Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
The responses, which I received for my previous post “Intelligence out of nothing,” had given me an impression that most of the atheists feel humiliation if someone try to challenge Theory of Evolution. As if, undesirable comment against this theory provoke discomfort among its followers. This attitude is somewhat similar to the behaviour that many religious people exhibit at the instance when they find no counter argument to a critique against their religion.
Interestingly, majority of people do not have proper understanding about evolution, yet they have Blind Faith in it. This is a typical religious attitude and thus it had given me an idea that Theory of Evolution is perhaps transformed into some kind of RELIGION. In light of these expressions, I decided to dedicate this post to evolution to highlight couple of problems.
Let us start with the question “What is Science?”
“Science is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through OBSERVATION and EXPERIMENT”
Oxford Dictionary
OBSERVATION and EXPERIMENT are the mandatory requirements. If an idea lacks one or both of these aspects, this disqualify the idea for being scientific. Science distinguishes itself using empirical standards, logical arguments, and scepticism.
Scientific explanations must meet certain criteria. First and foremost, they must be consistent with EXPERIMENTAL and OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE about nature, and must make accurate predictions, when appropriate, about systems being studied.
They should also be logical, respect the rules of EVIDENCE, be open to CRITICISM, report methods and procedures, and make knowledge public.
Explanations on how the natural world changes based on myths, personal beliefs, religious values, mystical inspiration, superstition, or authority may be personally useful and socially relevant, but they are not SCIENTIFIC. Science only deals with Cause and Effect that tribute the material world.
This provides a short list of criteria of what ‘science’ involves.
Observational data
Accurate predictions
Logic
Open to criticism
Accurate information
No presuppositions
Does evolution perfectly abide by these scientific criteria?
Atheism assumes that the existence of God can be disproved by means of Evolution. They BELIEVE that Darwin showed in his work that there is no need to invoke any supernatural force to account for the development of life through time on earth. They BELIEVE evolution and natural selection are the ONGOING PROCESSES that are OBSERVABLE in today’s world.
“FAITH is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate EVIDENCE. FAITH is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of EVIDENCE.... FAITH, being belief that isn't based on EVIDENCE, is the principal vice of any religion." ( FAITH is not allowed to justify itself by argument...”
Dawkins’ speech at the Edinburgh International Science Festival on 15 April 1992, published in The Independent, 20 April 1992
Almost 99% of atheists think that Evolution is a FACT and not a FAITH. According to them, there is too much EVIDENCE that confirms evolution as science and this FACT cannot be ignored. They BELIEVE evolution is LOGICAL.
“The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity”
Page 317, “The Blind Watchmaker,” By Richard Dawkins
The followers of Darwinism BELIEVE every living being in today’s world descended from a common ancestor. They believe Evolution and Natural Selection are responsible for whatever is living in today’s world.
When atheists/evolutionists are exposed to a question “Is Evolution an OBSERVABLE PROCESS,” nearly 95% of responses start with history of life that stretched over billions of years. Almost everyone from professor to layperson bring FOSSIL RECORD to support evolution.
But Hay! Does fossil record provide some method that facilitate the process of OBSERVATION of an ONGOING OBSERVABLE EVIDENCE? Fossils are only record of past animals and this record is well preserved by nature. By no scientific method, this record is capable to exhibit OBSERVABLE ONGOING PROCESS of evolution that can be replicated in labs.
If some PHENOMENON is not OBSERVABLE by any scientific means, it is consequently NOT TESTABLE in the Lab environment.
“We see nothing of these slow changes in progress, until the hand of time has marked the lapse of ages”
Page 169
Chapter 4: Natural Selection
The Origin of Species: A Variorum Text
By Charles Darwin
Edited by Morse Peckham
Evolution is not OBSERVABLE and consequently NOT TESTABLE.
If Evolution lacks Observational data then no evolutionist can make accurate predictions on the foundation of Logic. This the stage where presumptions start polluting the mainstream ideas. This is precisely what supporters of evolution are doing. They are developing theory after theory and model after model on the ground of mere assumptions by misinterpreting Observable scientific data so their hypothesis standout. In order to prevail supremacy in a social structure and avoid conflicting situations such predictions are not available to open criticism in academic arena because they lack accurate information.
Such models and theories might not effect a scientist, but they truly influence people who have no or least scientific knowhow. Such pseudoscientific models easily convey some ideology to the general people who are credulous to everything that comes from the authority they trust. This is how public bring fossil record to defend theory of evolution, which is bewildering as most of these people are very unaware that fossil record is only revealing a flaw to the Theory of Evolution.
Geological studies revealed that about sixteen different strata encompass most of the fossils. The oldest is the Precambrian, which is the lowest fossil bearing stratum. It has no fossils, other than occasional algae, bacteria, fungi on its surface.
Right above Precambrian is the Cambrian stratum. Unlike Precambrian, Cambrian rocks contain literally billions of the little trilobites, sponges, corals, jellyfish, molluscs, crustaceans and, in fact, every one of the major invertebrate forms of life plus many, many other complex species. Multicellular animals appear suddenly and in rich profusion in the Cambrian but none had ever been found beneath it in the Precambrian.
Life appeared abruptly from nowhere almost spontaneously in the Cambrian Stratum and there is no EVIDENCE that these creatures evolved from any simpler creatures. Palaeontologists call this immense problem “the Cambrian Explosion.” This fact totally devastates the basis of evolutionary theory, which explains that life evolved through cumulative changes through many slight successive steps.
“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”
Charles Darwin,
The Origin of the Species, 6th ed., London:
John Murray, p. 154.
Another trouble that Cambrian fossil record exhibits is the absence of transitional (intermediate) fossils between Cambrian animals and simpler Precambrian forms. If creatures evolved through cumulative changes through many successive steps then there should be innumerable transitional species from simpler to more complex. The fossil EVIDENCE indicating no transitional forms, but only gaps between species as there ought to be if evolution was true. This problem is not limited to the Cambrian stratum but extend to all other fossil bearing strata, namely:
“Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record. [of evolution].”
p. 292, the Origin of Species
“The reason for abrupt appearances and gaps can no longer be attributed to the imperfection of the fossil record as it was by Darwin when palaeontology was a young science. With over 200,000,000 catalogued specimens of about 250,000 fossil species, many evolutionary palaeontologists such as Stanley argue that the fossil record is sufficient.”
W.R. Bird, the Origin of Species Revisited p. 48.
“It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of paleo biological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as due to the scarcity of the material. The deficiencies are real; they will never be filled.”
N. Heribert-Nilsson, Synthetische Artbildung
(The Synthetic Origin of Species), p. 1212.
Dr. Colin Patterson of the British Museum of Natural History was asked why he did not include a single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book, “Evolution.” In reply, Dr. Patterson said this:
“I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise [portray] such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it.
[Steven] Gould [of Harvard] and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least ‘show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.’ I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test.”
Dr. Colin Patterson, letter dated April 10, 1979 to Luther Sunderland, quoted in L.D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma, p. 89.
Finding that so-called “natural selection” accomplished no evolutionary changes, modern evolutionists moved away from Darwinism into Neo-Darwinism. This is the revised teaching that it is mutations plus natural selection (not natural selection alone) which have produced all life forms on Planet Earth.
Evolutionists promote Neo-Darwinism to prove, for instance, cats and dogs were ONCE linked and united by a common carnivorous ancestor. Quite often, to demonstrate Evolution in action in the OBSERVABLE WORLD, they propose examples like:
The Peppered Moth
Live Birth in Three-toed Skinks
Italian Wall Lizards
Cane Toads
Darwin’s Finches
Butterflies and Parasites
Nylon eating flavobacteria
Fruit flies
Stickleback fish
Etc.
All these life forms might be good examples of ADAPTATION and VARIATIONS IN SIMILAR SPECIES but by no scientific means are they the examples of CHANGE IN KINDS like APES INTO HUMANS. No matter, through what mutational process they had gone by but they still be bacteria, fish, fly, moth, lizards etc. just as each fossil was a complete distinct creature that had no transitional properties in it.
On the other side in laboratory, Mutation only revealed injurious results. After tedious efforts and thousands of experiments over fruit flies, scientists critically failed to obtain even one beneficial trait. Mutation does not add beneficial information to the genome.
If the mutations themselves were truly random—that is, if they were neither directed by an intelligence nor influenced by the functional needs of the organism (as Neo-Darwinism stipulates) then the probability of the mutation and selection mechanism ever producing a new gene or protein could well be vanishingly small. Why? The mutations would have to generate, or “search” by trial and error, an enormous number of possibilities—far more than were realistic in the time available to the evolutionary process.
Even assuming that all mutations were beneficial—in order for evolution to begin to occur in even a small way, it would be necessary to have, not just one, but a SERIES of closely related and interlocking mutations—all occurring at the same time in the same organism!
The odds of getting two mutations that are in some slight manner related to one another is the product of two separate mutations: ten million times ten million, or a hundred trillion. That is a 1 followed by 14 zeros. What can two mutations accomplish? Perhaps a honeybee with a wavy edge on a bent wing. But he is still a honeybee; he has not changed from one species to another. More related mutations would be needed. Three mutations in a sequence would be a billion trillion (1 with 21 zeros). But that would not begin to do what would be needed. Four mutations, that were simultaneous or sequentially related, would be 1 with 28 zeros after it. But all the earth could not hold enough organisms to make that possibility come true. And four mutations together does not even begin to produce real evolution. Millions upon millions of harmonious, beneficial characteristics would be needed to transform one species into another.
But all those simultaneous mutations would have to be beneficial; whereas, in real life, mutations very rarely occur and they are almost always harmful.
(By the way, you would need to produce all those multi-mutations in a mated pair, so they could properly produce young. Otherwise, it would be like mating a donkey and a horse—and getting a sterile offspring.)
Another important factor not to be overruled is the process of cell division. The human body has about 100 trillion cells. In the nucleus of each cell are 46 chromosomes. In the chromosomes of each cell are about 10 billion DNA helix. Cell division can occur at the amazing rate of 1000 base pairs per second! If DNA did not divide this quickly, it could take 10,000 years for a human to grow from that first cell to a new-born infant.
If evolution does not serve any scientific assistance then what is its purpose? Is evolution merely a system that pushes people away from the concept of God? If so then who is winning by having individuals who detest God and defy moral principles?
Neither, it's a theory.
MM
"The greatest deception men suffer is from their own opinions" - Leonardo da Vinci
"I think I use the term “radical” rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean atheist, I really do not believe that there is a god; in fact, I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one ... etc., etc. It’s easier to say that I am a radical atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously." - Douglas Adams (and I echo the sentiment)
(July 26, 2014 at 2:43 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Even discounting your ludicrous and pig-headed adamant insistence that atheism is a faith despite being informed repeatedly by those who identify as atheists that it's not - are you conceding that faith is a weak position to adopt?
If Atheism is not a FAITH at all or say LACK of FAITH in God then how your mind adopted the concept that God does not exist. Funny isn’t it?
Please quote a single post of mine in which I ever said anything approaching this.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
July 29, 2014 at 8:15 am (This post was last modified: July 29, 2014 at 8:49 am by Thumpalumpacus.)
(July 28, 2014 at 6:55 am)Harris Wrote: DNA do not and cannot produce new specie out of existing specie. DNA can produce varied specie but in same specie.
What mechanism do you assert is in place which stops variations from continuing on building up until a new species exists?
eta: with apologies to Bibliophagus, I just caught up to his identical question earlier in this thread.
(July 28, 2014 at 6:55 am)Harris Wrote: Fossil record is incomplete not because Palaeontologists have not collected sufficient amount of fossil but because fossil record lacks fossils of transitional animals. Out of millions of records, not a single fossil has been declared to be a transitional animal.
Demonstrably false.
(July 28, 2014 at 6:55 am)Harris Wrote: [...] if you find such a claim then it is purely based on conjecture and would not be able to provide any hard scientific fact on which scientists around the world would be agreed unequivocally.
If unevuivocal agreement is the standard for determining the veracity of a claim, then we can say with certainty that all religions, yours included, are wrong.
(July 29, 2014 at 8:15 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: What mechanism do you assert is in place which stops variations from continuing on building up until a new species exists?
eta: with apologies to Bibliophagus, I just caught up to his identical question earlier in this thread.
No worries mate! I think you phrased it a lot better and I hope you get an answer.
I'm not sure if he has or if he is just ignorning me
'The more I learn about people the more I like my dog'- Mark Twain
'You can have all the faith you want in spirits, and the afterlife, and heaven and hell, but when it comes to this world, don't be an idiot. Cause you can tell me you put your faith in God to put you through the day, but when it comes time to cross the road, I know you look both ways.' - Dr House
“Young earth creationism is essentially the position that all of modern science, 90% of living scientists and 98% of living biologists, all major university biology departments, every major science journal, the American Academy of Sciences, and every major science organization in the world, are all wrong regarding the origins and development of life….but one particular tribe of uneducated, bronze aged, goat herders got it exactly right.” - Chuck Easttom
"If my good friend Doctor Gasparri speaks badly of my mother, he can expect to get punched.....You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others. There is a limit." - Pope Francis on freedom of speech
The title of the thread is a stupid fucking question. NO evolution is not a faith, it is a scientific provable fact and DNA backs it up. Just like gravity is a fact and jumping off a building with nothing to aid your fall can prove that.
It is why and dogs and elephants and humans are all called mammals. If you cannot accept that that makes you a fucking idiot.
(July 6, 2014 at 9:50 pm)Harris Wrote: The responses, which I received for my previous post “Intelligence out of nothing,” had given me an impression that most of the atheists feel humiliation if someone try to challenge Theory of Evolution. As if, undesirable comment against this theory provoke discomfort among its followers. This attitude is somewhat similar to the behaviour that many religious people exhibit at the instance when they find no counter argument to a critique against their religion.
You can challenge it all you want, but it is how you challenge it. You can't sit and make strawman arguments and expect it to be a challenge. Also humiliation is not the right word as you could only humiliate the most uneducated with these arguments. And religion no. Let us see the definition of religion.
"The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods"
Let us note that evolution is a process, and like all other processes it has no thoughts. So it can't be super human. Not only that we don't worship it. We many be in awe while learning about it, but we are also in awe to learn about any think that interest us. Right off the bat I just showed that evolution is not a religion, but I am bored so I will go on.
Interestingly, majority of people do not have proper understanding about evolution, yet they have Blind Faith in it. This is a typical religious attitude and thus it had given me an idea that Theory of Evolution is perhaps transformed into some kind of RELIGION. In light of these expressions, I decided to dedicate this post to evolution to highlight couple of problems.
(July 6, 2014 at 9:50 pm)Harris Wrote: Let us start with the question “What is Science?”
“Science is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through OBSERVATION and EXPERIMENT”
Oxford Dictionary
OBSERVATION and EXPERIMENT are the mandatory requirements. If an idea lacks one or both of these aspects, this disqualify the idea for being scientific. Science distinguishes itself using empirical standards, logical arguments, and scepticism.
First you also don't understand the definition of observe.
"Notice or perceive (something) and register it as being significant"
Now you are asking what can we notice or perceive that proves evolution. What about the transitional fossils, or the fact all life shares similar DNA, and the more DNA two organism share the more traits they will share with each other.
So when I dig up a fossil and see tiktaalik dated in an area after lobe-finned fishes but before tetrapods, and shares traits that only both have in both function and structure, I have noticed that I have a transitional fossils for the evolution of lobed-finned fishes to tetrapods.
Also don't think we are like creationist we are not. We will disprove our own claims without any creationist interference(i.e piltdown man), however all creationist hoaxes were disproven by people who accept evolution. So in turn evolution is science as it still has to pass peer-review and will be disproven in a heartbeat if shown wrong, but creationism does not correct any mistakes it makes no matter how hard it tries. I think you are mistaking biology for creationism.
(July 6, 2014 at 9:50 pm)Harris Wrote: Scientific explanations must meet certain criteria. First and foremost, they must be consistent with EXPERIMENTAL and OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE about nature, and must make accurate predictions, when appropriate, about systems being studied.
They should also be logical, respect the rules of EVIDENCE, be open to CRITICISM, report methods and procedures, and make knowledge public.
Evolution is both. I have shown you that evolution is observable based on the definition, but you are not going for that. You are going for eyewitness testomony. Creationist leaders have tricked you into thinking that if someone is there to see it then it must be true. However eyewitness testemony is the worst evidence ever as it is completely subjective. Evidence like DNA, what has been left over, and pattern in a certain way provide better evidence.
Let us take a murder scene for example. So some one was stabbed one night and there was one eyewitness. After the murder the forensic team came along to investigate. So as the study went on the asked the person who the killer was and she yells jeff the killer. However the evidence shows that it was a many named Richard.
If we were to follow creationist logic, the eyewitness would be the best choice for evidence as she was there to see it and there for richard did not do it jeff the killer did. If we were to do what science actually does we would dismiss her claim in a heart beat.
On evolution being tested constantly, you should go ask a scientist who studies evolution how peer-review works as they would tell you no matter what you accept or what the people peer-reviewing your paper accept, if it is wrong it will be shown wrong.
(July 6, 2014 at 9:50 pm)Harris Wrote: Explanations on how the natural world changes based on myths, personal beliefs, religious values, mystical inspiration, superstition, or authority may be personally useful and socially relevant, but they are not SCIENTIFIC. Science only deals with Cause and Effect that tribute the material world.
Well this goes for many things, christianity, islam, hinduism, buddism, sikhism etc etc. Humans have made these up for an explanation. They are not scientific either. So in short creationism is not science at all. Never was never will be.
(July 6, 2014 at 9:50 pm)Harris Wrote: This provides a short list of criteria of what ‘science’ involves.
Observational data
Accurate predictions
Logic
Open to criticism
Accurate information
No presuppositions
Does evolution perfectly abide by these scientific criteria?
Observational data:
We have found a fossil that shares the traits of both frogs and salamanders. It appeared in the early permian, before any frogs or salamander existed. Using this observation we can say gerbatrachus hottoni is a transitional fossil.
Accurate predictions:
Frogs and salamanders both belong to the superorder batrachaia. It has been shown through DNA that frogs and salamanders are the most related to each others orders. This means that if this is true, there should also be some fossil evidence showing this.
Logic:
Gerobatrachus hottoni has both the traits frogs and salamanders and appeared before both of them. Because of this it is a transitional fossil seeing as it has traits and functions matching two groups of animals that have been shown already to be closely related.
Open to critisism:
All objections about Gerobatrachus hottoni's transitional fossil placement can be criticized but as long as there is good evidence that can be peer reviewed and studied to show that it is not one.
Accurate information:
After studying the fossil it has been shown to have traits of frogs and salamanders. For example it has the tail of a salamander but also has the head structure of a frog. A scientific paper called "A stem batrachian from the Early Permian of Texas and the origin of frogs and salamanders" goes into more detail of this fossil.
No presuppositions:
The fossil was predicted however it was not forced to fit the traits it has. All of gerobatrachus hottoni's traits can be seen when you look closely at the fossil.
So in turn evolutionary biology just fit all of those criteria.
(July 6, 2014 at 9:50 pm)Harris Wrote: Atheism assumes that the existence of God can be disproved by means of Evolution. They BELIEVE that Darwin showed in his work that there is no need to invoke any supernatural force to account for the development of life through time on earth. They BELIEVE evolution and natural selection are the ONGOING PROCESSES that are OBSERVABLE in today’s world.
Atheism just says that there is a lack of belief in goods. God and evolution are not mutually exclusive, no different then atheism and evolution don't go together. Atheist do not invoke a supernatural force because there is no evidence. All evidence for the supernatural is based on the fallacy of an argument from ignorance, as supernatural causes are applied when something is not yet known. You see, you don't have to believe in evolution, I for on accept it instead as it is the only thing shown so far that has evidence to explain biodiversity. Even if there is a creator deity, evidence shows evolution still happened. Evolution is a process that will happen until all life is extinguished from the universe. Today evolution is shown through experiments like lenski's e.coli experiment and the silver fox experiment. Evolution is observed when you find a transitional fossil or when you see DNA of two groups of animals that share the most common traits with each other anatomically be more related to each other than of another group which is more distantly related.
(July 6, 2014 at 9:50 pm)Harris Wrote: “FAITH is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate EVIDENCE. FAITH is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of EVIDENCE.... FAITH, being belief that isn't based on EVIDENCE, is the principal vice of any religion." ( FAITH is not allowed to justify itself by argument...”
Dawkins’ speech at the Edinburgh International Science Festival on 15 April 1992, published in The Independent, 20 April 1992
The fact you used richard dawkins as something to show how we are wrong is nothing but irony.
[quote='Harris' pid='702392' dateline='1404697844']
Almost 99% of atheists think that Evolution is a FACT and not a FAITH. According to them, there is too much EVIDENCE that confirms evolution as science and this FACT cannot be ignored. They BELIEVE evolution is LOGICAL.
If I were to make a post on all the evidence for evolution you would go
Because it would be too damn long.
“The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity”
Page 317, “The Blind Watchmaker,” By Richard Dawkins
(July 6, 2014 at 9:50 pm)Harris Wrote: The followers of Darwinism BELIEVE every living being in today’s world descended from a common ancestor. They believe Evolution and Natural Selection are responsible for whatever is living in today’s world.
Yeah it is the best explanation for biodiversity, have anything better? Even with god I hear theist going to evolution proves god, so god can't be a cop out.
Seeing as how birds are dinosaurs, humans are apes and cetaceans include ambelocetous and whales, we can say that confidently because evidence shows that is what happened.
(July 6, 2014 at 9:50 pm)Harris Wrote: When atheists/evolutionists are exposed to a question “Is Evolution an OBSERVABLE PROCESS,” nearly 95% of responses start with history of life that stretched over billions of years. Almost everyone from professor to layperson bring FOSSIL RECORD to support evolution.
Not really true. Most point towards DNA and genetics to prove it. Maybe if you are a paleozoology fan like me you would but other than that it would be DNA.
(July 6, 2014 at 9:50 pm)Harris Wrote: But Hay! Does fossil record provide some method that facilitate the process of OBSERVATION of an ONGOING OBSERVABLE EVIDENCE? Fossils are only record of past animals and this record is well preserved by nature. By no scientific method, this record is capable to exhibit OBSERVABLE ONGOING PROCESS of evolution that can be replicated in labs.
Yes fossils do show evolution. Let us go back to tiktaalik. You see based on observations alone we know tiktaalik shows that lobe-finned fish gave rise to tetrapods. However when you bring fossils like panderichthys and acanthostega in the mix, and put them in order you will see that the older fossils in this lineage show less in common with tetrapods than the younger ones which share more in common with tetrapods. This shows that even with fossils you can understand to process of how life evolved over the years.
(July 6, 2014 at 9:50 pm)Harris Wrote: If some PHENOMENON is not OBSERVABLE by any scientific means, it is consequently NOT TESTABLE in the Lab environment.
Scientist being in the lab only is a stereotype. Field work is also where experiments in science take place, as doing something like observing elephant behavior is not able to be done in a lab.
(July 6, 2014 at 9:50 pm)Harris Wrote: Evolution is not OBSERVABLE and consequently NOT TESTABLE.
If Evolution lacks Observational data then no evolutionist can make accurate predictions on the foundation of Logic. This the stage where presumptions start polluting the mainstream ideas. This is precisely what supporters of evolution are doing. They are developing theory after theory and model after model on the ground of mere assumptions by misinterpreting Observable scientific data so their hypothesis standout. In order to prevail supremacy in a social structure and avoid conflicting situations such predictions are not available to open criticism in academic arena because they lack accurate information.
First as I shown evolution is observable meaning that we do not need presumptions for the theory. Second all theories are developing in all of science not just biology. You see as new evidence comes in and it disproves old evidence, you have to correspond with the new evidence. Evolutionary biology is no exception.
To add bringing conspiracy won't work. You are now trying to make it look as if the only reason to keep science like evolution around is because of social influence. What is worst is you claim evolution does not accept critisims when it does. However creationist have no real objections but instead repeat the same inaccurate strawman arguments over and over again. They don't allow arguments like that in because they are scared, but because they know what are going to say already. It is no different then thinking because astronomy won't let objections of it in, then it is wrong and is trying to control people, when in reality it is because they already know all of the objections that are trying to be made and have already been disproven.
(July 6, 2014 at 9:50 pm)Harris Wrote: Such models and theories might not effect a scientist, but they truly influence people who have no or least scientific knowhow. Such pseudoscientific models easily convey some ideology to the general people who are credulous to everything that comes from the authority they trust. This is how public bring fossil record to defend theory of evolution, which is bewildering as most of these people are very unaware that fossil record is only revealing a flaw to the Theory of Evolution.
Evolution has influence on people because all science does. The thing is that the average joe will accept anything is because they don't care. However they can be taught to question everything, and if someone is like me, they will tell the joe to question what I said and do there own research and I will give them scientific papers to read if they are curious. Education is key, and creationist don't believe in it.
(July 6, 2014 at 9:50 pm)Harris Wrote: Geological studies revealed that about sixteen different strata encompass most of the fossils. The oldest is the Precambrian, which is the lowest fossil bearing stratum. It has no fossils, other than occasional algae, bacteria, fungi on its surface.
How could you be so wrong O my goddess. First off the oldest period with in the precambrian is the Ediacaran and animals had animals like sponges, ctenophora, and cnidaria have evolved during that time. So during the precambrian there was life. My goddess it is like you know nothing on the subject. I am starting to feel that you might not know any science what so ever.
(July 6, 2014 at 9:50 pm)Harris Wrote: Right above Precambrian is the Cambrian stratum. Unlike Precambrian, Cambrian rocks contain literally billions of the little trilobites, sponges, corals, jellyfish, molluscs, crustaceans and, in fact, every one of the major invertebrate forms of life plus many, many other complex species. Multicellular animals appear suddenly and in rich profusion in the Cambrian but none had ever been found beneath it in the Precambrian.
Ah the cambrian explosion something creationist don't understand. First you have never seen the transitional fossils within the cambrain period. Pikaia is one. Not to include the many other life forms that evolved before the cambrian explosion. Hell the group of protostome was even around before the cambrian explosion.
(July 6, 2014 at 9:50 pm)Harris Wrote: Life appeared abruptly from nowhere almost spontaneously in the Cambrian Stratum and there is no EVIDENCE that these creatures evolved from any simpler creatures. Palaeontologists call this immense problem “the Cambrian Explosion.” This fact totally devastates the basis of evolutionary theory, which explains that life evolved through cumulative changes through many slight successive steps.
Well there is I named them above, you would know there are animals and transitional animals before the cambrian period if you were to read up on it. So again pikaia, and primitve protosomes.
(July 6, 2014 at 9:50 pm)Harris Wrote: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case.”
Charles Darwin,
The Origin of the Species, 6th ed., London:
John Murray, p. 154.
Fixed
(July 6, 2014 at 9:50 pm)Harris Wrote: Another trouble that Cambrian fossil record exhibits is the absence of transitional (intermediate) fossils between Cambrian animals and simpler Precambrian forms. If creatures evolved through cumulative changes through many successive steps then there should be innumerable transitional species from simpler to more complex. The fossil EVIDENCE indicating no transitional forms, but only gaps between species as there ought to be if evolution was true. This problem is not limited to the Cambrian stratum but extend to all other fossil bearing strata, namely:
See what I did there it was in order but there are transitional fossils for all of those areas in earths history.
(July 6, 2014 at 9:50 pm)Harris Wrote: “Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record. [of evolution].”
p. 292, the Origin of Species
I was going to well quote mine and add the part to put in in context but it looks like you already failed in doing so. If you quote the whole thing then we can understand the context.
(July 6, 2014 at 9:50 pm)Harris Wrote: “The reason for abrupt appearances and gaps can no longer be attributed to the imperfection of the fossil record as it was by Darwin when palaeontology was a young science. With over 200,000,000 catalogued specimens of about 250,000 fossil species, many evolutionary palaeontologists such as Stanley argue that the fossil record is sufficient.”
W.R. Bird, the Origin of Species Revisited p. 48.
Yeah it is and as shown before there are plenty of transitional fossils. Something tells me you are bad at quote mining.
(July 6, 2014 at 9:50 pm)Harris Wrote: “It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of paleo biological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as due to the scarcity of the material. The deficiencies are real; they will never be filled.”
N. Heribert-Nilsson, Synthetische Artbildung
(The Synthetic Origin of Species), p. 1212.
The fact that you quote this guy is really bad. Dude thought enzymes were genes and not only that it was in the 1920's, unlike darwin which is a quote mine this is more of taking a quote from a fellow creationist.
(July 6, 2014 at 9:50 pm)Harris Wrote: Dr. Colin Patterson of the British Museum of Natural History was asked why he did not include a single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book, “Evolution.” In reply, Dr. Patterson said this:
“I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise [portray] such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it.
Poor Dr. Patterson he has been quoted mined. Funny how in the book he wrote he said "In several animal and plant groups, enough fossils are known to bridge the wide gaps between existing types. In mammals, for example, the gap between horses, asses and zebras (genus Equus) and their closest living relatives, the rhinoceroses and tapirs, is filled by an extensive series of fossils extending back sixty-million years to a small animal, Hyracotherium, which can only be distinguished from the rhinoceros-tapir group by one or two horse-like details of the skull. There are many other examples of fossil 'missing links', such as Archaeopteryx, the Jurassic bird which links birds with dinosaurs (Fig. 45), and Ichthyostega, the late Devonian amphibian which links land vertebrates and the extinct choanate (having internal nostrils) fishes"
So in turn he never denied that there are transitional fossils in fact he is responding to a creationist in whom he knew would not listen to him.
(July 6, 2014 at 9:50 pm)Harris Wrote: [Steven] Gould [of Harvard] and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least ‘show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.’ I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test.”
Dr. Colin Patterson, letter dated April 10, 1979 to Luther Sunderland, quoted in L.D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma, p. 89.
Second I saw gould's name I know it was a quote mine, no doubt.
(July 6, 2014 at 9:50 pm)Harris Wrote: Finding that so-called “natural selection” accomplished no evolutionary changes, modern evolutionists moved away from Darwinism into Neo-Darwinism. This is the revised teaching that it is mutations plus natural selection (not natural selection alone) which have produced all life forms on Planet Earth.
Neo-darwinism? What kind of BS is that. What is worst is that you creationist are disingenuous enough to now try to make natural selection seperate from evolution. To make things worst many say we don't find a crocoduck which would disprove natural selection. Also again have a better explanation?
(July 6, 2014 at 9:50 pm)Harris Wrote: Evolutionists promote Neo-Darwinism to prove, for instance, cats and dogs were ONCE linked and united by a common carnivorous ancestor. Quite often, to demonstrate Evolution in action in the OBSERVABLE WORLD, they propose examples like:
The Peppered Moth
Live Birth in Three-toed Skinks
Italian Wall Lizards
Cane Toads
Darwin’s Finches
Butterflies and Parasites
Nylon eating flavobacteria
Fruit flies
Stickleback fish
Etc.
All these life forms might be good examples of ADAPTATION and VARIATIONS IN SIMILAR SPECIES but by no scientific means are they the examples of CHANGE IN KINDS like APES INTO HUMANS. No matter, through what mutational process they had gone by but they still be bacteria, fish, fly, moth, lizards etc. just as each fossil was a complete distinct creature that had no transitional properties in it.
Well they were. If you look up a fossil called miacis you would see an animal that has traits of dog-toothed and cat-toothed carnivorians.
Also you use kind as similar species but there is a catch. You see you listed bacteria as one of those species, however bacteria is a domain. To claim the rest as kinds and bacteria as kinds while one is a species and the other is a domain shows why kind is a bad word. Creationist never define it and there for it is easy for them to make it up on a whim. Also you list those as if that proves that apes turned to humans it doesn't. It does prove that evolution happened however, even by your creationist, must be there to witness it standards. However as I said before you can observe fossils by noticing there traits and those it shares those traits with like how Australopithecus shares traits with non human apes and humans. To add adaptions can't happen unless evolution does. Saying that is like saying I can move fives miles in a car without the car moving.
(July 6, 2014 at 9:50 pm)Harris Wrote: On the other side in laboratory, Mutation only revealed injurious results. After tedious efforts and thousands of experiments over fruit flies, scientists critically failed to obtain even one beneficial trait. Mutation does not add beneficial information to the genome.
This argument is a bad one. First it depends on the situation. If a mutation like extra eyes where passed on in the genome of squids, but squids with more eye survived then it would be a beneficial mutation. Mutations all depend on how it works in the environment. Hell even creationist lords like AiG don't want creationist to use this argument.
(July 6, 2014 at 9:50 pm)Harris Wrote: If the mutations themselves were truly random—that is, if they were neither directed by an intelligence nor influenced by the functional needs of the organism (as Neo-Darwinism stipulates) then the probability of the mutation and selection mechanism ever producing a new gene or protein could well be vanishingly small. Why? The mutations would have to generate, or “search” by trial and error, an enormous number of possibilities—far more than were realistic in the time available to the evolutionary process.
Well yes it would be a small chance but those that survive pass on the traits and the population begins to grow. Then that mutation would pass on to a new species. So random mutations do not equal bad or good, in fact most are neutral. Also you add no intelligent influence as if no theist ever accepts evolution, which they do, in fact more christians for example accept evolution than don't, so saying that is not a good objection.
(July 6, 2014 at 9:50 pm)Harris Wrote: Even assuming that all mutations were beneficial—in order for evolution to begin to occur in even a small way, it would be necessary to have, not just one, but a SERIES of closely related and interlocking mutations—all occurring at the same time in the same organism!
This is a very gross misinterpretation of how mutations work. One mutation can be passed on for a new trait in an organism, and more can accumulate over time, however it does not take a series to make a new organism. This is also false in the fact that it makes it look as if evolution is in an individual instead of a population. A population of squid can get two squids out of 10 to have the mutation, but when those squid survive and reproduce the mutation will become more common.
(July 6, 2014 at 9:50 pm)Harris Wrote: The odds of getting two mutations that are in some slight manner related to one another is the product of two separate mutations: ten million times ten million, or a hundred trillion. That is a 1 followed by 14 zeros. What can two mutations accomplish? Perhaps a honeybee with a wavy edge on a bent wing. But he is still a honeybee; he has not changed from one species to another. More related mutations would be needed. Three mutations in a sequence would be a billion trillion (1 with 21 zeros). But that would not begin to do what would be needed. Four mutations, that were simultaneous or sequentially related, would be 1 with 28 zeros after it. But all the earth could not hold enough organisms to make that possibility come true. And four mutations together does not even begin to produce real evolution. Millions upon millions of harmonious, beneficial characteristics would be needed to transform one species into another.
Well this is a large word salad. First off the probability argument is false seeing as mutations happen a lot more often then that and again it depends on the situation. The honey bee with the wavy wing is indeed a start however if more mutations occur in the population, those that help the bee population survive and reproduced will be passed on. So if the bee population of the span of 50 years gains even 5 more mutations in that time in which change the populations behavior and wing structure, it will become a new species of be and a specieation event will occur.
(July 6, 2014 at 9:50 pm)Harris Wrote: But all those simultaneous mutations would have to be beneficial; whereas, in real life, mutations very rarely occur and they are almost always harmful.
(By the way, you would need to produce all those multi-mutations in a mated pair, so they could properly produce young. Otherwise, it would be like mating a donkey and a horse—and getting a sterile offspring.)
Actually mutations are mostly neutral causing no harm and no benefit, though harmful mutations are more common, it is not by much.
Also your ignorance on the subject knows no bounds if he think a donkey and horse was a good analogy. If a population of bees have one mutation and the bees with that mutation mated they will pass on there genes and the mutation. The horse no matter how many mutations could not produce fertile offspring with the donkey because of the specieation event between them happening a long time ago.
(July 6, 2014 at 9:50 pm)Harris Wrote: Another important factor not to be overruled is the process of cell division. The human body has about 100 trillion cells. In the nucleus of each cell are 46 chromosomes. In the chromosomes of each cell are about 10 billion DNA helix. Cell division can occur at the amazing rate of 1000 base pairs per second! If DNA did not divide this quickly, it could take 10,000 years for a human to grow from that first cell to a new-born infant.
Well of course you say this as it disproves evolution when it doesn't. This really leads to an argument from ignorance because its goal is to make it seem as if this could not happen by natural process. To note humans where not destined to have it however, but due to evolution it happened because of the mutations and changes in genetics over the ape populations even before us for millions of years.
(July 6, 2014 at 9:50 pm)Harris Wrote: If evolution does not serve any scientific assistance then what is its purpose? Is evolution merely a system that pushes people away from the concept of God? If so then who is winning by having individuals who detest God and defy moral principles?
Evolution as I have shown has scientific assistance. It explains biodiversity. It explains why speciation happens, it explains why tiktaalkik shares tetrapod and lobe-finned fish traits. Evolution was not made to kill any deity as evolution and god are not mutually exclusive. Many evolutionary biologist are christians, in fact Robert T. Bakker is a paleotologist who accepts evolution and a preacher at the same time. If any one is losing it is creationist. They use falsehoods and lies to get around, and when they run out they claim we are evil and trying to hide things we are not.
Now why did I do this? So I can say
And it be justified and proven objectively
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Good effort but he'll just ignore it all. And if he does ever reply it will be to just one or two sentences whilst skipping everything he doesn't understand and can't answer.
'The more I learn about people the more I like my dog'- Mark Twain
'You can have all the faith you want in spirits, and the afterlife, and heaven and hell, but when it comes to this world, don't be an idiot. Cause you can tell me you put your faith in God to put you through the day, but when it comes time to cross the road, I know you look both ways.' - Dr House
“Young earth creationism is essentially the position that all of modern science, 90% of living scientists and 98% of living biologists, all major university biology departments, every major science journal, the American Academy of Sciences, and every major science organization in the world, are all wrong regarding the origins and development of life….but one particular tribe of uneducated, bronze aged, goat herders got it exactly right.” - Chuck Easttom
"If my good friend Doctor Gasparri speaks badly of my mother, he can expect to get punched.....You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others. There is a limit." - Pope Francis on freedom of speech
(July 29, 2014 at 1:39 pm)Bad Wolf Wrote: Good effort but he'll just ignore it all. And if he does ever reply it will be to just one or two sentences whilst skipping everything he doesn't understand and can't answer.
He would do this
Then say I have showed no evidence.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
![[Image: dr-lol.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=www.reactiongifs.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F01%2Fdr-lol.gif)
![[Image: image399.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=schneeblog.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F07%2Fimage399.jpg)
![[Image: guilmon_evolution_by_davidgtm3-d4gb5rp.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=orig15.deviantart.net%2F1dbf%2Ff%2F2011%2F319%2F3%2F3%2Fguilmon_evolution_by_davidgtm3-d4gb5rp.gif)
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
![[Image: sweep_under_rug_21753183.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=therealsingapore.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Ffield%2Fimage%2Fsweep_under_rug_21753183.jpg)
