Deep Ravine in Evolution

  • 99 Replies
  • 13271 Views
*

Conker

  • 1557
  • Official FES jerk / kneebiter
Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
« Reply #60 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
This is not a joke society.
Quote from: OpenedEyes
You shouldn't be allowed to talk on a free discussion forum.

*

Vindictus

  • 5455
  • insightful personal text
Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
« Reply #61 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!

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
« Reply #62 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.

*

Vindictus

  • 5455
  • insightful personal text
Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
« Reply #63 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.

*

Chris Spaghetti

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12682
Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
« Reply #64 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.

Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
« Reply #65 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.

*

Ichimaru Gin :]

  • Undefeated FEer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 8711
  • Semper vigilans
Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
« Reply #66 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.
I saw a slight haze in the hotel bathroom this morning after I took a shower, have I discovered a new planet?

*

babsinva

  • 2222
  • aka Mr. Fahrenheit
Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
« Reply #67 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".


« Last Edit: January 05, 2013, 08:53:29 PM by babsinva »
Quote from Big Giant Head:  "Considered fictitious or phantom does not quantify its non-existence."

Quote from Soze:  "We cannot escape perception, but we can't assume reality doesn't exist outside of perception."

*

Saddam Hussein

  • Official Member
  • 35363
  • Former President of Iraq
Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
« Reply #68 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.

*

WardoggKC130FE

  • 11842
  • What website is that? MadeUpMonkeyShit.com?
Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
« Reply #69 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?


*

Lorddave

  • 15348
Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
« Reply #70 on: January 06, 2013, 05:52:38 AM »
I think babs doesn't know how fossils are made.

*

Saddam Hussein

  • Official Member
  • 35363
  • Former President of Iraq
Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
« Reply #71 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.

*

WardoggKC130FE

  • 11842
  • What website is that? MadeUpMonkeyShit.com?
Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
« Reply #72 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. 

*

babsinva

  • 2222
  • aka Mr. Fahrenheit
Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
« Reply #73 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
Quote from Big Giant Head:  "Considered fictitious or phantom does not quantify its non-existence."

Quote from Soze:  "We cannot escape perception, but we can't assume reality doesn't exist outside of perception."

*

Vindictus

  • 5455
  • insightful personal text
Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
« Reply #74 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'?

*

Saddam Hussein

  • Official Member
  • 35363
  • Former President of Iraq
Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
« Reply #75 on: January 06, 2013, 09:21:41 PM »
That reply had absolutely nothing to do with what I said.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
« Reply #76 on: January 06, 2013, 09:50:55 PM »
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?
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
« Reply #77 on: January 06, 2013, 09:56:34 PM »
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?
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

WardoggKC130FE

  • 11842
  • What website is that? MadeUpMonkeyShit.com?
Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
« Reply #78 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. 

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
« Reply #79 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.
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37806
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
« Reply #80 on: January 07, 2013, 06:58:19 AM »
Is scientifically engineered life a for of artificially evolved life?

*

babsinva

  • 2222
  • aka Mr. Fahrenheit
Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
« Reply #81 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.


Quote from Big Giant Head:  "Considered fictitious or phantom does not quantify its non-existence."

Quote from Soze:  "We cannot escape perception, but we can't assume reality doesn't exist outside of perception."

*

Vindictus

  • 5455
  • insightful personal text
Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
« Reply #82 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.

*

Saddam Hussein

  • Official Member
  • 35363
  • Former President of Iraq
Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
« Reply #83 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.

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
« Reply #84 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:




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.

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
« Reply #85 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. ;)
« Last Edit: January 07, 2013, 05:57:16 PM by ﮎingulaЯiτy »
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

*

WardoggKC130FE

  • 11842
  • What website is that? MadeUpMonkeyShit.com?
Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
« Reply #86 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:




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? 

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
« Reply #87 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

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.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2013, 06:23:05 PM by ﮎingulaЯiτy »
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

*

Vindictus

  • 5455
  • insightful personal text
Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
« Reply #88 on: January 07, 2013, 06:17:35 PM »
I thought we were having sex with neanderthals?

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Deep Ravine in Evolution
« Reply #89 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.


Crappy memegenerator didn't get rid of the template text when I made this. Not gonna bother to shoop it out. -_-
« Last Edit: January 07, 2013, 07:20:19 PM by ﮎingulaЯiτy »
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.