Evolution for Dummies...*Edit*.....is for Dummies
POSTED BY: kaneman
UPDATED: Saturday, March 10, 2007 06:19
VIEWED: 23475
PAGE 3 of 12
"As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion [of halfway species] instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?"—*Charles Darwin, quoted in H. Enoch,Evolution or Creation (1966)
"Evolutionists commonly answer the above criticism by claiming that evolution goes too slowly for us to see it happening today. They used to claim that the real evidence for evolution was in the fossil record of the past, but the fact is that the billions of known fossils do not include a single unequivocal transitional form with transitional structures in the process of evolving.
Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion . . . it followed logically that the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to the more evolved.3
Even those who believe in rapid evolution recognize that a considerable number of generations would be required for one distinct "kind" to evolve into another more complex kind. There ought, therefore, to be a considerable number of true transitional structures preserved in the fossils — after all, there are billions of non-transitional structures there! But (with the exception of a few very doubtful creatures such as the controversial feathered dinosaurs and the alleged walking whales), they are not there.
Instead of filling in the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational intermediates between documented fossil species.4
The entire history of evolution from the evolution of life from non-life to the evolution of vertebrates from invertebrates to the evolution of man from the ape is strikingly devoid of intermediates: the links are all missing in the fossil record, just as they are in the present world."
Show me one.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Legged mammals to whales. Well documented in the fossil record and independently supported by genetics/ biochemistry.
PS THIS IS A TRAP ! I've predicted your response and I already have the answer to your next post. I'm curious to see how predictable (and deliberately ignorant) you are.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Transitions in Action:
1) Fish - lives in water
2) Amphibian - can live on land for brief periods but must lay eggs in water and loses moisture rapidly through skin
3) Reptile - can live on land exclusively due to watertight skin and watertight eggs
Too broad for you? Okay:
1) Monkey-like ancestor - smallish, hunched semi-bipedal stature, moderate brainpan with distinct snout shape
2) Early Proto-human from fossil record - intermediate size, hunched but bipedal, intermediate brainpan and flatter face
3) Modern human - you know
What do you make of the lobe-finned fishes? What do you make of a flatworm with light-sensitive eyespots? What about mitochondrial DNA and the theory of its symbiotic origin? What about the fossils they've been turning up recently showing new transitional forms between dinosaur and bird, appearing to have both feathers and scales?
It's okay to leave them to die.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Just musing - hell must be having a cold snap. I and the poster formerly known as AUrpator agree.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Of course you know my side of this debate, you willy creature you
Wonderful whales
Cetaceans have many unique features to enable them to live in water. For example:
Enormous lung capacity with efficient oxygen exchange for long dives.
A powerful tail with large horizontal flukes enabling very strong swimming.
Eyes designed to see properly in water with its far higher refractive index, and withstand high pressure.
Ears designed differently from those of land mammals that pick up airborne sound waves and with the eardrum protected from high pressure.
Skin lacking hair and sweat glands but incorporating fibrous, fatty blubber.
Whale fins and tongues have counter-current heat exchangers to minimize heat loss.
Nostrils on the top of the head (blowholes).
Specially fitting mouth and nipples so the baby can be breast-fed underwater.
Baleen whales have sheets of baleen (whalebone) that hang from the roof of the mouth and filter plankton for food.
Many cetaceans find objects by echo-location. They have a sonar system which is so precise that it's the envy of the U.S. Navy. It can detect a fish the size of a golf ball 230 feet (70 m) away. It took an expert in chaos theory to show that the dolphin's ‘click’ pattern is mathematically designed to give the best information.1
One amazing adaptation of most echo-locating dolphins and small whales is the ‘melon,’ a fatty protrusion on the forehead. This ‘melon’ is actually a sound lens—a sophisticated structure designed to focus the emitted sound waves into a beam which the dolphin can direct where it likes. This sound lens depends on the fact that different lipids (fatty compounds) bend the ultrasonic sound waves traveling through them in different ways. The different lipids have to be arranged in the right shape and sequence in order to focus the returning sound echoes. Each separate lipid is unique and different from normal blubber lipids, and is made by a complicated chemical process, requiring a number of different enzymes.2
For such an organ to have evolved, random mutations must have formed the right enzymes to make the right lipids, and other mutations must have caused the lipids to be deposited in the right place and shape. A gradual step-by-step evolution of the organ is not feasible, because until the lipids were fully formed and at least partly in the right place and shape, they would have been of no use. Therefore, natural selection would not have favored incomplete intermediate forms.
Missing links
Evolutionists believe that whales evolved from some form of land mammal. According to Teaching about Evolution, page 18, they ‘evolved from a primitive group of hoofed mammals called Mesonychids.’
However, there are many changes required for a whale to evolve from a land mammal. One of them is to get rid of its pelvis. This would tend to crush the reproductive orifice with propulsive tail movements. But a shrinking pelvis would not be able to support the hind-limbs needed for walking. So the hypothetical transitional form would be unsuited to both land and sea, and hence be extremely vulnerable. Also, the hind part of the body must twist on the fore part, so the tail's sideways movement can be converted to a vertical movement. Seals and dugongs are not anatomically intermediate between land mammals and whales. They have particular specializations of their own.
The lack of transitional forms in the fossil record was realized by evolutionary whale experts like the late E.J. Slijper: ‘We do not possess a single fossil of the transitional forms between the aforementioned land animals [i.e., carnivores and ungulates] and the whales.’3
The lowest whale fossils in the fossil record show they were completely aquatic from the first time they appeared.
I will post a study from oxford about genetics and biochemistry. Their conclusion is that changes in molecular proteins and DNA cannot explain macro evolution. So what is the mechanism for evolution? Magic or Space Aliens? (Please don't say natural selection, I am getting
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by mink:
Transitions in Action:
1) Fish - lives in water
2) Amphibian - can live on land for brief periods but must lay eggs in water and loses moisture rapidly through skin
3) Reptile - can live on land exclusively due to watertight skin and watertight eggs
Too broad for you? Okay:
1) Monkey-like ancestor - smallish, hunched semi-bipedal stature, moderate brainpan with distinct snout shape
2) Early Proto-human from fossil record - intermediate size, hunched but bipedal, intermediate brainpan and flatter face
3) Modern human - you know
What do you make of the lobe-finned fishes? What do you make of a flatworm with light-sensitive eyespots? What about mitochondrial DNA and the theory of its symbiotic origin? What about the fossils they've been turning up recently showing new transitional forms between dinosaur and bird, appearing to have both feathers and scales?
It's okay to leave them to die.
That is ridiculous. You are fully aware of that. Fish, Amphibians, and Reptiles evolved in a linear fashion? Since when? Third grade?
Dinosaurs that APPEAR to have feathers and scales..Wow, that is a great argument.
Too broad for me? Yes. I haven't seen that poster since elementary school.
Night night folks. Don't go chang'n on me over night now.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Auraptor, well said.
To the non-believers in evolution,
You miss the point. Entirely. Evolution is not a theory of biology, it's one of the key fundamental principles of the universe. It's like saying "Math is wrong"
Consider the argument:
Math is wrong. You can't say 5+5=10 because of you're theory of math, it equal ten because God wants it to.
Evolution says far less about biology than it says about statistics. Perhaps you're throwing out statistics as a science as well. Why stop there? Here's an idea: Just throw out language altogether. Language after all can't have evolved through human efforts to communicate, it must have been handed to us by God. Perhaps we're all babbling because of the tower of babel, and everything about animal communication and development of language was made up. Well, since God gave us a sacred speaking in tongues, why screw around with english?
Zwarp Gorfu Nod Haddem Hdaem
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You missed the point and failed to do a basic search, which I anticipated.
But rather than give you the answer as I intended, let me demonstrate how easy it is to find. Click on google. Enter: whales fossil record
Read the entire first site you find. Then get back to me.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
im more curious how non-living matter mutates into living matter; or how an inanimate, lifeless object then evolves into a living organism; which sounds equally as 'mystical' as the theistic theories. i mean.. what process, or 'law' are you guys aware of the gives life (in essence) to death?
that makes the universe, or nature itself a "god", as it gives life to lifeless matter. believe it or not, this is not a new concept, and is an occult one at that
Quote:
Naturalism works in tandem with materialism because it attempts to sustain the primacy of matter with the metaphysical claim of "self-creation" (i.e., abiogenesis). Of course, this claim suggests that living and dead matter are inseparable. Thus, living things are literally artificial entities that create themselves, an occult theme communicated through the Kabalistic myth of the golem.
Quote:
"the golem is based on faith that dead matter is not really dead, but can be brought to life.
Quote:
As a scientific theory, Darwinism would have been jettisoned long ago. The point, however, is that the doctrine of evolution has swept the world, not on the strength of its scientific merits, but precisely in its capacity as a Gnostic myth. It affirms, in effect, that living beings created themselves, which is in essence a metaphysical claim. . . Thus, in the final analysis, evolutionism is in truth a metaphysical doctrine decked out in scientific garb. In other words, it is a scientistic myth. And the myth is Gnostic, because it implicitly denies the transcendent origin of being;
Quote:
“The true name of Satan, the Kabalists say, is that of Yahveh reversed; for Satan is not a black god, but the negation of God. The Devil is the personification of Atheism or Idolatry."
i only bring this up because the golem is a Kabbalistic myth, which shares a fundemental premise with Evolution; and the Kabbala is a primary influence of the ancient mysteries, which the Freemasons and Illuminati practice; secret societies intent on establishing a NWO global dictatorship(not to change the subject)
check the link out for yourself and see what you make of it. Kaneman -im curious of our opinion to this link
http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/Commentary/Prima_Materia.htm
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Okay, I read to the genetics section and just had to call BS on this guy. He says that an evolutionist says that "Evolution is not random", which the author says contradicts the random mutations aspect of evolution.
This is utter foolishness. We all know that random mutations occur all the time. HOWEVER, evolutionary theory states that, in nature, only those mutations that give the organism an advantage in their specific environment survive. For example: There are two members of the same species born in the arctic with different mutations. One has a thinner fur coat than normal, forcing it to expend more energy keeping warm than anything else. When winter hits it will probably freeze to death, preventing the flawed mutation from gaining a foothold in the gene pool.
The other is born with a much thicker than normal fur coat, allowing it to expend more energy looking for food and a mate. Winter comes and goes. Meanwhile, creature number 2 has not only survived during winter, but thrived, giving it much better chances when it comes to mates. It's offspring inherit the thick coat, and, through thousands of years of inter-breeding, the majority of the species has a thick coat.
Evolution IS random in the sense that the mutations are random. However, evolution IS NOT random in the sense that only those mutations that are beneficial for the organism survive, leading to species that are specialized to their specific environments. The author is taking things completely out of context.
You're welcome on my boat. God ain't.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME