Spirituality
04 Aug 15
19 Aug 15
Originally posted by CalJustWorks for me.
It is an honest fact that I do not know whether you are not answering my questions (and/or responding to issues that I raise) because you are deliberately avoiding them, or not understanding them.
Either way, I am quite happy to cease discussing anything with you, it is just becoming too frustrating.
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
19 Aug 15
Originally posted by KellyJayNot true. You may have heard it said that all you have to do to prove evolution wrong is to find a rabbit in the cambrian, or a fossil geographically out of place?
There is no evidence for it [macroevolution] outside of someone saying this how the fossils are connected.
The reason why this would disprove evolution is because we expect homologous change to happen slowly over time and be traced geographically as populations of species move into slightly different environments, where they're put under selective pressures (less true for species with the capacity for flight and crossing the oceans, obviously).
So, when you're presented with a series of ape skulls (say), they are ordered chronologically (older skulls first) and according to their locations of discovery. Let's say we have specimens A, B and C, that appear to display a homologous development, where B represents a transition; an in between A and C in form. For these three to support evolution, A must be the oldest, and C the youngest. Their locations must match a pattern of geographical distribution, that's possible given their different ages. Most importantly, no fossils of type B should be found of the same or older age as the earliest fossils of type A, and no C fossils as old or older than the earliest A or B fossils.
Now, if you take all fossils ever found, and order them according to their respective age and geographical distribution, what you see is a beautiful example of how life branched out over time from fewer earlier species to more numerous later ones. You see transitions from land-living, four-legged animals (pakicetus) to the various whale species of today (technically speaking, it's unlikely that we should find direct ancestor species, but rather close cousins of direct ancestors). You don't find any whale fossils older than the earliest of their ancestors, and you never find their land-living ancestors out of place geographically. This holds true for all the branches on the evolutionary tree.
Coincidence? I don't think so. Seeing what we want to see? Nope. We're following the rules of chronological and geographical distribution ordering strictly, and the fossil record speaks for itself. You can do the same, and until we find fossils that doesn't match evolution, we're forced by intellectual honesty to accept evolution as having occurred in the past. Either that, or your god is having a laugh at our expense.
Originally posted by C HessThere are evidence of marine animals mixed in with all those other fossil animal finds and your evolutionists cohorts just ignore them as proof of a worldwide flood.
Not true. You may have heard it said that all you have to do to prove evolution wrong is to find a rabbit in the cambrian, or a fossil geographically out of place?
The reason why this would disprove evolution is because we expect homologous change to happen slowly over time and be traced geographically as populations of species move into slightly differen ...[text shortened]... ution as having occurred in the past. Either that, or your god is having a laugh at our expense.
Are Fossils Ever Found in the Wrong Place?
When fossils are found where they shouldn’t be
19 Aug 15
Originally posted by KellyJayEvolutionary theory makes no claim that an animal will 'turn into something completely different'. You're making it up Kelly.
I believe in evolution, I do not believe in a common ancestor. Evolutionary changes can
happen within various lifeforms we see it occur with creatures with very short life spans.
Where I draw the line is them turning into something completely different, that is
something we only find in the fossils record where some person in the present suggests
this c ...[text shortened]... lows for change
than the haphazard method those that believe in a common ancestor puts forward.
19 Aug 15
Originally posted by C HessLike I said, you put the dots together in what happen in the past and there you go a reason
Not true. You may have heard it said that all you have to do to prove evolution wrong is to find a rabbit in the cambrian, or a fossil geographically out of place?
The reason why this would disprove evolution is because we expect homologous change to happen slowly over time and be traced geographically as populations of species move into slightly differen ...[text shortened]... ution as having occurred in the past. Either that, or your god is having a laugh at our expense.
to believe.
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
20 Aug 15
Originally posted by KellyJayThe point was that I don't get to put the fossils in any order I like just to make it seem like evolution happened. I only get to put them in order of age and locations of discovery, in other words, I only get to order them as they were ordered in nature. I could of course ignore their natural order and claim that there's evidence for both a creation and flood event, but if we look at the fossils as ordered in nature, we only see successive development of new species over time, as evolution predicts. This was largely evident already in Darwin's days, one of the reasons he thought of this theory in the first place, and why he convinced so many so fast. The only retort from creationists are the occasional, so-called out-of-place fossils (like pollen found in the cambrian), that turned out to not be out-of-place fossils at all, but clearly contaminations of more recent, non-fossilised pollen. This is all creationists have at their disposal, are claims of evidence, not one passing closer scrutiny (human and dinosaur tracks together, turned out to be dinosaur and dinosaur tracks, fossilised pollen turned out to not be fossilised after all, and so on), while every confirmed fossil fits neatly into an evolutionary tree when placed in their natural ordering. You really can't escape this fact by claiming we see what we want to see.
Like I said, you put the dots together in what happen in the past and there you go a reason
to believe.
20 Aug 15
Originally posted by C HessYou are right that you don't get to put fossils in the order you like. There are expert evilution deceivers that do that for you. 😏
The point was that I don't get to put the fossils in any order I like just to make it seem like evolution happened. I only get to put them in order of age and locations of discovery, in other words, I only get to order them as they were ordered in nature. I could of course ignore their natural order and claim that there's evidence for both a creation and floo ...[text shortened]... heir natural ordering. You really can't escape this fact by claiming we see what we want to see.
The Near Genius
Originally posted by Proper KnobCommon ancestor, if life started as something simple, and over time we see what we see
Evolutionary theory makes no claim that an animal will 'turn into something completely different'. You're making it up Kelly.
today, you don't think that has all life with a common ancestor? You don't think that one
creature would have to over time turn into something else?
Do you think all the animals just sprang from the simple life form and went strait into
all the life we see today.
21 Aug 15
Originally posted by KellyJayI think what really happened is life formed in different parts of the planet in different environments, like some starting out from chemical reactions of complex molecules helped along by underwater thermal vents a mile under the ocean while others developed in clay deposits with rain, light from the sun, and lightning providing energy to jump start simpler molecules becoming more complex ones leading up to RNA and so forth.
Common ancestor, if life started as something simple, and over time we see what we see
today, you don't think that has all life with a common ancestor? You don't think that one
creature would have to over time turn into something else?
Do you think all the animals just sprang from the simple life form and went strait into
all the life we see today.
There were literally trillions of such experiments going on at the same time in the early days of Earth.
That is one point creationists don't understand, the sheer number of such experiments going on simultaneously around the world, like a trillion apes typing on a typewriter, eventually something that LOOKS to be made from intelligence will show up.