Dude... do I have to teach you this stuff! haha
Evolution doesn't state that there must be a slow and gradual change. Evolution actually works in spurts. But I won't get into that since you don't know about that.
Printable View
Dude... do I have to teach you this stuff! haha
Evolution doesn't state that there must be a slow and gradual change. Evolution actually works in spurts. But I won't get into that since you don't know about that.
Also gryoki I want to touch upon your argument about not comprehending millions of years.
I do and that's another reason why I cannot accept evolution.
Some examples...
1) How can 'fresh' dinosaur bones, unfossilised remain on earth for over 65,000,000 years?
2) How come so many animals are alive today whose history can be traced back millions of years, and they havn't evolved at all?
Crocodiles unchanged in 200 million years.
Cockroaches unchanged in 350 million years.
Ants unchanged in a 100 million years.
The Coelacanth unchanged in 400 million years.
Dragonflies unchanged in 250 million years.
Ginko trees unchanged in 270 million years.
Horsehoe crabs unchanged in 300 million years.
Nautilus unchanged in 500 million years.
Salamanders unchanged in 150 million years
Neopilina molluscs unchanged in 400 million years
Sturgeon unchanged in 250 million years
Velvet worms unchanged in 500 million years
Wollemi Pine rediscovered in 1964, unchanged in 140 million years.
As you yourself have said, a million years is a very long time, these creatures have existed on the planet in some cases for several hundred million years and not evolved at all, somewhat stretched credibilaty I think.
Having a PERFECT timeline of a gradual change of fossil record in near impossible. BUT there are evidence of such gradual change. But you gotta understand that dying than falling into preservable material and surviving millions of years is VERY rare. So the fact that fossils exist is amazing, the conditions have to be near perfect.
I'm sorry man, you seem like a very cool guy, but evolution happens. No debate whatsoever.
It still angers me that this is a big deal. Evolutions happens and there IS actually an overwhelming evidence for it, you don't have to "believe it," BUT if you don't "believe it" then just throw all your knowlegde of Biology down the gutter because all of Biology depends on Evolution.
Nice to see that you havn't read any of my earlier posts. I have already written in length concerning the work of Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldridge and their theory of puncuated equilibrium, a theory which is widely rejected by other members of the evolutionary commuinty.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrokai
Go back a few pages, you see I have spoken at length about punctuated equilibruim and Stephen Jay Gould, Niles Eldridge etc. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrokai
I agree having a perfect timeline of evoluton is damn near impossible but the point is that there are not even fragmentary traces of change in the fossil record for a single species of any kind of life on earth!Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrokai
This quote is from Colin Patterson the senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History,
Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a paleontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. … I will lay it on the line -- there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument It goes without saying that Patterson is a 100% committed evolutionist.
Gareth Nelson of the American Museum of Natural History says the following
It is a mistake to believe that even one fossil species or fossil 'group' can be demonstrated to have been ancestral to another
Again I quote evolutionist themselves
Actually there are several versions of cockroaches. Yuck! heheh Those big ones are scary. And you left out dogs, humans, monkeys, and just about every other animal today.
And who the f*ck cares what other people think. Just because everybody else doesn't believe in Jay Gould or anything, doesn't mean that it isn't true.
Evolution is fundamental, as I've been saying, it explains all of biology. Evolution doesn't depend of people, people came to this conclusion FROM NATURE. Now, come up with something that can explain biology and explain the six day thing ON YOUR OWN EVIDENCE, I mean set up a lab go fossil hunting and go out to the wilderness and actually make measurements and study.... real scientific work... and it won't say this SIX DAY BULLCRAP. One simple idea explains it all.
Alright lets go back to this.
"Electrons don't exist because no human has ever seen one." That's true, but the electron exlains a WIDE RANGE OF PHENOMENA, to electromagnetism, to QED.
"Quarks don't exist because it's not possible to isolate and study itself" True, but quarks explain the chaos of particles into a set of three fundamental particles divided into "colors." This leads to the breakthrough of Quantum Chromodynamics.
"Evolution doesn't exist because for some reason... (ignorance) I don't accept the evidence." Evolution leads to the foundation of Biology.
If your going to say Evolution isn't true, then you better damn well put up a BETTER theory that explains biology and the six day thing, AND have overwhelming evidence for it's case.
-so go ahead explain Biology with your six day thing? heheh I'll guarantee you it'll start with "Well, in my book it says..." haha
Actually seeing as you brought this up I really can't let this go!Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrokai
Remember Gould is a paleontologist, he deals (he's dead now) with fossils on a daily basis, he was a world expert on the fossil record. His theory of punctuated equilibruim or growth spurts as you call them was an attempt to explain the complete and total absence of any single piece of evidence for gradual evolution in the fossil record.
Let me be clear Gould was an absolute 100% evolutionist, he hates creationism as much as you do :P but he saw for himself there was no evidence for evolution in the fossile record, none whatsoever.
He formulated his theory to explain those gaps. Unfortunately Gould is a paleontologist not a microbiologist.
Consequently he was attacked by the rest of the evolutionary community for his views as they are absolutely impossible to explain at a molecular level,
This has led to the most famous division in evolutionary research. The question being asked, are you a puncuated equilbriuist or a neo Darwinian?
There are countless books on this subject, with each side labelling the other's viewpoint impossible and untenable.
Some examples,
Dawkins vs. Gould: Survival of the Fittest
by Kim Sterelny
The Accidental Creationist: Why Stephen Jay Gould is bad for evolution. by Robert Wright.
Melvin Konner. American Prospect, July-Aug, 1999 Fool's Gould : Will the Left Finally Stop Buying It?
The Holes in Gould’s Semipermeable Membrane Between Science and Religion - review of by Ursula Goodenough
These two evolutionary camps both provide firm and conclusive evidence to demonstrate the wrongness of their opponents.
"Survival of the Fittest." I absolutely hate that phrase. Darwin never said that. Some damn Socialogist tried to compare society to evolution. That bast*rd came up with that phrase.Quote:
Originally Posted by bilbo
Bilbo when you call yourself a creationist does that mean a complete literal interpretation of Genisis and the biblical age of the world?
Ok I'll have a go at outlining why I believe in creationism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrokai
Firstly I would expect to find in the fossil record only complete species, showing no signs of having an evolutionary ancestor. Where a creature first appears in the fossil record I would expect it to appear fully formed and virtually identical to it's modern descendents.
That is exactly what you find.
Secondly I would expect the origin of life to be absolutely impossible to create artificially. I would expect to find not a single shred of evidence that could suggest that life could arise from non life. I would conduct all kinds of experiments to see if life can spontaneously generate and if after 150 years of trying I would assume that it was impossible to create life from non life and thus be forced to believe that some external force outside my realms of scientific knowledge created life.
Thirdly I would expect to find evidence that man and animals all lived at the same time and were not seperated by millions of years of evolution. I would look to historical records to see if ancient races recalled encounters with creatures now extinct. I would expect stories and folklore, paintings and drawings, and I would expect these descriptions to be largely accurate.
The phrase is irrelevent. It's merely the title of a book documenting the philosophical war between Gould and Richard Dawkins. They both are utterly convinced of the other's flawed theory of evolution you see.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrokai
By the way you have not addressed a single issue I have raised? ;)
Heheh, I'm sorry man, your a cool guy... but your stupid. hehehehQuote:
Originally Posted by bilbo
Words of wisdom:
"Don't let your mind be controlled by ideas you can't find out by yourself."
Study Biology, DNA, genetics, study changes in traits, <---- all of which supports Evolution.
And you won't "believe" evolution because we can't create a dog in a lab. heheh
I'm wasting my time here.
That is a complete different topic, but if you want to start a different thread on it, I would give my opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis
Look man I went to one of the most conservative and christian based public schools in the country(Texas A&M) It also a very well respected school. I dont think it is naive nor me just being a sheeple to believe what is being taught in college level biology, anthropology classes nationwide. Now a worldwide conspiracy of evolutionist scientists plotting to discredit any and all information that doesn't support their argument plus a fairy tale about a man and his wife(who was formed from his rib) in a magical garden with talking snakes now that takes a leap of faith. I respect your opinion and you have some good points but lets be honest saying that the scientific world is run by a darwinian cartel and believing a bible story more akin to fantasy.......lets drop calling ME naive.Quote:
Originally Posted by luvfightgame