[anakronisM]

stone monkey;351820 said:

Well, let's try an analogy; if, once a year, you add a single piece of paper that's 1/10 mm in thickness to a stack; after a billion years that stack will be 100 kilometres high. Small things add up. That's not faith, it's arithmetic.

Yet the Gradualism as presented of Darwin hasn't confirmed the fossils, don't you think that's a problem?

[Obdigore]

doxa;351835 said:

Yes there's proof of evolution happening as the adaptation to the environment and stuff but there's many forms of evolution and what you are referring to before evolution is what I call "cosmic evolution" or "cosmic chronology". Maybe i'm the one with the wrong definitions but Define what u mean with evolution first and this would be less confusing

All I am saying is that evolution (living things adapting to become better suited to their environment) is a proven fact of life.

Creation is a theory of the beginning of our universe. Much like the Big Bang theory. Comparing the two is rather silly unless you want to describe your 'cosmic evolution', if that is a theory on the beginning of our universe?

[anakronisM]

Obdigore;351864 said:

All I am saying is that evolution (living things adapting to become better suited to their environment) is a proven fact of life.

Creation is a theory of the beginning of our universe. Much like the Big Bang theory. Comparing the two is rather silly unless you want to describe your 'cosmic evolution', if that is a theory on the beginning of our universe?

It would be silly of me to discuss anything I know are proven. Like I have said in previous posts adaptation is proven and i'm fully aware of that.
It's not always clear what people mean by the term evolution. The General Theory of Evolution involves cosmic evolution and many others as my experience of these debates tell me.

[Morgoth]

I would think that unless it is specified differently, when one speaks of evolution and the theory thereof, it should be relatively clear it is biological evolution one refers to. But perhaps opinions differ.

[Obdigore]

doxa;351861 said:

Yet the Gradualism as presented of Darwin hasn't confirmed the fossils, don't you think that's a problem?

I just wanted to put this here.

Also, Morgy put what I was trying to get across better than I was.

[cauthon]

Obdigore, can you point out some sources showing the actual fossil remains of these animals?

[Obdigore]

Click the links under 'taxa' here and they will bring you to pages about each fossil, with links to the scientific institutions where they have them, and pictures. (Along with artists guess as to what the creature itself looked like)

[stone monkey]

doxa;351861 said:

Yet the Gradualism as presented of Darwin hasn't confirmed the fossils, don't you think that's a problem?

I'd be hugely surprised if the fossil record was complete, given how fossilisation occurs...

The problem with creationists is that when you do show them evidence of evolution they either don't understand it or they choose to deliberately misunderstand it or move their own goalposts to imply that it's exactly what they were saying all along

[Cougar]

Excellent background info sir, but when it comes to a debate involving fossils and evolution I'd always expect a Stone Monkey to come out on top.

I'd rep you but I'm all out.

[anakronisM]

stone monkey;352249 said:

I'd be hugely surprised if the fossil record was complete, given how fossilisation occurs...

The problem with creationists is that when you do show them evidence of evolution they either don't understand it or they choose to deliberately misunderstand it or move their own goalposts to imply that it's exactly what they were saying all along

The problem is, that it isn't evidence, Evolutionists assume the Tiktaalik to be more than a fish, yes it had features and assumed features but was a fish. The Coelacanth was a full fish nothing more. Archaeopteryx was a full bird. Why do evolutionist fail to see this, why? It isn't that definite.
Again evolutionists claim its proven when creationists says it isn't.
And i'm back to square one, feeling clueless.

Dr. Alan Feduccia said "Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that"

David B. Kitts of the School of Geology and Geophysics at the University of Oklahoma wrote:
"Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them…"

University of Kansas paleontologist Larry Martin said about the Tiktaalik:
‘You have to put this into perspective. To the people who wrote the paper, the chicken would be a feathered dinosaur.

Jennifer Clack admitted about the Tiktaalik found:
"Of course, there are still major gaps in the fossil record. In particular we have almost no information about the step between Tiktaalik and the earliest tetrapods, when the anatomy underwent the most drastic changes, or about what happened in the following Early Carboniferous period, after the end of the Devonian, when tetrapods became fully terrestrial"

Claiming Creationists don't understand this when Evolutionists say it isn't proven are a bad argument in my opinion, maybe it isn't so black and white?
I'm not using quotes as a support for Creation, simply to correct the thought that "it has been proven, all who doesn't see this are UNINTELLIGENT BLA BLA BLA".

[Cause]

Doxa you could get a nobel prize for coming up with a concrete definition of what is and is not a diffrent species. You can spend a day with ten proffesors in a room and walk away with eleven answers.

So a fish is a fish and is always a fish argument is pretty weak. After all a virus is considered a new species when I think thirty percent of its RNA changes. This happens every day. Cross a labradour with a poodle and you get a labrapoodle. Is it a new morphotype or species. It can still have sex with all dogs but its not a pitbull either. Cross a mule and a horse and you get a donkey (Or is it the other way round). New species? Some plants with 10 chromosomes can breed with plants with 20 chromosomes. It should be imposible but the first plant doubles up its chromosome. New species? Or is a plant always a plant?

Edit- I wanted to add a chimpanzee and a human being have 98% the same DNA. That 2% diffrence does not seem such a stretch across centuries. Further I think we can agree humans and monkeys are not the same species. But a mammal is a mammal right?

Lets look at human cells alone though. They all share the same unmodified genome (Exceptions are rare anyway). Yet a neuron can be hundreds of um long and even longer compared to a lymphocyte which if the neuron was a pencil the lymphocyte would be the dot the pencil makes on a piece of paper. This is because the genome is only half the picture. Gene expresion is the other half. 20 diffrent cytokeratins can be made in the human body from one gene by splicing it diffrently. Some genes are turned off, others on. The gene for hemaglobin for instance is only turned on in red blood cells.

Theirs also fascinating research going on in junk DNA which as it turns out is far from junk. DNA is a coding program far ahead of binary. Wer making interesting gains into it evry day. However what makes a species a species and how 2% difference in DNA can mean so much is an interesting problem were still working on

[Cougar]

doxa;352294 said:

Dr. Alan Feduccia said "Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that"

David B. Kitts of the School of Geology and Geophysics at the University of Oklahoma wrote:
"Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them…"

Jennifer Clack admitted about the Tiktaalik found:
"Of course, there are still major gaps in the fossil record. In particular we have almost no information about the step between Tiktaalik and the earliest tetrapods..."

Claiming Creationists don't understand this when Evolutionists say it isn't proven are a bad argument in my opinion, maybe it isn't so black and white?
I'm not using quotes as a support for Creation, simply to correct the thought that "it has been proven, all who doesn't see this are UNINTELLIGENT BLA BLA BLA".

I'm sorry to have to edit your post a bit but I don't have all day to reply.

To deal with them systematically:

Archaeopteryx isn't presented as a feathered dinosaur, it's presented as evidence of an evolutionary step. So it perched, so what, it is utterly insignificant whether you call it a bird, a dinosaur a dog or a brick. It is what it is: a creature that existed which demonstrates significant analogous bone structure and physiological similarities between what we assume were it's anteceedents and its succesoor species.

Point 2 David Kitts (I'm glad as a geologist and geophysicist he can comment on Paleontology) Evolution does not require intermediate species (that is the purest horseshit from Doctor Rock) as Cause points out delineation between species is not always clear. Fossil records will always be a snapshot of a moment in time. In some cases a creature may enjoy relative genetic stability for a long time, in some cases it may last only a short period. The point is evolution is a continuum not a series of steps, a fossil allows you to view one moment or a series of moments in that continuum. You are never going to find the entire continuum year by year.

Jennifer Clack: of course there are major gaps in the fossil records that goes without saying by their very nature, it's not a series of buried history text books.

Finally any scientist who constantly thinks we have proven anything isn't really much of a scientist at all, evolutionist or creationists. The fact is with evolutionism what we have on the table it the most plausible explanation possible nothing more, nothing proven beyond question.

In the examples quoted by SM the anti-evolutionary standpoint is characterised by stupidity and poor research, that is an inarguable fact. i don't think the quotes presented by Doxa go any way to assuaging this.

[stone monkey]

doxa;352294 said:

The problem is, that it isn't evidence, Evolutionists assume the Tiktaalik to be more than a fish, yes it had features and assumed features but was a fish. The Coelacanth was a full fish nothing more. Archaeopteryx was a full bird. Why do evolutionist fail to see this, why? It isn't that definite.
Again evolutionists claim its proven when creationists says it isn't.
And i'm back to square one, feeling clueless.

There are different types of fish, y'know. Tiktaalik, like the Coelacanth coincidentally enough, was a lobe finned fish and as such was substantially different to either the bony fishes (like goldfish) or the cartilaginous fishes (like sharks). There's a lot more to fishes than you seem to be aware of.

Quote

Dr. Alan Feduccia said "Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that"

Birds, Dinosaurs; it's fairly hard to tell where one stops and the other starts. Archaeopteryx is a good example of this confusion. It has a lot of features of the birds that most dinosaur fossils don't have - feathers, the arrangement of the claws etc.; and also a lot of features of dinosaurs that birds don't have - bony tail, teeth etc. Where you place it is a matter of personal taste.

Quote

David B. Kitts of the School of Geology and Geophysics at the University of Oklahoma wrote:
"Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them…"

The fossil record and hence paleontology almost certainly cannot produce all the intervening forms the creationists demand as that would require every animal that ever lived to be fossilised. Which is slightly impractical.

Quote

University of Kansas paleontologist Larry Martin said about the Tiktaalik:
‘You have to put this into perspective. To the people who wrote the paper, the chicken would be a feathered dinosaur.

From a certain perspective chickens really are just feathered dinosaurs... It all depends on how closely you look.

Quote

Jennifer Clack admitted about the Tiktaalik found:
"Of course, there are still major gaps in the fossil record. In particular we have almost no information about the step between Tiktaalik and the earliest tetrapods, when the anatomy underwent the most drastic changes, or about what happened in the following Early Carboniferous period, after the end of the Devonian, when tetrapods became fully terrestrial"

Lovely quote mine, however you do appear to be indulging in goalpost moving. As Tiktaalik does appear to be transitional form that was required, the creationist will now demand that a transitional form between Tiktaalik and the first amphibians be produced... And it's fairly obvious where that argument will go.

Quote

Claiming Creationists don't understand this when Evolutionists say it isn't proven are a bad argument in my opinion, maybe it isn't so black and white?
I'm not using quotes as a support for Creation, simply to correct the thought that "it has been proven, all who doesn't see this are UNINTELLIGENT BLA BLA BLA".

Evolutionary theory is science. If you understand the scientific method you'll know that all science is tentative; that is, it is simply waiting for a better explanation to come along that also fits the evidence. It is incomplete. Nothing is conclusively proven, all there are are best-fit explanations. If anything were conclusively proven there would be no point in asking further questions about it...

Creationism is fundamentally (if you excuse the pun) lacking as an argument a) it's unprovable it's an unnecessary complication.

Anyhow, I've been feeding the troll, which is never a good idea...

[anakronisM]

Cougar;352319 said:

Point 2 David Kitts (I'm glad as a geologist and geophysicist he can comment on Paleontology) Evolution does not require intermediate species (that is the purest horseshit from Doctor Rock) as Cause points out delineation between species is not always clear. Fossil records will always be a snapshot of a moment in time. In some cases a creature may enjoy relative genetic stability for a long time, in some cases it may last only a short period. The point is evolution is a continuum not a series of steps, a fossil allows you to view one moment or a series of moments in that continuum. You are never going to find the entire continuum year by year.

This debate is fishy, so intermediate species isn't needed. I hate trolls being feeded.

[Cougar]

:rolleyes:I'm unsure if you are trying to accuse me of trolling?

If this is what you mean; how is criticising a poorly thought out response from a gentleman who is talking outside his field of expertise and presenting unsubstantiated opinion as fact (the boy Kitts, not Doxa), trolling? Don't turn up and start flaming in the threads when your quotes are critiqued.

Now I remember why I steer clear of this discussion board.

[cauthon]

When looking at the discussion objectively (insofar as that is possible), I think that several (or even most) arguments can be used by both povs. For example, the fact that the DNA difference between chimp and human is 2%. (Doesn't a chimp have like 48 chromosomes?) This can be taken to be in favour of evolution, because one might argue that these differences have developed over time and caused a rift between the species. On the other hand, one might also argue that since we share a lot of (physical) functionality (almost everything I think, except for the complexity of our brain), a creator might have chose to encode this in the same way. Admittedly, it would be rather dumb to use a completely different encoding for stating the same.

And puh-lease, let's keep this discussion civil.

[Cause]

cauthon;352521 said:

When looking at the discussion objectively (insofar as that is possible), I think that several (or even most) arguments can be used by both povs. For example, the fact that the DNA difference between chimp and human is 2%. (Doesn't a chimp have like 48 chromosomes?) This can be taken to be in favour of evolution, because one might argue that these differences have developed over time and caused a rift between the species. On the other hand, one might also argue that since we share a lot of (physical) functionality (almost everything I think, except for the complexity of our brain), a creator might have chose to encode this in the same way. Admittedly, it would be rather dumb to use a completely different encoding for stating the same.

And puh-lease, let's keep this discussion civil.

One might untill you factor in the sum of all parts that make up evolution. That DNA and chirality are conserved can be used in both arguments. However than add to that evidence that humans exist today but not 1000000 years ago. Than add in visible evolution/adaption. Than add vestigial organs etc etc

Evolution occurs. You can than argue that god uses evolution as the tool to create man. But thats not science, and it cant be proved or even tested

[Gem Windcaster]

I don't think it's correct in any way to talk about proof in a scientific sense in this discussion. A theory is a theory is a theory...
As the rules of logic states, you can never prove anything to be true, you can only prove something to be false.

Not even the most diligent scientist can ever hope to come up with a theory strong enough to prove the theory of evolution. But every scientist has to work with assumptions, faith if you will, and that is a lot of that stuff involved in the theory of evolution.

Denying this fact will only lead to belittling science, and it's real capability of deducing truths about this universe.

One would think that scientists, the most renown heralds of logic and evidence, would recognize their own beliefs that they build their world on.

You cannot detach science from it's framework of objectiveness, in the name of science, and hope to uphold credibility.

I don't know all the theories and facts about the relevant studies, but I know the philosophy behind science. In the end of the day, when all theories have been studied, and charted, and rewritten, you need to make a decision what you yourself believe. No matter if your point of origin is logic, probability, trust in patterns, or simply a strong will, you will make a decision.

Deciding that all other points of origin of thought is false is as futile as claiming the sunlight for yourself. You should stand for your belief and your decision, but not without the self awareness about the relativity of thought.

[Dolorous Menhir]

I don't agree with that Gem.

[Gem Windcaster]

Dolorous Menhir;352849 said:

I don't agree with that Gem.

Which part?