Deep Ravine in Evolution

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 !

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

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.

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!

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.

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!

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.

Quote from: 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.

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

Every form is intermediate.

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.

Quote from: Irushwithscvs 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.

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.

Quote from: Irushwithscvs 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.

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.

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.

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.

Quote from: 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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

I really wish they would (correctly) teach evolution in school.

Or not at all.

It kind of worries me that you're going to be the one teaching your kids about evolution.

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.

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.

Quote from: Beorn on September 29, 2012, 04:09:28 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.

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.

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.

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?

Yes, everything I know about evolution I learned from here. 

Evolution is a lie from the pit of Hell.

Yes, everything I know about evolution I learned from here.

Clearly you didn't learn enough.

There are no bad students, only bad teachers.  We are to blame for Wardogg's ignorance.

There are no bad students, only bad teachers.  We are to blame for Wardogg's ignorance.

We myst wear this badge with shame.