Due to the current troll infestation we will be requiring you to sign in to leave a comment. Also, please note that we will be very nice in the regular posts, but we will not be gentle in the Sunday Blaspheme posts. You will be expected to back up any ideas with facts.
I am always happy to answer any questions I can:)
New Rule! Staff reserves the right to cuss you out and post your correspondence if you send us annoying emails.
Sunday, December 19, 2010
Also this Sunday: Religion and it's 'handle' on logic!
So in the 150 years since Darwin we've never come with any evidence? Don't make me laugh at you and point! There is a ton of evidence, from fossils to DNA. If you choose to ignore it that's your problem. Ignorance might be bliss to some people but willful ignorance it the height of stupidity. And once again for the uninformed, a Theory in science means a group of facts that form an idea, not a basic idea, that's a hypothosis. That things evolve is a fact, the exact mechanisms are still being studied, there appears to be more than one.
And no we are not monkeys, we are apes. If you had bothered to learn even basic biology you would know this. Of course for people like you I think the monkeys would be insulted at your arrogance.
I think one of the problems with Darwinism and the fossil record is that it never showed what the theory predicted. There is not a branching pattern of one species evolving minor changes and gradually turning into a new species. What the fossil record shows is a jarring appearance of more complex organisms without transitional fossils. This does not support Darwinism. Simply saying that we see fossils move from simple to more complex forms is not support of evolution, there are many theories that view supports. At best you could say it does not disprove evolution, but that is about it. You have to argue from the evidence to the theory; not from the theory to the evidence. Saying transitional fossils failed to fossilize is unsupportable. There will be the same amount of evidence for fossils which didn’t fossilize as for non-existent fossils. You can’t assume transitional fossils didn’t fossilize, you have to start with what you have, not what you don’t.
Today there are a few possible transitional fossils, but none are iron clad. It is disheartening to see any potential transitional fossil heralded as an actual transitional form within months of its discovery before it has actually been investigated.
From what I’ve read most evolutionists are placing less and less importance on the fossil record and morphology (the physical forms of species) and are hoping that the DNA record will support macro evolution. What is taught or believed by the general public is usually at least a decade behind the cutting edge of research.
Also there was a very good article in the NY Times about the lie that most scientists support evolution. IDists for a long time have stated many scientists go along with evolution because they fear for their jobs. Evolutionists always respond no one has ever lost a job for doubting evolution. Astronomer Martin Gaskell’s case is gearing up for court, read about it here:
Yes, that's exactly what the fossil record shows. Branching and more branching. Evolution predicts that the further back in time you go the more 'simple' the life will be, this is true. It also predicts were we might find certain adaptions like legs for walking on land, this give paleontologists an idea were to look and low and behold they've found the beginnings of legs. They are now prediction a spinosaur in North America and are re examining the crocodile teeth found here. Yes there are jarring transitions... at first, but if we continue to look we find transitions and more transitions. There is a new book out called Written in Stone by Brian Switek, it's all about the fossil record.
There are literally tons of transitional fossils. DNA is becoming more important as we can easily examine it. It take more time ans effort to dig for fossils than it does to sequence a gene. But the fossils are backing up what they are finding in the DNA. That's called corroborating evidence. ID has to produce any evidence.
That guy is just crying because he wasn't good enough to get the job, it's the first thing IDers do, you can't get a science job if you don't actually do science and claiming God did it isn't science.. or sorry, a 'magical designer.' This guy was NOT a well respected Astronomer like he claims, there were other people up for the job, better people and one of them got it. Just because he claims something doesn't make it true Steve. And even if 100 scientist claim to not believe in evolution there are literally millions more that do. AS we've discussed before the ID 'list' is extremely suspect as half the people on it didn't know they were on it and DID agree that evolution was true.
I guess we'll have to wait for his day in court. I would think the inter-office e-mails amongst college employees saying he is qualified and respected but we don't want to hire him because of his religious beliefs might be the sort of evidence which shoots holes in your statement.
I will be interested in checking out the written in stone book. Are these genuine new transitional fossils? Or are they going back and saying "all fossils are transitional" can you point me to one of these iron clad non- debatable links of transitional form fossils? Something more substantial than the Pakicetus and Ambulocetus type of whale to bear nonsense (wrong dates, wrong location, more dissimilarities than similarities, etc.)
If there are tons of them, near complete skeletons- reconstructing a whole animal from part of a jawbone doesn't count, then they should start showing up in textbooks and museums any day now.
All his online rants about creationism are most likely what did him in, but there were lots of other people just as qualified if not more. And it's now common practice to google search people to see if they are compatible. A creationist who is constantly preaching creationism would be someone some people wouldn't want to work with. If it came down to 2 people for the job both equally qualified what would YOU do? By accepting creationism and ignoring science you are NOT being a good scientist and in fact AREN'T qualified. I'm sure almost all who applied were also qualified and respected. Why should he get the right to sue when all the others don't because they didn't get the job because they had kids or couldn't work Saturdays? And I'm gonna toss this back you, being overly religious is his CHOICE no one forced him.
Bear to whale?!?!? Geezus! That was a throw away idea Darwin had that was proven false YEARS ago (like 100.) The whale record is pretty clear but there are also hominids, elephants, dinosaurs, horses and many others. You need to read the book to get a bit more up to date.
You don't seem to get that each new species IS a transitional fossil to another, what you are wanting are the big transitions and there are plenty of those as well. But as we find more an more, the GRADUAL change is far more apparent. So the big changes aren't really there, just a bunch of small ones, like Evolution predicts.
They are at the museums, you just don't go to them. And fricken creationists idiots on the school boards KEEP THEM OUT of the textbooks!!! I didn't have evolution taught in science when I went to school, I learned it in Ancient History class. If evolution wasn't true than all those medications tested on mice wouldn't work on humans. That nerve in the Giraffe neck wouldn't have been routed through the length of the neck when it only needs to be a few inches long (the only logical explanation for that IS evolution.)
I know there is no changing people's minds but I refer back to my post on the description of evolution back on Brett's blog of the Richard Dawkins video a while back. I explained evolution there a little. There is no "hoping" DNA will back up the fossil record...it has already been shown that it does. These "branching patterns" are called phylogenetic trees and you can go to your local bookstore or get one online and pick up an evolution textbook to get the scientific facts behind evolution and see examples of many phylogenetic trees and fossil records. Understand what evolution is before you start arguing against it. Listen to the science and the mechanics behind it without a preconceived notion. After that, then you can debate evolution.
Rgalwaysright: your ignorance astounds me but is not surprising from people like you...you shouldn't post on subjects on which you know nothing about.
Brett, your patience with rehashing the same thing and subject is most impressive;)
Thanks, but even I loose it every now and then. It's really frustrating when Steve (who I've been 'discussing' this with for 10 years) brings out things from the Origin of the Species and ignores anything that's come after that. And then the bear thing! UGH! Makes me think that he hasn't read or even looked at any of the web pages I sent him to. I never did get a response to the whale legs.
Thanks for post before, lots of good stuff in there:)
Actually rather than Bear to Whale I was discussing Pakicetus and Ambulocetus which first was shown in 2001 in National Geographic. It has been one of the more publicized debates on transitional forms. Simply renaming all fossils as transitional forms isn't the same as an actual transitional form. The "branching patterns" are a bit misleading as there isn't one accepted criteria for organizing and creating the "trees" They have drawn the trees not based on location of find, date of fossil, or with any connection to the fitness landscape. Rather they organize the fossils how they believe they would appear if evolution was true and then say, "Hey look, the branching pattern fits evolution." There is more than morphology and common homologous structures to consider when making a tree.
Ah, please be a bit more clear.
Um, they don't just randomly put things into place, using geology and cladistic analysis (that pesky criteria for organizing those groups or branches) they imput the information (including location, dates and the like) into a matrix (fancy computer program that takes all the information into account) that gives a general idea were things go. Unless we have DNA we can't get a direct line of who the actual relatives are but the transitional forms are a good indication of what happened, where and when. Assuming that they find bones and then just stick them into the series is... ignorant. And Whales are related to hippos, just so you know, just like manatees are related to whales, can't argue with the DNA:) You really need to read that book!
Post a Comment