DARWIN'S MACROEVOLUTION: Why Unscientific?

[Cyberman]

Nobody knows the age of the universe.

Clearly they didn't when that 'holy' crock of fables was written. We've come a long way since then. You really ought to keep up; you've missed out on so much, just in the last fifty years.

[Zen Badger]

---

Oh dear, another clueless christian who learnt everything they think they know about evolution from Answersingenesis. And therefore actually know nothing.

Heads up for you kid.

You need to first prove that the universe is only 6000 years old before you try to attack evolution.

And given that EVERY field of scientific endeavour supports an old universe,
wellll... good luck with that

---

Since I don't believe the universe is only 6,000 years old, you're using the wrong rebuttal with me. According to Bible chronology, humans have existed about 6,000 years. Notice I bolded the word "humans." Nobody knows the age of the universe. It's most logically billions of years old.

You fail bigtime kid.

Using the bible to support the bible will get you nowhere fast here.

Ps your bible says that god created the universe a few days before he created humans.

Or are you saying that the bible is in error?

[popeyespappy]

@ the OP

Chapter four of Darwin’s book On The Origin Of Species is titled difficulties on theory. In it he discussed the features of flying squirrels and lemurs as a possible transitional form between small tree dwelling mammals and bats. He never suggests that at some point in history a squirrel gave birth to a bat. Rather he explains the changes necessary to change the form of the tree dwelling gliding mammals, themselves transitional forms, into the form of a bat.

If Darwin’s theory is correct we would expect to find within the fossil record a series of forms distributed through time that show a transition from the early mammalian form to that of bats. Indeed that is exactly what we find. Within the fossil record we have Multituberculates that are more than 150 million yo. These are followed by Volaticotherium antiquus, a squirrel sized glider at least 125 million yo. Finally we find the appearance of the earliest true bats more than 50 million years ago. These early bats were themselves a transitional form. They possessed the general body form of bats, but had yet to evolve the features necessary for echolocation.

Please defend your claims of no transitional forms in light of the fact that I have specifically addressed one of your claims of things that do not exist in the fossil record.

[Alter2Ego]

ORGANIC/BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION is the theory that the first living organism developed from nonliving matter.

No, it isn't. Abiogenesis is the hypothesis that the first living organisms devoloped from nonliving matter. Evolution is about what happens next.

ALTER2EGO -to- MISTER AGENDA:
That's the loophole some try to use, now that they realize they cannot explain how life started from non-life. So tell me, where did this "common ancestor" come from? Who gave it life, in order for all other living things in existence to have then evolved from it? Let me know.

that every single animal that has ever existed came from one common ancestor aka came from a single animal (macro-evolution). Is there evidence proving that humans or animals evolved from completely different beings than what they presently are?

Yes, and it's readily available to anyone who cares to educate themselves.

ALTER2EGO -to- MISTER AGENDA:
But that's just it. I have educated myself, and all I keep finding are admissions from paleontologists that the fossils record is full of nothing but gaps. The existence of gaps is another way of saying: "There are no bones linking one type of animal/species/family to an entirely different type." Below are a couple examples of what the paleontologists have been saying for the past 30 years.

According to the Bulletin of Chicago: Charles Darwin "was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn't look the way he predicted it would.... the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution." (Source: Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Chicago, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," by David M. Raup, January 1979, pages 22, 23, 25)


Scientist Steven Stanley spoke of "the general failure of the record to display gradual transitions from one major group to another." He went on further to say: "The known fossil record is not, and never has been, in accord with [slow evolution.]" (Source: The New Evolutionary Timetable, by Steven M. Stanley, 1981, pages 71 and 77)


Yet another scientist, Niles Eldredge, also admitted: "The pattern that we were told to find for the last 120 years does not exist." (Source: The Enterprise, November 14, 1980, page E9)


I will respond to the remainder of your rebuttal in another post.

[Cyberman]

<Yawn>...

According to the Bulletin of Chicago: Charles Darwin "was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn't look the way he predicted it would.... the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution." (Source: Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Chicago, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," by David M. Raup, January 1979, pages 22, 23, 25)

Raup on the importance of fossils to Darwin's theory

Scientist Steven Stanley spoke of "the general failure of the record to display gradual transitions from one major group to another." He went on further to say: "The known fossil record is not, and never has been, in accord with [slow evolution.]" (Source: The New Evolutionary Timetable, by Steven M. Stanley, 1981, pages 71 and 77)

Evolutionist Steven Stanley on no gradual transitions in the fossil record

Yet another scientist, Niles Eldredge, also admitted: "The pattern that we were told to find for the last 120 years does not exist." (Source: The Enterprise, November 14, 1980, page E9)

Eldredge on the pattern in the fossil record

There's just no challenge anymore...

(EDit: for some reason the first two links seem determined to point to the top of the page rather than the appropriate subsection, despite having different urls. I have no idea why, other than the internet trying to make me look like an idiot again.)

[Jackalope]

---

<Yawn>...

According to the Bulletin of Chicago: Charles Darwin "was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn't look the way he predicted it would.... the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution." (Source: Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Chicago, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," by David M. Raup, January 1979, pages 22, 23, 25)

Raup on the importance of fossils to Darwin's theory

Scientist Steven Stanley spoke of "the general failure of the record to display gradual transitions from one major group to another." He went on further to say: "The known fossil record is not, and never has been, in accord with [slow evolution.]" (Source: The New Evolutionary Timetable, by Steven M. Stanley, 1981, pages 71 and 77)

Evolutionist Steven Stanley on no gradual transitions in the fossil record

Yet another scientist, Niles Eldredge, also admitted: "The pattern that we were told to find for the last 120 years does not exist." (Source: The Enterprise, November 14, 1980, page E9)

[url=http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_quotes_out_of_context#Eldredge_on_the_pattern_in_the_fossil_record]Eldredge on the pattern in the fossil record[/url

There's just no challenge anymore...

(EDit: for some reason the first two links seem determined to point to the top of the page rather than the appropriate subsection, despite having different urls. I have no idea why, other than the internet trying to make me look like an idiot again.)

---

Pwned.

[Alter2Ego]

<Yawn>...

According to the Bulletin of Chicago: Charles Darwin "was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn't look the way he predicted it would.... the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution." (Source: Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Chicago, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," by David M. Raup, January 1979, pages 22, 23, 25)

Raup on the importance of fossils to Darwin's theory

Scientist Steven Stanley spoke of "the general failure of the record to display gradual transitions from one major group to another." He went on further to say: "The known fossil record is not, and never has been, in accord with [slow evolution.]" (Source: The New Evolutionary Timetable, by Steven M. Stanley, 1981, pages 71 and 77)

Evolutionist Steven Stanley on no gradual transitions in the fossil record

Yet another scientist, Niles Eldredge, also admitted: "The pattern that we were told to find for the last 120 years does not exist." (Source: The Enterprise, November 14, 1980, page E9)

Eldredge on the pattern in the fossil record

There's just no challenge anymore...

(EDit: for some reason the first two links seem determined to point to the top of the page rather than the appropriate subsection, despite having different urls. I have no idea why, other than the internet trying to make me look like an idiot again.)

ALTER2EGO -to- STIMBO:
If there's no challenge anymore, why is the word "evolution" permanentLy locked to the word "theory"?

BTW: I don't do links. I am not going to take the time to read entire articles searching for who knows what. The least you could have done was tell me what pages and what paragraphs to read. Instead you gave me just the weblinks and expect me to go searching for your evidence.

I don't know if you've noticed, but I habitually quote my sources. Then I provide the weblink in case others want to confirm that I'm quoting correctly or in case they want to read more. But I try to quote the relevant portions that I want to bring to people's attention.

[Sciwoman]

The scientific use of the word theory has been explained to you. If you can't understand it, perhaps I can get my friend's ten-year-old to try to help you grasp it.

[Alter2Ego]

---

Oh dear, another clueless christian who learnt everything they think they know about evolution from Answersingenesis. And therefore actually know nothing.

Heads up for you kid.

You need to first prove that the universe is only 6000 years old before you try to attack evolution.

And given that EVERY field of scientific endeavour supports an old universe,
wellll... good luck with that

---

Since I don't believe the universe is only 6,000 years old, you're using the wrong rebuttal with me. According to Bible chronology, humans have existed about 6,000 years. Notice I bolded the word "humans." Nobody knows the age of the universe. It's most logically billions of years old.

You fail bigtime kid.

Using the bible to support the bible will get you nowhere fast here.

Ps your bible says that god created the universe a few days before he created humans.

Or are you saying that the bible is in error?

Since the issues you are raising here concern religion, you will find my response to this in the Christianity forum. It will be in my thread entitled: "THE BIBLE: God's Word or Mans?"

The response will be on page 5, post #45 at the following weblink:
http://atheistforums.org/thread-12294-po...#pid279150

[Thor]

[If there's no challenge anymore, why is the word "evolution" permanentLy locked to the word "theory"?

And here we have a perfect example of the logical fallacy known as an Argument of Equivocation.

My Logic 101 professor just failed you.

---

No, it isn't. Abiogenesis is the hypothesis that the first living organisms devoloped from nonliving matter. Evolution is about what happens next.
ALTER2EGO -to- MISTER AGENDA:
That's the loophole some try to use, now that they realize they cannot explain how life started from non-life. So tell me, where did this "common ancestor" come from? Who gave it life, in order for all other living things in existence to have then evolved from it? Let me know.

It's not a "loophole", genius. It's two different areas of science.

ALTER2EGO -to- MISTER AGENDA:[/b]
But that's just it. I have educated myself, and all I keep finding are admissions from paleontologists that the fossils record is full of nothing but gaps.

I guess you've never seen the fossils that demonstrate the evolution of the horse. It's a pretty complete picture. Human evolution is pretty complete as well.

The existence of gaps is another way of saying: "There are no bones linking one type of animal/species/family to an entirely different type."

Bullshit. Apparently you've never heard of Tiktaalik. It's a creature whose existence was predicted and was found exactly where scientists expected it to be found! It shows a definite transition from fish to tetrapods.

Below are a couple examples of what the paleontologists have been saying for the past 30 years.

Hey, let's put on our hardhat and go quote mining!