Genesis Creation vs. Darwin's Macroevolution Myth

[orogenicman]

So what? Are you suggesting that some new paradigm has arrived that somehow replaces the biologic theory of evolution? Because if that is what you are suggesting, I am here to tell you that you are mistaken.

ALTER2EGO -to- OROGENICMAN:
Go ahead and tell the rest of the forum. Where I am concerned, your personal philosophy doesn't mean a thing. Unless you can present credible evidence to support whatever you are "telling" the forum, I will have to dismiss your comments as mere opinion.

Start by producing evidence of fossils that show where one creature left off and the other one began directly from it aka the second creature evolved from the first creature, and there are no gaps in the fossils record.


The forum is waiting.

The biologic theory of evolution is not a personal philosophy. It is a scientific theory that describes natural phenomena. Dismiss it at your own choosing, but that's on you, and no one else.

The fact that you believe the popular myth perpetuated by the lazy and uninformed that fossils show some kind of continuum consistently over time is rather sad and demonstrates a lack of understanding of the theory of evolution and a lack of basic understanding of modern biology. Of course there are gaps in the fossil record. Fossilization is the exception, not the rule. For every 100 feet of sedimentary layer available for study, there is something like a half a foot of sediment or less with the characteristics suitable for fossilization. And that is because there are as many fossil environments in the geologic record as there are environments on earth today. And few environments are suitable for preservation. Also, some species are more amenable to fossilization than others. So gaps in the fossil record are inevitable.

That said, I am going out on a limb here and suggest that what you are getting at is that there are no transitional species. That too is a myth since ALL species are potentially transitional from one to another. Genes mutate all the time. The best example we see today is in disease vectors such as viruses and certain bacteria which are always mutating in order to survive whatever anti-biologic agent we care to throw at them.

Moreover, evolution doesn't occur within individuals. It occurs within populations. All populations of life forms have variations in characteristics, the sum total of which defines the species. New species arise out of novel changes in populations that confers a survival/reproductive advantage to one portion of the population over another.

A fossil (and living) example can be found in the different sub-classes of crinoids, marine echinoderms that have a pentagonal body symmetry and usually but not always a stalk with a sort of foothold for attachment to a substrate such as a rock or the sea floor. Each class prefer specific marine environments formed by variable currents. One sub-class is found in calm seas and because it has a fragile exoskeleton, cannot survive in moderate or rough currents. It is adapted to calm seas only. A second sub-class prefers more moderate currents, and has a stronger skeletal structure and brachioles (appendages that allow it to feed) adapted to moderate currents. It can survive in calmer seas but tends to prefer more moderate currents in areas where their food is more abundant. Yet another sub-class consists of robust species that can weather all but the most extreme currents. These typically are found on the upwind side of reefs in more exposed areas subjected to strong currents and storms.

So in crinoids, as with all other species, we see examples of adaptation to environmental conditions that confer a survival advantage. We see all sub-classes of crinoids in modern reefs and in ancient reefs going back nearly 500 million years. They have been one of the most highly successful forms of life on this planet, and as a class, have survived every major extinction during that time.

Modern Crinoids

Fossil Crinoids

Any questions? There will be a pop quiz next week.