution. I retract my question for scientific proof.

I really wish they would (correctly) teach evolution in school.
Title: Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
Post by: Space Cowgirl on September 29, 2012, 06:40:45 AM
Why is it so hard to understand why some fossils didn't survive billions of years? Or that every fossil is transitional? Or that the processes of evolution don't change a fish to a frog in the fishes lifetime?
Title: Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
Post by: Ichimaru Gin :] on September 29, 2012, 04:33:47 PM
Most of us can agree that fossils have been found and have provided tangible evidence for the variety of life that existed long before man's arrival.  BUT what they have NOT provided or produced evidence for is the expected backing for the evolutionary view of how life BEGAN or how NEW KINDS got started thereafter.

There are major gaps or a gulf between the major divisions of animal life, such as fish for example.  Fish are thought to have evolved from invertebrates and bam, boom fish jump into the fossil record?  Huh?

Evolutionary theory presumes that fish became amphibians; some amphibians became reptiles; from the reptiles came both mammals and birds; and eventually some mammals became men.

Here's the problem though > > >
IT was the backbone that distinguished the fish from the invertebrates, and that very backbone would have had to undergo major modifications for the fish to become an amphibian (for water and land).

* a pelvis would have to be added
* in some amphibians the entire backbone would have to change so much as to be unrecognizable
* skull bones are different
* fish fins must become jointed limbs with wrists and toes (for amphibian formation)
* major alterations in muscles and nerves
* Gills must change to lungs
* In fish there is a 2 chambered heart and in amphibians it is 3 chambered

If evolution was correct, then how is it that there are no fossils showing these changes?  But Boom we have fish !
There are fossils showing most of those changes actually.
Title: Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on September 29, 2012, 08:30:25 PM
I really wish they would (correctly) teach evolution in school.

Or not at all.
Title: Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
Post by: Supertails on September 29, 2012, 09:09:26 PM
It kind of worries me that you're going to be the one teaching your kids about evolution.
Title: Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
Post by: Vindictus on September 30, 2012, 01:19:15 AM
It kind of worries me that you're going to be the one teaching your kids about evolution.

Leave America and stop worrying. I have never encountered someone who thought evolution to be false, and I had a Catholic education.
Title: Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
Post by: Raist on September 30, 2012, 10:00:04 AM
Most of us can agree that fossils have been found and have provided tangible evidence for the variety of life that existed long before man's arrival.  BUT what they have NOT provided or produced evidence for is the expected backing for the evolutionary view of how life BEGAN or how NEW KINDS got started thereafter.

There are major gaps or a gulf between the major divisions of animal life, such as fish for example.  Fish are thought to have evolved from invertebrates and bam, boom fish jump into the fossil record?  Huh?

Evolutionary theory presumes that fish became amphibians; some amphibians became reptiles; from the reptiles came both mammals and birds; and eventually some mammals became men.

Here's the problem though > > >
IT was the backbone that distinguished the fish from the invertebrates, and that very backbone would have had to undergo major modifications for the fish to become an amphibian (for water and land).

* a pelvis would have to be added
* in some amphibians the entire backbone would have to change so much as to be unrecognizable
* skull bones are different
* fish fins must become jointed limbs with wrists and toes (for amphibian formation)
* major alterations in muscles and nerves
* Gills must change to lungs
* In fish there is a 2 chambered heart and in amphibians it is 3 chambered

If evolution was correct, then how is it that there are no fossils showing these changes?  But Boom we have fish !

Because not every bone fossilizes. In fact most bones don't fossilize. In fact almost nothing fossilizes. There is also a huge bias when it comes to the fossilization process. Certain areas generate fossils much better. Large hard things tend to fossilize really well while soft things tend to do so rather poorly. Etc Etc. This means that animals that live in the right place, are the right size, and have the right types of bones will become the majority of fossils while most animals (entire species even) will never leave a single fossil on the earth.
Title: Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
Post by: Raist on September 30, 2012, 10:02:30 AM
I really wish they would (correctly) teach evolution in school.

Or not at all.

Coming from someone that has demonstrated over and over that they were never properly taught the theory. Either that or you just never quite grasped it.
Title: Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on September 30, 2012, 01:39:11 PM
Mutations, randomness and who has sex with who, mixed in with a little natural selection(or maybe not depending on who you talk to). 

Its not hard to grasp.  Now believing in, that's a whole other matter.
Title: Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
Post by: Beorn on September 30, 2012, 01:40:47 PM
Mutations, randomness and who has sex with who, mixed in with a little natural selection(or maybe not depending on who you talk to). 

Its not hard to grasp.  Now believing in, that's a whole other matter.

If you think believing comes into it you didn't grasp it.
Title: Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
Post by: Raist on September 30, 2012, 02:02:30 PM
Mutations, randomness and who has sex with who, mixed in with a little natural selection(or maybe not depending on who you talk to). 

Its not hard to grasp.  Now believing in, that's a whole other matter.

Wardogg, do you not remember the forum coming together to teach you what little you know about evolution in the past few years?
Title: Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on September 30, 2012, 02:08:11 PM
Yes, everything I know about evolution I learned from here. 
Title: Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
Post by: hoppy on September 30, 2012, 02:19:52 PM
Evolution is a lie from the pit of Hell.
Title: Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
Post by: Beorn on September 30, 2012, 02:22:40 PM
Yes, everything I know about evolution I learned from here.

Clearly you didn't learn enough.
Title: Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
Post by: Saddam Hussein on September 30, 2012, 02:35:17 PM
There are no bad students, only bad teachers.  We are to blame for Wardogg's ignorance.
Title: Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
Post by: Supertails on September 30, 2012, 02:55:57 PM
There are no bad students, only bad teachers.  We are to blame for Wardogg's ignorance.

We myst wear this badge with shame. :(
Title: Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
Post by: sokarul on September 30, 2012, 08:15:36 PM
Yes, everything I know about evolution I learned from here.

Clearly you didn't learn enough.
There is a reason why he is in the military. 
Title: Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
Post by: Saddam Hussein on September 30, 2012, 08:29:27 PM
There is a reason why he is in the military.

Says the guy who drinks urine for a living.

Also, welcome back!
Title: Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
Post by: Chris Spaghetti on October 01, 2012, 12:59:35 AM
Did you know that if you disproved Evolution, Creationism is still not a viable option because it has zero evidence? Just a thought.

If you eliminate the all the possibilities of evolution, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

Absolutely, eliminate evolution and the only plausible possibility is that a fugitive time-traveller fled from etmporal police in the year 8732 and cut his leg in a shallow sea in pre-historic Earth, this injection of the building blocks of life began life on Earth.

Did you know that if you disproved Evolution, Creationism is still not a viable option because it has zero evidence? Just a thought.

If you eliminate the all the possibilities of evolution, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

Absolutely, eliminate evolution and the only plausible possibility is that there is a deeper sentience within DNA which can guide evolution from within to preserve the rece-memory of the organism.

Did you know that if you disproved Evolution, Creationism is still not a viable option because it has zero evidence? Just a thought.

If you eliminate the all the possibilities of evolution, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

Absolutely, eliminate evolution and the only plausible possibility is that there were five individuals representing the 5 kingdoms of life who bled through into our world from an alternative dimension several million years ago, thus beginning life on our world.

Did you know that if you disproved Evolution, Creationism is still not a viable option because it has zero evidence? Just a thought.

If you eliminate the all the possibilities of evolution, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

Absolutely, eliminate evolution and the only plausible possibility is that an alien influence occasionally ionterferes in Earth's evolution through mysterious black obelisks.

Did you know that if you disproved Evolution, Creationism is still not a viable option because it has zero evidence? Just a thought.

If you eliminate the all the possibilities of evolution, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

Absolutely, eliminate evolution and the only plausible possibility is that we're all in a giant computer program and each major evolutionary leap represent 'expansion packs' bought by the Great Player.

Did you know that if you disproved Evolution, Creationism is still not a viable option because it has zero evidence? Just a thought.

If you eliminate the all the possibilities of evolution, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

Absolutely, eliminate evolution and the only plausible possibility is that we have a distorted view on time which, in reality travels from effect to cause, which shows a continual degredation of life.

Did you know that if you disproved Evolution, Creationism is still not a viable option because it has zero evidence? Just a thought.

If you eliminate the all the possibilities of evolution, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

Absolutely, eliminate evolution and the only plausible possibility is that each main species of life originated from a progenitor god who chose an avatar with which to walk upon the Earth.

Did you know that if you disproved Evolution, Creationism is still not a viable option because it has zero evidence? Just a thought.

If you eliminate the all the possibilities of evolution, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

Absolutely, eliminate evolution and the only plausible possibility is that an omipotent jewish deity summoned all life into existence in a magical garden inhabited by talking snakes and intelligence-boosting trees.
Title: Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
Post by: Vindictus on October 01, 2012, 03:19:10 AM
Yes, everything I know about evolution I learned from here.

Clearly you didn't learn enough.
There is a reason why he is in the military.

This is dumb and you should feel dumb.
Title: Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
Post by: Ichimaru Gin :] on October 01, 2012, 05:08:54 AM
Did you know that if you disproved Evolution, Creationism is still not a viable option because it has zero evidence? Just a thought.

If you eliminate the all the possibilities of evolution, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

Absolutely, eliminate evolution and the only plausible possibility is that a fugitive time-traveller fled from etmporal police in the year 8732 and cut his leg in a shallow sea in pre-historic Earth, this injection of the building blocks of life began life on Earth.

Did you know that if you disproved Evolution, Creationism is still not a viable option because it has zero evidence? Just a thought.

If you eliminate the all the possibilities of evolution, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

Absolutely, eliminate evolution and the only plausible possibility is that there is a deeper sentience within DNA which can guide evolution from within to preserve the rece-memory of the organism.

Did you know that if you disproved Evolution, Creationism is still not a viable option because it has zero evidence? Just a thought.

If you eliminate the all the possibilities of evolution, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

Absolutely, eliminate evolution and the only plausible possibility is that there were five individuals representing the 5 kingdoms of life who bled through into our world from an alternative dimension several million years ago, thus beginning life on our world.

Did you know that if you disproved Evolution, Creationism is still not a viable option because it has zero evidence? Just a thought.

If you eliminate the all the possibilities of evolution, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

Absolutely, eliminate evolution and the only plausible possibility is that an alien influence occasionally ionterferes in Earth's evolution through mysterious black obelisks.

Did you know that if you disproved Evolution, Creationism is still not a viable option because it has zero evidence? Just a thought.

If you eliminate the all the possibilities of evolution, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

Absolutely, eliminate evolution and the only plausible possibility is that we're all in a giant computer program and each major evolutionary leap represent 'expansion packs' bought by the Great Player.

Did you know that if you disproved Evolution, Creationism is still not a viable option because it has zero evidence? Just a thought.

If you eliminate the all the possibilities of evolution, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

Absolutely, eliminate evolution and the only plausible possibility is that we have a distorted view on time which, in reality travels from effect to cause, which shows a continual degredation of life.

Did you know that if you disproved Evolution, Creationism is still not a viable option because it has zero evidence? Just a thought.

If you eliminate the all the possibilities of evolution, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

Absolutely, eliminate evolution and the only plausible possibility is that each main species of life originated from a progenitor god who chose an avatar with which to walk upon the Earth.

Did you know that if you disproved Evolution, Creationism is still not a viable option because it has zero evidence? Just a thought.

If you eliminate the all the possibilities of evolution, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

Absolutely, eliminate evolution and the only plausible possibility is that an omipotent jewish deity summoned all life into existence in a magical garden inhabited by talking snakes and intelligence-boosting trees.
Absolutely, eliminate the absurd alternatives.
Title: Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
Post by: Nomad on October 01, 2012, 05:50:29 AM
Did you know that if you disproved Evolution, Creationism is still not a viable option because it has zero evidence? Just a thought.

If you eliminate the all the possibilities of evolution, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

Absolutely, eliminate evolution and the only plausible possibility is that a fugitive time-traveller fled from etmporal police in the year 8732 and cut his leg in a shallow sea in pre-historic Earth, this injection of the building blocks of life began life on Earth.

Did you know that if you disproved Evolution, Creationism is still not a viable option because it has zero evidence? Just a thought.

If you eliminate the all the possibilities of evolution, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

Absolutely, eliminate evolution and the only plausible possibility is that there is a deeper sentience within DNA which can guide evolution from within to preserve the rece-memory of the organism.

Did you know that if you disproved Evolution, Creationism is still not a viable option because it has zero evidence? Just a thought.

If you eliminate the all the possibilities of evolution, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

Absolutely, eliminate evolution and the only plausible possibility is that there were five individuals representing the 5 kingdoms of life who bled through into our world from an alternative dimension several million years ago, thus beginning life on our world.

Did you know that if you disproved Evolution, Creationism is still not a viable option because it has zero evidence? Just a thought.

If you eliminate the all the possibilities of evolution, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

Absolutely, eliminate evolution and the only plausible possibility is that an alien influence occasionally ionterferes in Earth's evolution through mysterious black obelisks.

Did you know that if you disproved Evolution, Creationism is still not a viable option because it has zero evidence? Just a thought.

If you eliminate the all the possibilities of evolution, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

Absolutely, eliminate evolution and the only plausible possibility is that we're all in a giant computer program and each major evolutionary leap represent 'expansion packs' bought by the Great Player.

Did you know that if you disproved Evolution, Creationism is still not a viable option because it has zero evidence? Just a thought.

If you eliminate the all the possibilities of evolution, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

Absolutely, eliminate evolution and the only plausible possibility is that we have a distorted view on time which, in reality travels from effect to cause, which shows a continual degredation of life.

Did you know that if you disproved Evolution, Creationism is still not a viable option because it has zero evidence? Just a thought.

If you eliminate the all the possibilities of evolution, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

Absolutely, eliminate evolution and the only plausible possibility is that each main species of life originated from a progenitor god who chose an avatar with which to walk upon the Earth.

Did you know that if you disproved Evolution, Creationism is still not a viable option because it has zero evidence? Just a thought.

If you eliminate the all the possibilities of evolution, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

Absolutely, eliminate evolution and the only plausible possibility is that an omipotent jewish deity summoned all life into existence in a magical garden inhabited by talking snakes and intelligence-boosting trees.

Post of the century.
Title: Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
Post by: Conker on October 01, 2012, 06:35:50 AM
Did you know that if you disproved Evolution, Creationism is still not a viable option because it has zero evidence? Just a thought.

If you eliminate the all the possibilities of evolution, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

Absolutely, eliminate evolution and the only plausible possibility is that a fugitive time-traveller fled from etmporal police in the year 8732 and cut his leg in a shallow sea in pre-historic Earth, this injection of the building blocks of life began life on Earth.

Did you know that if you disproved Evolution, Creationism is still not a viable option because it has zero evidence? Just a thought.

If you eliminate the all the possibilities of evolution, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

Absolutely, eliminate evolution and the only plausible possibility is that there is a deeper sentience within DNA which can guide evolution from within to preserve the rece-memory of the organism.

Did you know that if you disproved Evolution, Creationism is still not a viable option because it has zero evidence? Just a thought.

If you eliminate the all the possibilities of evolution, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

Absolutely, eliminate evolution and the only plausible possibility is that there were five individuals representing the 5 kingdoms of life who bled through into our world from an alternative dimension several million years ago, thus beginning life on our world.

Did you know that if you disproved Evolution, Creationism is still not a viable option because it has zero evidence? Just a thought.

If you eliminate the all the possibilities of evolution, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

Absolutely, eliminate evolution and the only plausible possibility is that an alien influence occasionally ionterferes in Earth's evolution through mysterious black obelisks.

Did you know that if you disproved Evolution, Creationism is still not a viable option because it has zero evidence? Just a thought.

If you eliminate the all the possibilities of evolution, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

Absolutely, eliminate evolution and the only plausible possibility is that we're all in a giant computer program and each major evolutionary leap represent 'expansion packs' bought by the Great Player.

Did you know that if you disproved Evolution, Creationism is still not a viable option because it has zero evidence? Just a thought.

If you eliminate the all the possibilities of evolution, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

Absolutely, eliminate evolution and the only plausible possibility is that we have a distorted view on time which, in reality travels from effect to cause, which shows a continual degredation of life.

Did you know that if you disproved Evolution, Creationism is still not a viable option because it has zero evidence? Just a thought.

If you eliminate the all the possibilities of evolution, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

Absolutely, eliminate evolution and the only plausible possibility is that each main species of life originated from a progenitor god who chose an avatar with which to walk upon the Earth.

Did you know that if you disproved Evolution, Creationism is still not a viable option because it has zero evidence? Just a thought.

If you eliminate the all the possibilities of evolution, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

Absolutely, eliminate evolution and the only plausible possibility is that an omipotent jewish deity summoned all life into existence in a magical garden inhabited by talking snakes and intelligence-boosting trees.

This. Please add to the FAQ.
Title: Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
Post by: Saddam Hussein on October 01, 2012, 10:37:38 AM
I say it was aliens.  Prove me wrong.
Title: Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
Post by: OrbisNonSufficit on October 01, 2012, 01:05:09 PM
I say it was aliens.  Prove me wrong.

Yes.
Title: Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
Post by: Rushy on October 01, 2012, 01:22:34 PM
I say it was aliens.  Prove me wrong.

Wrong. I was there. I made all of humanity, personally, using a petri dish I sneezed into and chalk. Prove me wrong.
Title: Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
Post by: Nomad on October 01, 2012, 01:59:14 PM
CONKER
Title: Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
Post by: Daz555 on October 02, 2012, 02:30:21 AM
As Prof Dawkins said (ish):

There is currently no refutation of evolution. If in future there is to be a refutation it would come from a serious scientist, not an idiot.
Title: Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
Post by: sandokhan on October 03, 2012, 12:11:18 AM
The best proofs that there is no such as thing as the theory of evolution, come from genetics and molecular biology:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1343816.html#msg1343816 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1343816.html#msg1343816)


Title: Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
Post by: Nomad on October 03, 2012, 12:57:59 AM
This thread just got a whole lot more nuts.
Title: Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
Post by: Beorn on October 03, 2012, 02:56:51 AM
The best proofs that there is no such as thing as the theory of evolution, come from genetics and molecular biology:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1343816.html#msg1343816 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1343816.html#msg1343816)

Genetics and molecular biology wouldn't exist without evolution. Try again.
Title: Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
Post by: Ichimaru Gin :] on October 03, 2012, 03:24:24 AM
The best proofs that there is no such as thing as the theory of evolution, come from genetics and molecular biology:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1343816.html#msg1343816 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1343816.html#msg1343816)
And this was no accident http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1007036.html#msg1007036 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1007036.html#msg1007036)
Title: Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
Post by: Rushy on October 03, 2012, 06:11:40 AM
This thread just got a whole lot more nuts.
Title: Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
Post by: sandokhan on October 04, 2012, 12:00:21 AM
Earth shape agnost, you haven't done your homework. Let us really try again.

Here are some quotes from the best works on genetics and molecular biology, which demonstrate quite clearly that there is no such thing as the theory of evolution.


M. Frank-Kamenetskii (Unraveling DNA): "It is clear, therefore, that you need a drastic refitting of the whole of your machine to make the car into a plane. The same is true for a protein. In trying to turn one enzyme into another, point mutations alone would not do the trick. What you need is a substantial change in the amino acid sequence. In this situation, rather than being helpful, selection is a major hindrance. One could think, for instance, that by consistently changing amino acids one by one, it will eventually prove possible to change the entire sequence substantially and thus the enzyme's spatial structure. These minor changes, however, are bound to result eventually in a situation in which the enzyme has ceased to perform its previous function but it has not yet begun its 'new duties.' It is at this point that it will be destroyed—together with the organism carrying it" (p. 76).



Antoine Tremolilre (La vie plus tetue que les etoiles): "We know that more than 90% of the changes affecting a letter in a word of the genetic message lead to disastrous results; proteins are no longer synthesized correctly, the message loses its entire meaning and this leads purely and simply to the cell’s death. Given that mutations are so frequently highly unfavourable, and even deadly, how can beneficial evolution be attained?" (p. 43).



Robert Wesson (Beyond Natural Selection): "By Mayr's calculation, in a rapidly evolving line an organ may enlarge about 1 to 10 percent per million years, but organs of the whale-in-becoming must have grown ten times more rapidly over 10 million years. Perhaps 300 generations are required for a gene substitution. Moreover, mutations need to occur many times, even with considerable advantage, in order to have a good chance of becoming fixed.
Considering the length of whale generations, the rarity with which the needed mutations are likely to appear, and the multitude of mutations needed to convert a land mammal into a whale, it is easy to conclude that gradualist natural selection of random variations cannot account for this animal" (p. 52). Wesson’s book is a catalogue of biological improbabilities—-from bats' hypersophisticated echolocation system to the electric organs of fish—and of the gaping holes in the fossil record.



Another fundamental problem contradicts the theory of chance-driven natural selection.
According to the theory, species should evolve slowly and gradually, since evolution is caused by the accumulation and selection of random errors in the genetic text. However, the fossil record reveals a completely different scenario. J. Madeleine Nash writes in her review of recent research in paleontology: "Until about 600 million years ago, there were no organisms more complex than bacteria, multicelled algae and single-celled plankton.... Then, 543 million years ago, in the early Cambrian, within the span of no more than 10 million years, creatures with teeth and tentacles and claws and jaws materialized with the suddenness of apparitions. In a burst of creativity like nothing before or since, nature appears to have sketched out the blueprints for virtually the whole of the animal kingdom.
Since 1987, discoveries of major fossil beds in Greenland, in China, in Siberia, and now in Namibia have shown that the period of biological innovation occurred at virtually the same instant in geological time all around the world.
Throughout the fossil record, species seem to appear suddenly, fully formed and equipped with all sorts of specialized organs, then remain stable for millions of years. For instance, there is no intermediate form between the terrestrial ancestor of the whale and the first fossils of this marine mammal. Like their current descendants, the latter have nostrils situated atop their heads, a modified respiratory system, new organs like a dorsal fin, and nipples surrounded by a cap to keep out seawater and equipped with a pump for underwater suckling. The whale represents the rule, rather than the exception. According to biologist Ernst Mayr, an authority on the matter of evolution, there is "no clear evidence for any change of a species into a different genus or for the gradual origin of an evolutionary novelty."



As if this wasn't enough, we have the Faint Young Sun Paradox, which destroys immediately any and all evolution fantasies:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1312927.html#msg1312927 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1312927.html#msg1312927)


Have any of you ever studied the big bang theory in full details? It seems you have not.

Here are the helium gap 5 and helium flash (triple alpha process) paradoxes: no elements could have been formed in the theory of evolution.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55861.msg1393324.html#msg1393324 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55861.msg1393324.html#msg1393324)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55861.msg1393326.html#msg1393326 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55861.msg1393326.html#msg1393326)


Case closed - end of discussion: there is no such thing as the theory of evolution.
Title: Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
Post by: mathsman on October 04, 2012, 01:32:09 AM
Case closed - end of discussion: there is no such thing as the theory of evolution.

Levee,

Is there anything mainstream science has got right?
Title: Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
Post by: Beorn on October 04, 2012, 03:35:05 AM
Have any of you ever studied the big bang theory in full details? It seems you have not.

The moment you bring big bang into an evolution argument you disqualify yourself.
Title: Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
Post by: Daz555 on October 04, 2012, 04:44:50 AM
Earth shape agnost, you haven't done your homework. Let us really try again.

Here are some quotes from the best works on genetics and molecular biology, which demonstrate quite clearly that there is no such thing as the theory of evolution.

............

This really deserves a LOL. So have one on me.

LOL.
Title: Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
Post by: Ichimaru Gin :] on October 04, 2012, 08:00:41 AM
I suggest everyone read the works of R. Newton as well.
Title: Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
Post by: randomism on October 04, 2012, 11:27:33 AM
The best proofs that there is no such as thing as the theory of evolution, come from genetics and molecular biology:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1343816.html#msg1343816 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1343816.html#msg1343816)

You don't believe in anything.
Title: Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
Post by: Supertails on October 04, 2012, 11:02:28 PM
If you express your belief for levee's theories, will he copy/paste several paragraphs disproving himself?
Title: Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
Post by: sandokhan on October 05, 2012, 12:41:57 AM
The official science owes everything to the discoveries of Nikola Tesla, mathsman: radio, television, radar, cryogenics, x-ray devices, robotics, wireless communication...and much more.


I think these quotes are pretty straightforward: there is no such thing as the theory of evolution.

Please read them carefully.


Let us listen, first, to the eloquent words of Dr. Ernst Mayr:


According to biologist Ernst Mayr, an authority on the matter of evolution, there is "no clear evidence for any change of a species into a different genus or for the gradual origin of an evolutionary novelty."



Another authority on the matter is M. Frank-Kamenetskii:


M. Frank-Kamenetskii (Unraveling DNA):

"It is clear, therefore, that you need a drastic refitting of the whole of your machine to make the car into a plane. The same is true for a protein. In trying to turn one enzyme into another, point mutations alone would not do the trick.

What you need is a substantial change in the amino acid sequence. In this situation, rather than being helpful, selection is a major hindrance. One could think, for instance, that by consistently changing amino acids one by one, it will eventually prove possible to change the entire sequence substantially and thus the enzyme's spatial structure.

These minor changes, however, are bound to result eventually in a situation in which the enzyme has ceased to perform its previous function but it has not yet begun its 'new duties.' It is at this point that it will be destroyed—together with the organism carrying it" (p. 76).



Clear enough, isn't it?


Antoine Tremolilre (La vie plus tetue que les etoiles): "We know that more than 90% of the changes affecting a letter in a word of the genetic message lead to disastrous results; proteins are no longer synthesized correctly, the message loses its entire meaning and this leads purely and simply to the cell’s death. Given that mutations are so frequently highly unfavourable, and even deadly, how can beneficial evolution be attained?" (p. 43).




Here is another demonstration that there is no such thing as a theory of evolution, from Robert Wesson's classic Beyond Natural Selection:

"By Mayr's calculation, in a rapidly evolving line an organ may enlarge about 1 to 10 percent per million years, but organs of the whale-in-becoming must have grown ten times more rapidly over 10 million years. Perhaps 300 generations are required for a gene substitution. Moreover, mutations need to occur many times, even with considerable advantage, in order to have a good chance of becoming fixed.


Considering the length of whale generations, the rarity with which the needed mutations are likely to appear, and the multitude of mutations needed to convert a land mammal into a whale, it is easy to conclude that gradualist natural selection of random variations cannot account for this animal" (p. 52)



And there are further problems with the supposed evolution of whales.


Another fundamental problem contradicts the theory of chance-driven natural selection.
According to the theory, species should evolve slowly and gradually, since evolution is caused by the accumulation and selection of random errors in the genetic text.

However, the fossil record reveals a completely different scenario. J. Madeleine Nash writes in her review of recent research in paleontology: "Until about 600 million years ago, there were no organisms more complex than bacteria, multicelled algae and single-celled plankton.... Then, 543 million years ago, in the early Cambrian, within the span of no more than 10 million years, creatures with teeth and tentacles and claws and jaws materialized with the suddenness of apparitions. In a burst of creativity like nothing before or since, nature appears to have sketched out the blueprints for virtually the whole of the animal kingdom.

Since 1987, discoveries of major fossil beds in Greenland, in China, in Siberia, and now in Namibia have shown that the period of biological innovation occurred at virtually the same instant in geological time all around the world.

Throughout the fossil record, species seem to appear suddenly, fully formed and equipped with all sorts of specialized organs, then remain stable for millions of years. For instance, there is no intermediate form between the terrestrial ancestor of the whale and the first fossils of this marine mammal. Like their current descendants, the latter have nostrils situated atop their heads, a modified respiratory system, new organs like a dorsal fin, and nipples surrounded by a cap to keep out seawater and equipped with a pump for underwater suckling. The whale represents the rule, rather than the exception.


Evolution theory is pure fantasy, with no scientific merit whatsoever...let us not waste anymore time with this matter.
Title: Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
Post by: Saddam Hussein on October 05, 2012, 08:28:07 AM
Quote-mining proves nothing, levee.  Those quotes are from people who do in fact (or did, as a couple of them are dead) support evolutionary theory.  Kind of a giveaway that these are out of context.
Title: Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
Post by: Moon squirter on October 05, 2012, 12:07:16 PM
(Evolution theory is pure fantasy, with no scientific merit whatsoever...let us not waste anymore time with this matter.)-1
Title: Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
Post by: markjo on October 05, 2012, 07:41:27 PM
Case closed - end of discussion: there is no such thing as the theory of evolution.

Of course there is such a thing as the theory of evolution.  It may or may not be correct, but it is a theory none the less.
Title: Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
Post by: Sutekh on October 15, 2012, 04:38:16 AM
Did you know that if you disproved Evolution, Creationism is still not a viable option because it has zero evidence? Just a thought.

If you eliminate the all the possibilities of evolution, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

Science dosen't develop according to quotes from imaginary detectives.

no-one has eliminated evolution other than people who aren't scientists. If you go to any biology department in the world you will realise this. people think there is a great debate, but in fact the reality is clear if you ever bother visiting your local university and take note of the courses given. you may well notice the evolutionary papers and a slight lack of creationism 101 lol
Title: Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on November 04, 2012, 01:05:41 PM
Did you know that if you disproved Evolution, Creationism is still not a viable option because it has zero evidence? Just a thought.

If you eliminate the all the possibilities of evolution, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

Science dosen't develop according to quotes from imaginary detectives.

no-one has eliminated evolution other than people who aren't scientists. If you go to any biology department in the world you will realise this. people think there is a great debate, but in fact the reality is clear if you ever bother visiting your local university and take note of the courses given. you may well notice the evolutionary papers and a slight lack of creationism 101 lol

lol
Title: Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
Post by: Conker on November 07, 2012, 09:20:32 AM
Did you know that if you disproved Evolution, Creationism is still not a viable option because it has zero evidence? Just a thought.

If you eliminate the all the possibilities of evolution, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

Science dosen't develop according to quotes from imaginary detectives.

no-one has eliminated evolution other than people who aren't scientists. If you go to any biology department in the world you will realise this. people think there is a great debate, but in fact the reality is clear if you ever bother visiting your local university and take note of the courses given. you may well notice the evolutionary papers and a slight lack of creationism 101 lol

lol

O.K, Wardog, except in the USA
Title: Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
Post by: Vindictus on November 07, 2012, 12:52:39 PM
Universities brain wash you into believing things that are true. Worse yet, they do it through shifty means, using evidence and facts!
Title: Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
Post by: Rushy on November 07, 2012, 12:59:21 PM
Universities brain wash you into believing things that are true. Worse yet, they do it through shifty means, using evidence and facts!

If that was true, then they would teach FET in every university.
Title: Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
Post by: Vindictus on November 07, 2012, 01:03:54 PM
Universities brain wash you into believing things that are true. Worse yet, they do it through shifty means, using evidence and facts!

If that was true, then they would teach FET in every university.

Yes, just like creationism 101.
Title: Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
Post by: Chris Spaghetti on November 08, 2012, 07:10:23 AM
Quote
Science dosen't develop according to quotes from imaginary detectives.

That's just the thing I'd expect to hear from a Frostist. Personally I base my science on the writings of the great prophet Columbo.



Oh, there is just one more thing, what is a 'slight lack?' I know I've heard it before, my wife must go on about it once or twice a day, but you know how it is when you get to my age.
Title: Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
Post by: Lollerskates on November 08, 2012, 04:43:11 PM
Did you know that if you disproved Evolution, Creationism is still not a viable option because it has zero evidence? Just a thought.
Did you know that if you disproved a round earth, a flat earth is still not a viable option because it has zero evidence? Just a though.
Title: Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
Post by: Ichimaru Gin :] on November 08, 2012, 04:45:45 PM
Did you know that if you disproved Evolution, Creationism is still not a viable option because it has zero evidence? Just a thought.
Did you know that if you disproved a round earth, a flat earth is still not a viable option because it has zero evidence? Just a though.
That's demonstratebly wrong. In any case, let's stick with evolution jabs. RE vs FE has plenty of room in the upper fora.
Title: Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
Post by: babsinva on January 05, 2013, 08:47:16 PM
Most of us can agree that fossils have been found and have provided tangible evidence for the variety of life that existed long before man's arrival.  BUT what they have NOT provided or produced evidence for is the expected backing for the evolutionary view of how life BEGAN or how NEW KINDS got started thereafter.

There are major gaps or a gulf between the major divisions of animal life, such as fish for example.  Fish are thought to have evolved from invertebrates and bam, boom fish jump into the fossil record?  Huh?

Evolutionary theory presumes that fish became amphibians; some amphibians became reptiles; from the reptiles came both mammals and birds; and eventually some mammals became men.

Here's the problem though > > >
IT was the backbone that distinguished the fish from the invertebrates, and that very backbone would have had to undergo major modifications for the fish to become an amphibian (for water and land).

* a pelvis would have to be added
* in some amphibians the entire backbone would have to change so much as to be unrecognizable
* skull bones are different
* fish fins must become jointed limbs with wrists and toes (for amphibian formation)
* major alterations in muscles and nerves
* Gills must change to lungs
* In fish there is a 2 chambered heart and in amphibians it is 3 chambered

If evolution was correct, then how is it that there are no fossils showing these changes?  But Boom we have fish !

Because not every bone fossilizes. In fact most bones don't fossilize. In fact almost nothing fossilizes. There is also a huge bias when it comes to the fossilization process. Certain areas generate fossils much better. Large hard things tend to fossilize really well while soft things tend to do so rather poorly. Etc Etc. This means that animals that live in the right place, are the right size, and have the right types of bones will become the majority of fossils while most animals (entire species even) will never leave a single fossil on the earth.

Oh and I'm not done Raist.

1B) To further BRIDGE the gap between fish and amphibian, the sense of hearing would have to undergo a radical change, tongues and eyes too.

*  fish receive sound through their bodies, yet toads and frogs have eardrums
*  fish do not have extendable tongues but amphibians such as toads do
*  amphibian eyes have the added ability to blink

- - - - - - * * * * * - - - - -

2) Then you have the gulf or ravine that exists between amphibian and reptile . . .

The most difficult is the origin of the shelled egg > >
Creatures prior to reptiles laid their soft, jellylike eggs in water and were fertilized externally.  Whereas reptiles laid their eggs on land and the embryos inside them were still in a watery environment.  The shelled egg was the answer but the way it was fertilized had to change radically.  It required internal fertilization but BEFORE the egg is surrounded by a shell.  2A) This would require new sexual organs, mating procedures and instincts.

2B) Enclosing the egg in a shell would require further remarkable changes for the reptile such as various membranes and sacs in the shell called amnion. Reptiles have another membrane called the allantois receiving and storing embryonic waste kind of like a bladder.

2C) Other complex differences would need to occur such as a chemical change.  Embryos in fish and amphibian eggs release their wastes in the surrounding water as soluable urea, but the urea in shelled eggs of reptiles would kill the embryos.  This is where the chemical change would come in.  The wastes being the insoluble uric acid are stored within the allantois membrane.

SUMMATION:
Now you want me to believe that we just don't have fossils for these, yet we have fossils that exist in museums for many eras, but you can't find a one to explain this.  Ok you can stick to that theory if you want, but then is sounds more like evolution is a bunch of jump starts, gaps and evolutionary leaps instead of the slow gradual process of evolving.  Might be why they call it evolutionary "theory".


Title: Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
Post by: Saddam Hussein on January 05, 2013, 09:05:25 PM
You seem to be ignoring every reply that you're given, babs.  As has been pointed out to you several times now, evolution is not what you think it is.
Title: Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on January 06, 2013, 05:47:53 AM
You seem to be ignoring every reply that you're given, babs.  As has been pointed out to you several times now, evolution is not what you think it is.

Question(s)

What is evolution then?

What does he think it is?

Title: Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
Post by: Lorddave on January 06, 2013, 05:52:38 AM
I think babs doesn't know how fossils are made.
Title: Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
Post by: Saddam Hussein on January 06, 2013, 02:50:27 PM
You seem to be ignoring every reply that you're given, babs.  As has been pointed out to you several times now, evolution is not what you think it is.

Question(s)

What is evolution then?

What does he think it is?

Apparently he thinks that evolution is this:

Evolutionary theory presumes that fish became amphibians; some amphibians became reptiles; from the reptiles came both mammals and birds; and eventually some mammals became men.

That's not correct.  The "relationships" that modern, complex species have with each other are simply common ancestors.  They don't evolve into each other, and so asking for transitional fossils of them is silly.  In fact, all arguments against evolution that rely on fossils are silly.  Fossils are a very small part of the overall evidence for evolution.
Title: Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on January 06, 2013, 03:50:51 PM
One species of animals evolves to the next species of animal does it not?  Subtle changes over vast amounts of time.  But at some point the animal has to change from one thing to the other or none of it would have a common ancestor. 
Title: Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
Post by: babsinva on January 06, 2013, 07:20:21 PM
You seem to be ignoring every reply that you're given, babs.  As has been pointed out to you several times now, evolution is not what you think it is.

Question(s)

What is evolution then?

What does he think it is?

Apparently he thinks that evolution is this:

Evolutionary theory presumes that fish became amphibians; some amphibians became reptiles; from the reptiles came both mammals and birds; and eventually some mammals became men.

That's not correct.  The "relationships" that modern, complex species have with each other are simply common ancestors.  They don't evolve into each other, and so asking for transitional fossils of them is silly.  In fact, all arguments against evolution that rely on fossils are silly.  Fossils are a very small part of the overall evidence for evolution.

1) When one gets too close to a real challenge of a 2nd other, then the 2nd other moves the goal line so the 1st can never get there.  In other words when you are close to disproving their point, they change the point or how to get there, or simply say YOU don't understand it.

BUT what you must know is that . . .

2) even those in the evolutionary warring camps have a lack of total agreement

AND

3) there are as many variations on evolution theory or themes as there are biologists

Examples of those who agree that Darwinianism is in surprising amount of trouble :
*  Frances Hitching, evolutionist and author of The Neck of the Giraffe
*  Niles Eldredge, paleontologist and evolutionist
*  the Bulletin of Chicago's Field Museum of Natural History
*  Steven Stanley's The New Evolutionary Timetable
* as well as other who accept evolutionary theory such as London Times writer Christopher Booker and astonomer Robert Jastrow
Title: Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
Post by: Vindictus on January 06, 2013, 09:05:44 PM
1) When one gets too close to a real challenge of a 2nd other, then the 2nd other moves the goal line so the 1st can never get there.  In other words when you are close to disproving their point, they change the point or how to get there, or simply say YOU don't understand it.

I don't see how this is relevant. No one changed the topic.

BUT what you must know is that . . .

2) even those in the evolutionary warring camps have a lack of total agreement

Regarding what? Evolution is a diverse topic.

3) there are as many variations on evolution theory or themes as there are biologists

Examples of those who agree that Darwinianism is in surprising amount of trouble :
*  Frances Hitching, evolutionist and author of The Neck of the Giraffe
*  Niles Eldredge, paleontologist and evolutionist
*  the Bulletin of Chicago's Field Museum of Natural History
*  Steven Stanley's The New Evolutionary Timetable
* as well as other who accept evolutionary theory such as London Times writer Christopher Booker and astonomer Robert Jastrow

What do you mean by 'Darwinianism'?
Title: Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
Post by: Saddam Hussein on January 06, 2013, 09:21:41 PM
That reply had absolutely nothing to do with what I said.
Title: Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on January 06, 2013, 09:50:55 PM
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hitching.html (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hitching.html)

Quote
Research on Hitching turned up the following: Hitching is basically a sensational TV script writer and has no scientific credentials.

Are the other sources equally reputable?
Title: Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on January 06, 2013, 09:56:34 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Hitching (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Hitching)

Quote
Richard Dawkins stated: "I know nothing at all about Francis Hitching. If you are uncovering the fact that he is a charlatan, good for you. His book, The Neck of the Giraffe, is one of the silliest and most ignorant I have read for years."

Were you trying to show how Creationists put unquestioning faith not only in their lord and savior but also in anybody whose argument happens to support or coincide with their own?
Title: Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on January 07, 2013, 06:14:00 AM
Saddam?

One species of animals evolves to the next species of animal does it not?  Subtle changes over vast amounts of time.  But at some point the animal has to change from one thing to the other or none of it would have a common ancestor. 
Title: Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on January 07, 2013, 06:52:38 AM
Saddam?

One species of animals evolves to the next species of animal does it not?  Subtle changes over vast amounts of time.  But at some point the animal has to change from one thing to the other or none of it would have a common ancestor. 

Perhaps I can clarify the misconception.
All animals alive today are modern animals. They are not "less evolved". Evolution is not a march towards humanity.

On that note, we did not come from monkeys. Monkeys and humans both came from a common ancestor which no longer walks the Earth and can only be found in the fossil record. Of course there is a transition from that ancestor to new species like humans, but never between modern animals.
Title: Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
Post by: Son of Orospu on January 07, 2013, 06:58:19 AM
Is scientifically engineered life a for of artificially evolved life?
Title: Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
Post by: babsinva on January 07, 2013, 10:46:22 AM
1) When one gets too close to a real challenge of a 2nd other, then the 2nd other moves the goal line so the 1st can never get there.  In other words when you are close to disproving their point, they change the point or how to get there, or simply say YOU don't understand it.

I don't see how this is relevant. No one changed the topic.



BUT what you must know is that . . .

2) even those in the evolutionary warring camps have a lack of total agreement

Regarding what? Evolution is a diverse topic.


3) there are as many variations on evolution theory or themes as there are biologists

What do you mean by 'Darwinianism'?

@Vindi

Vindi - see Saddam's comment, where he implies evolution is not what I think it is.  Yes there are other opinions besides natural selection and survival of fitest, and also other evidence besides fossil record, so now I supposwe he wants to discredit the entire thread because he thinks I don't understand the topic.

Next . . diverse topic and lack of total agreement  - -  I meant that between creationists and evolutionists, there is even lack of agreement in the evolutionary camp

Next . . . . Darwinianism - I meant Charles Darwin's believers


One species of animals evolves to the next species of animal does it not?  Subtle changes over vast amounts of time.  But at some point the animal has to change from one thing to the other or none of it would have a common ancestor. 

Perhaps I can clarify the misconception.
All animals alive today are modern animals. They are not "less evolved". Evolution is not a march towards humanity.

On that note, we did not come from monkeys. Monkeys and humans both came from a common ancestor which no longer walks the Earth and can only be found in the fossil record. Of course there is a transition from that ancestor to new species like humans, but never between modern animals.

Again depends on who you ask in the evolutionary camp.  One FES member here, I think it was Pongo felt that based on evidence from an evolutionist that our closest relative is the monkey.  Some say it was a rhesus monkey.


Title: Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
Post by: Vindictus on January 07, 2013, 12:46:43 PM
Yes there are other opinions besides natural selection and survival of fitest, and also other evidence besides fossil record, so now I supposwe he wants to discredit the entire thread because he thinks I don't understand the topic.

But you don't. There are other opinions, but there are not competing theories. What is this other evidence you speak of?

Next . . diverse topic and lack of total agreement  - -  I meant that between creationists and evolutionists, there is even lack of agreement in the evolutionary camp

Yes, there's bound to be disagreement in the specifics, as there is within any scientific field. This doesn't mean the basics of evolution are a contested issue, because they're not.

Next . . . . Darwinianism - I meant Charles Darwin's believers

I was wondering if you were referring to social darwinism, which has little to do with evolution as a scientific theory.
Title: Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
Post by: Saddam Hussein on January 07, 2013, 12:58:00 PM
Saddam?

One species of animals evolves to the next species of animal does it not?  Subtle changes over vast amounts of time.  But at some point the animal has to change from one thing to the other or none of it would have a common ancestor. 

I had been talking about modern species, animals that developed their complex features over many years.  One of those species won't suddenly evolve into a radically different creature.
Title: Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
Post by: Tausami on January 07, 2013, 01:20:31 PM
Saddam?

One species of animals evolves to the next species of animal does it not?  Subtle changes over vast amounts of time.  But at some point the animal has to change from one thing to the other or none of it would have a common ancestor. 

Well, not exactly. It's a spectrum. There's as much debate over what constitutes a change in species as there is over what a planet is. Evolution looks like this, with blue, purple, and red as distinct species:

(http://livinglifewithoutanet.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/macroevolution.jpg)


It's not like there's a thousand little changes and then all of a sudden it's a fish. The changes slowly turn it into something that we would classify as a fish.
Title: Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on January 07, 2013, 05:45:43 PM
Again depends on who you ask in the evolutionary camp.  One FES member here, I think it was Pongo felt that based on evidence from an evolutionist that our closest relative is the monkey.  Some say it was a rhesus monkey.
Having a closest living relative doesn't conflict with what I said. Obviously, classification of evolutionary relatives can only be surmised after their speciation. Since that speciation occurred, both groups would continue to experience their own different evolutionary pressures. I suspect you misunderstood Pongo, though I invite him to speak for himself.

If he was including our own ancestors as our closest relatives to humans, I suspect homo sapiens would be the clear answer. ;)
Title: Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on January 07, 2013, 05:50:42 PM
Saddam?

One species of animals evolves to the next species of animal does it not?  Subtle changes over vast amounts of time.  But at some point the animal has to change from one thing to the other or none of it would have a common ancestor. 

Well, not exactly. It's a spectrum. There's as much debate over what constitutes a change in species as there is over what a planet is. Evolution looks like this, with blue, purple, and red as distinct species:

(http://livinglifewithoutanet.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/macroevolution.jpg)


It's not like there's a thousand little changes and then all of a sudden it's a fish. The changes slowly turn it into something that we would classify as a fish.

Your post is very colorful.  I admit evolution exists.  I admit macro/micro evolution exists. 

What is the common ancestor between a cottonwood tree, the dragonfly, and the chimpanzee?

Who was having sex with Neanderthal man? 
Title: Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on January 07, 2013, 06:12:38 PM
What is the common ancestor between a cottonwood tree, the dragonfly, and the chimpanzee?

"The" implies only one ancestor for those three. If your intention was to maximize the taxonomic differences in every obvious capacity I shall assume you mean the root of all current terrestrial life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_universal_ancestor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_universal_ancestor)

Who was having sex with Neanderthal man?
Neanderthal women. Prolly neanderthal men and some instances of necorphilia and/or bestiality too, but I suspect that's irrelevant to your line of questioning since none of those would create a new lineage.
Title: Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
Post by: Vindictus on January 07, 2013, 06:17:35 PM
I thought we were having sex with neanderthals?
Title: Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on January 07, 2013, 06:22:33 PM
I thought we were having sex with neanderthals?
Neanderthals are extinct, but feel free to hump any of their remains that you can find.

(http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/33037661.jpg)
Crappy memegenerator didn't get rid of the template text when I made this. Not gonna bother to shoop it out. -_-
Title: Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
Post by: Vindictus on January 07, 2013, 06:26:17 PM
No, I mean we bred with neanderthals in the past.
Title: Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on January 07, 2013, 06:36:50 PM
No, I mean we bred with neanderthals in the past.
Ah.
I took "we" to mean modern humans (homo sapiens sapiens). Given that neanderthals sexed each other up, it would logically follow that we (as homo sapiens) have sexed up neanderthals.
Title: Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
Post by: Lorddave on January 07, 2013, 06:39:16 PM
No, I mean we bred with neanderthals in the past.
Probably.  But in the end, we kicked their asses and wiped them out.

Or bred with them to bring them into our fold.  Hard to say.
Title: Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
Post by: Saddam Hussein on January 07, 2013, 07:15:49 PM
We aren't descended from neanderthals.  Like the monkeys, it's a common ancestor.
Title: Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
Post by: OrbisNonSufficit on January 07, 2013, 07:21:50 PM
We aren't descended from neanderthals.  Like the monkeys, it's a common ancestor.

Modern Europeans actually do have some neanderthal blood in them...
Title: Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
Post by: Tausami on January 07, 2013, 07:33:48 PM
Saddam?

One species of animals evolves to the next species of animal does it not?  Subtle changes over vast amounts of time.  But at some point the animal has to change from one thing to the other or none of it would have a common ancestor. 

Well, not exactly. It's a spectrum. There's as much debate over what constitutes a change in species as there is over what a planet is. Evolution looks like this, with blue, purple, and red as distinct species:

(http://livinglifewithoutanet.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/macroevolution.jpg)


It's not like there's a thousand little changes and then all of a sudden it's a fish. The changes slowly turn it into something that we would classify as a fish.

Your post is very colorful.  I admit evolution exists.  I admit macro/micro evolution exists. 

What is the common ancestor between a cottonwood tree, the dragonfly, and the chimpanzee?

Who was having sex with Neanderthal man?

Well, since dragonflies and chimps are animals and trees are plants, I would imagine it was a primitive protist.
Title: Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
Post by: Vindictus on January 07, 2013, 07:59:45 PM
We aren't descended from neanderthals.  Like the monkeys, it's a common ancestor.

We didn't descend from them, but we did bang them.
Title: Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
Post by: markjo on January 07, 2013, 08:53:37 PM
Who was having sex with Neanderthal man?
Neanderthal women. Prolly neanderthal men and some instances of necorphilia and/or bestiality too, but I suspect that's irrelevant to your line of questioning since none of those would create a new lineage.
Cro magnon women were probably having sex with Neandertal men too.
Title: Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on January 09, 2013, 05:15:39 AM
Who was having sex with Neanderthal man?
Neanderthal women. Prolly neanderthal men and some instances of necorphilia and/or bestiality too, but I suspect that's irrelevant to your line of questioning since none of those would create a new lineage.
Cro magnon women were probably having sex with Neandertal men too.
I plead guilty to having a noninclusive list of all things neanderthals sexed.   ;)
Title: Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
Post by: Pythagoras on January 09, 2013, 06:25:06 AM
Evidence for evolution. Creationism just can't explain this. Pure and simples. If god designd this then he was a extremely bad designer.

http://touch.dailymotion.com/video/xdm5he_richard-dawkins-demonstrates-laryng_tech (http://touch.dailymotion.com/video/xdm5he_richard-dawkins-demonstrates-laryng_tech)

Only evolution can explain this.

I'd also like to say I'm not religious and know evolution is the truth. I don't belive in god but at a push I could just about belive that maby just maby god started life off in the begining at the very basic single cell stage and left it to its own devices after that. But why is evolution so anti god? I don't understand. If god created us and the world he didn't use magic did he? We are just uncovering the way he did it. A.K.A science. I'm sure he would be proud of what his species has accomplished.

But like I said I don't belive in him any way.