Originally posted by HalitoseCite a SINGLE scientific paper that says that an animal HAS to evolve within some given time period. You can't because it doesnt exist, because that is not what any theories say. Many fish, crustaceans, reptiles etc have evolved little over the past tens of millions of years (how often do you hear crocodiles refered to as 'living dinosaurs', I know I have several times). The fossil record is incomplete, yes, but if all of the creatures ever to have lived were preserved, the earth would be full of them, it takes special conditions to fossilise a creature.
Latimeria chalumnae, commonly known as the Coelacanth disappeared from the geologic column at the end of Mesozoic era. It became extinct, according to the accepted interpretation of the fossil record, sixty-five million years ago. Unfortunately for Chuck and his followers, a living Coelacanth was caught off the coast of South Africa in 1938, having exis ...[text shortened]... tion of the geologic column (which exists only in textbooks in its complete form) is unacceptable.
If what you are saying is true wouldn't the scientists hide the Coelacanth away and not talk about it, because it might let the creationists take over the world with their pseudo-scientific bs? No, becuase science is about looking at the evidence and adjusting the theory accordingly (unlike the creationists who take the theory as fact and adjust the evidence to suit!) That particular Coelacanth is in a jar in The Natural History Museum in London, for all to see, scientists and creationists alike, and provoked a debate amongst scientists. All agreed that the best explanation was that a Coelacanth had not been fossilised after the Mesozoic era by chance. It is obviously not around in the numbers it once was, since the error would have come to light much sooner. None of them decided to throw out hundereds of independant theories in geology, biology, physics and invoke a god because of this one fish. It would take a LOT of Coelacanth like creatures to outweigh the evidence for the TOE, age of the earth, basic geological processes etc etc.
1 edit
Originally posted by corp1131Indeed, absolutely. I was going to post on this this morning, but I've been feeling a bit ill.
Cite a [b]SINGLE scientific paper that says that an animal HAS to evolve within some given time period. You can't because it doesnt exist, because that is not what any theories say. Many fish, crustaceans, reptiles etc have evolved little over the past tens of millions of years (how often do you hear crocodiles refered to as 'living dino to outweigh the evidence for the TOE, age of the earth, basic geological processes etc etc.[/b]
Corp is absolutely right. It takes very specific conditions to produce a fossil, the best way is an underwater landslide which seals the animal into the mud anaerobically. We do have some nice fossils from the Rhynie Chert in Scotland where the preserving agent was sulphur, in a hot spring type environment. Anyhoo, most organisms don't get fossilised, and even the ones that do don't necessarily get found. So what? We don't have a fossil, so we don't have a fossil - it means nothing. It certainly doensn't mean that the coelocanth hasn't existed for the last 80 million years (coelocanths were pretty ubiquitous 250 million years ago, they disappeared in the last 80 million years actually).
Coelocanths are actually great examples of evolution - they have characteristics of fish, but also have pelvic and pectoral fins which could easily be adapted for land motion.
Spot on corp. 1 rec for you!
[edit; i'd like to point out that it wouldn't take alot of evidence to make us seriously rethink the theory of evolution, as JBS Haldane pointed out "one rabbit in the pre-Cambrian would do it." But, of course, no enidence of this has ever been found.
Originally posted by HalitoseProblem with analogies over intelligent arguments is that they suck.
And a balloon expanding infinitely is the logical consequence of your blowing in it. You seem to be unable to grasp the concept of limitations.
Could you please demonstrate where there is a limitation in microevolutions that prevent the occurence of macroevolution. I should think that you being an adriot scientist should be able to produce something.
Originally posted by HalitoseEarly on in the history of life on earth, life shared traits horizontally, that is to say, genes were swapped across species lines in bacteria,
Strawman and a fallacy of definition; you present microevolutional evidence and suggest it being proof of macroevolution. The virus mutated into a virus, which will mutate into another virus. There is no evidence of the genetic barrier being broken and it mutating into an essentially living (and non-viral) organism such as a bacterium.
Btw, a virus requires an already advanced DNA/RNA duplication system to be able to reproduce.
till one or more developed that had a 'selfish' gene. It kept its stuff to itself and thereby gained an advantage over the ones around it.
That cycle seems about to be broken again, there is an article in New Scientist written by a Nobel prize winner, I forget his name right now, but he suggests when genetic engineering goes the way other sciences go, that is to say, reaches the general public and high school kids get into the act of getting mixes of genes to actually work, frogs with snake tongues, glow in the dark lillies, etc., then the age of selfish genes are over and a new one begins where the genie of genetic manipulation is out of the bag for good or ill. When kids get to do it, make peas that taste like watermelons or any of an infinite combination of mixes, then evolution enters another phase, intelligent design with a vengence.
Originally posted by scottishinnzAnd every time we use a GPS we need to thank Einstein, it would not work without his corrections to the time base because the clocks in orbit all go at differant rates depending on how fast they are going, having nothing to do with how accurate you can make a clock but how space and time has been proven to be malleable just by having a different velocity. GPS's would be more than 3 Kilometers out of whack without Einsteins work.
Yep, every atomic bomb detonation is a reminder that E truely does equal mc^2!
Originally posted by sonhouseyep yep!
And every time we use a GPS we need to thank Einstein, it would not work without his corrections to the time base because the clocks in orbit all go at differant rates depending on how fast they are going, having nothing to do with how accurate you can make a clock but how space and time has been proven to be malleable just by having a different velocity. GPS's would be more than 3 Kilometers out of whack without Einsteins work.
Originally posted by sonhouseI think it's unlikely. Genetic transfer between different species happens all the time anyways. Look up "lateral gene transfer" also the soil microbe "Agrobacterium" does it all the time itself anyways.
Early on in the history of life on earth, life shared traits horizontally, that is to say, genes were swapped across species lines in bacteria,
till one or more developed that had a 'selfish' gene. It kept its stuff to itself and thereby gained an advantage over the ones around it.
That cycle seems about to be broken again, there is an article in New Scie ...[text shortened]... combination of mixes, then evolution enters another phase, intelligent design with a vengence.
Originally posted by scottishinnzWell sure it happens a lot, but just wait till kids get the knack....
I think it's unlikely. Genetic transfer between different species happens all the time anyways. Look up "lateral gene transfer" also the soil microbe "Agrobacterium" does it all the time itself anyways.
Originally posted by sonhouseSorry, I just think our Nobel Laureate friend has had a cooking sherry or two too many...
Well sure it happens a lot, but just wait till kids get the knack....
Still, we do teach the kids in the first year class how to transform microbes to give them antibiotic resistance (using DNA from another species)...
Originally posted by scottishinnzWell thats the barest beginning of what he is talking about. He (I will have to find that danged article, maybe Scientific American) is talking about how it costs about ten mil to do a dna analysis now but that will inevitably come down to a few bucks in ten or twenty years. You can see how easy viruses insert genes into humans, imagine what will happen when high school kids get gene splicing to do whatever they want, I am talking decades away but it seems inevitable.
Sorry, I just think our Nobel Laureate friend has had a cooking sherry or two too many...
Still, we do teach the kids in the first year class how to transform microbes to give them antibiotic resistance (using DNA from another species)...
Originally posted by Conrau KObservation. Scientists have been breeding fruit flies and bacteria for over a hundred years. They have never not produced variations of themselves -- nothing even closely resembling a new organism has ever emerged.
Problem with analogies over intelligent arguments is that they suck.
Could you please demonstrate where there is a limitation in microevolutions that prevent the occurence of macroevolution. I should think that you being an adriot scientist should be able to produce something.
Oh don't tell me, I know. We haven't been observing them long enough. Given enough time the fruit fly will evolve into bee and the bacterium into a multicellular organism.
That is exactly the problem. When describing macroevolution, you flaunted that lovely word -- "fact". This "fact" of yours rests on the "forensic" fossil evidence of the two or three so called "missing links". But the fossil evidence itself is circular in its reasoning, since it is by the theory of evolution that we interpret the fossil record you can't then turn around and claim these fossils as the very proof of macroevolution. You want intelligent argument, stew on that one for a while. Perhaps you would desist from glibly claiming everything you believe in as fact.
Originally posted by corp1131What didn't hit home to you is that those creatures are living proof that macroevolution doesn't happen.
Cite a [b]SINGLE scientific paper that says that an animal HAS to evolve within some given time period. You can't because it doesnt exist, because that is not what any theories say. Many fish, crustaceans, reptiles etc have evolved little over the past tens of millions of years (how often do you hear crocodiles refered to as 'living dino ...[text shortened]... to outweigh the evidence for the TOE, age of the earth, basic geological processes etc etc.[/b]
So now from "Evolution [macroevolution] is a fact!!!"-type rants, we've evolved to "Evolution doesn't always have to happen". Great. Since this is a supposedly blind process, by what criteria do some animals evolve and others not?
You say it takes special conditions to fossilise a creature? Could you tell me which ones? I'd be happy to hear your conjecture since no one has observed fossil formation.
Your clumsy attempt at an ad hominem undermines your own position, not mine.
Originally posted by HalitoseMay I ask you what eternal plan will be derailed if Macroevolution turns out to be true? Can you start planning now what you will say if it is ever proven to be true? Kind of like what the moon hoaxers are going to have to say when the footprints are photographed from one foot away. I am not necessarily saying that macroevolution is a done deal, just wondering if you have it in you to prepare yourself for the eventual proof that may very well be forthcoming in the next decade or two.
What didn't hit home to you is that those creatures are living proof that macroevolution doesn't happen.
So now from "Evolution [macroevolution] is a fact!!!"-type rants, we've evolved to "Evolution doesn't always have to happen". Great. Since this is a supposedly blind process, by what criteria do some animals evolve and others not?
You say it tak ...[text shortened]... ation.
Your clumsy attempt at an ad hominem undermines your own position, not mine.
Originally posted by amannionWe already know that the HIV virus can change.
Just wondering what the creationists think about this one.
If bird flu mutates into a virus capable of being transmitted from human to human then that would in effect prove one of the mechanisms of evolution- that is, mutation of a genome.
So, would the creationist position be that such a bird flu mutation would be impossible, or would it be a divine manipulation?
Originally posted by HalitoseYou are more than earning your moniker at the moment Hal,
What didn't hit home to you is that those creatures are living proof that macroevolution doesn't happen.
So now from "Evolution [macroevolution] is a fact!!!"-type rants, we've evolved to "Evolution doesn't always have to happen". Great. Since this is a supposedly blind process, by what criteria do some animals evolve and others not?
You say it tak ...[text shortened]... ation.
Your clumsy attempt at an ad hominem undermines your own position, not mine.
Evolution isn't some sort of steam train, forced to travel along pre-determined rails, as you seem to believe. Evolution is only differential selection based upon a certain pressure. If that pressure is alleviated, then differential selection will not take place - the species will not evolve.
Sure, we've never directly seen evolution take place, if by that you choose to mean one species splitting into two (although excellent evidence of that process was published in Science last year), but we have seen enough small changes directly to infer that the large changes hinted at by the fossil record are indeed possible over the periods of time that have been unequivocally proven to exist.
I can even tell you the conditions required to fossilise a creature. You need rapid burial in an anaerobic environment, followed by the accretion of a large amount of material above the sample of compact it. The seabed is an excellent site for this type of thing, especially if underwater landslides or similar occur. Any anaerobic environment will do though, or somewhere with high temperature or low pH. Anything that'll prevent decomposition within a few hundred years essentially, possibly a peat bog, or hot springs are good candidates too (essentially because sulphur can preserve the sample).