is TIME a problem? Or is this guy retarded?
POSTED BY: kaneman
UPDATED: Saturday, May 26, 2007 14:33
VIEWED: 10984
PAGE 6 of 10
Quote:Organisms may be complex, but the matter that they're made out of isn't. Note that there are no 'tiers' in evolution, unless fitness to its environment is defined as such. From an evolutionary point of view, a cockroach is more successful than an elephant, or human for that matter.
Originally posted by kaneman:
With evolution things are constantly evolving into higher tiers.
Quote:Unless the fossil is that of a species that became extinct, every fossil is that of an intermittent species. And this argument is clearly a no-win argument for scientists, since if we have fossils A and C, then there's a "missing link" we need to find. Say paleontologists then find fossil B connecting A and C, then there'll be two "missing links", between A and B and B and C, etc.
At the same time not one fossil has ever been found in an intermittent stage, we don't see any new species.
Quote:Just one organism, and if it lives longer due to its beneficial mutation then it'll have more time to get its freak on and the chances of passing along the beneficial genetic mutation are increased. Doesn't need two organisms with the same random mutation finding each other to work, although I bet it'd make for funny personal ads... if animals had personal ads.
And for an organism to 'change'- Two must evolve at the same time , find one another, and fuck each other...Right?
Questions are a burden to others. Answers are prison for oneself.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Unless the fossil is that of a species that became extinct, every fossil is an intermittent species. And this argument is clearly a no-win argument for scientists, since if we have fossils A and C, then there's a "missing link" we need to find. Say paleontologists then find fossil B connecting A and C, then there'll be two "missing links", between A and B and B and C, etc."
I see your point, but would disagree. I think that if the missing link was extremely obvious most would except it. I'm sure some would argue about a need for even more missing links, but I think it is because people love to say 'missing link'.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
We know matter can't be created or destroyed, but we also know that it is slowly decaying into useless matter. With evolution things are constantly evolving into higher tiers. Why would the matter act differently than life?
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.html
Quote:
In evolution new species would appear. In creationism species would disappear over time. What do we observe? The fossil records do show one clear thing a lot of species have gone extinct.
And a lot have appeared as well.
Quote:
At the same time not one fossil has ever been found in an intermittent stage
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html
Quote:
we don't see any new species.
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html
Quote:
And for an organism to 'change'- Two must evolve at the same time , find one another, and fuck each other...Right?
If an organism evolved yes, but organisms don't evolve, populations do. Massive single shifts in genes are rare and usually produce infertile creatures but a collection of small changes bring about new species gradually without infertility.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
"Unless the fossil is that of a species that became extinct, every fossil is an intermittent species. And this argument is clearly a no-win argument for scientists, since if we have fossils A and C, then there's a "missing link" we need to find. Say paleontologists then find fossil B connecting A and C, then there'll be two "missing links", between A and B and B and C, etc."
I see your point, but would disagree. I think that if the missing link was extremely obvious most would except it. I'm sure some would argue about a need for even more missing links, but I think it is because people love to say 'missing link'.
The problem is that's exactly what happens, there a large number of transitional fossils between ape and human but creationists who look at them always say "This one is fully ape, that one is fully human"*. Most people looking at the set of transitional fossils between ape and human (r any other pair of species) can see that they are indeed transitional, but creationists simply say no they aren't.
*Note: The never agree with each other as to which ones are which though.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"We know matter can't be created or destroyed, but we also know that it is slowly decaying into useless matter."
First a correction - matter doesn't decay, energy is proposed to undergo entropy.
"With evolution things are constantly evolving into higher tiers."
'Higher' (and 'lower') imply there is some kind of goal to evolution, which isn't the case.
"The fossil records do show one clear thing a lot of species have gone extinct."
The fossil record also indicates that humans or giraffes DIDN'T live alongside dinosaurs, and that dinosaurs DIDN'T live alongside trilobites.
"At the same time not one fossil has ever been found in an intermittent stage"
There are plenty of intermittent fossils, for example in the fossil record of land animal ----> whale. But as was pointed out, that won't satisfy you, because what you will insist on is intermediates between the intermediates.
Quote:I think there are some useful things for you to remember as you think on the topic:
1) when it comes to the creation of life, time is your friend, because, with time, all sorts of things will happen by chance, and life is one of them
2) life only has to happen once, and then it will inevitably overtake the random system in which it spawned
3) when it comes to the evolution of life time is also your friend because random changes and natural selection will be at work
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
"Unless the fossil is that of a species that became extinct, every fossil is an intermittent species. And this argument is clearly a no-win argument for scientists, since if we have fossils A and C, then there's a "missing link" we need to find. Say paleontologists then find fossil B connecting A and C, then there'll be two "missing links", between A and B and B and C, etc."
I see your point, but would disagree. I think that if the missing link was extremely obvious most would except it. I'm sure some would argue about a need for even more missing links, but I think it is because people love to say 'missing link'.
The problem is that's exactly what happens, there a large number of transitional fossils between ape and human but creationists who look at them always say "This one is fully ape, that one is fully human"*. Most people looking at the set of transitional fossils between ape and human (r any other pair of species) can see that they are indeed transitional, but creationists simply say no they aren't.
*Note: The never agree with each other as to which ones are which though.
I must say I have a hard time with anthropologists looking at bone fragments, jaws ,and teeth and coming to any conclusion at all...smells like junk science.......I do know there are a couple half fossils, but most are a piece here and a piece there. I think that some of these classifications are a little 'out there'.........
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"First a correction - matter doesn't decay, energy is proposed to undergo entropy."
Well, in any event the 'energy'(converted matter) is degraded to the point of randomness and unavailability.............
"There are plenty of intermittent fossils, for example in the fossil record of land animal ----> whale. But as was pointed out, that won't satisfy you, because what you will insist on is intermediates between the intermediates."
I am not saying that animals do not adapt or change environments. But, a whale is a whale and a gnat is a gnat and always will...Well, with slight changes.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
I must say I have a hard time with anthropologists looking at bone fragments, jaws ,and teeth and coming to any conclusion at all...smells like junk science.......I do know there are a couple half fossils, but most are a piece here and a piece there. I think that some of these classifications are a little 'out there'.........
Actually there is many largely complete skeletons, most of the time conclusions aren't going to be based off of a few fragments and when they are they are usually only accepted as tentative until much better evidence is found.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
But entropy isn't a constant, and can be eliminated, even reversed, locally. The other thing to remember is that entropy is a theory.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME