Do you believe in evolution?

[Coyote]

Actually R0beph, palerider isn't attacking a strawman at all. Evolution does suggest in many cases that some animals become something completely different over time. Evolution accounts for mammal marine life such as dolphins and whales by saying they evolved from prehistoric creatures that looked like wolves. This is just one of the many cases of macroevolution that science has yet to offer any proof of.

Actually there is a lot of fossil evidence supporting that particular example...

 

[TruthAboveAll]

Actually there is a lot of fossil evidence supporting that particular example...

Truth be told, there is continuing significant debate, even among scientists who believe that evolution (in SOME form) is supported by fossil records. The special and specific conditions required for fossils to form, the lack of multiple stratas in various global locations, the lack of complete skeletal structures are all some of the areas upon which the traditional hypothesis of evolution is formed are all lacking.

Across the board of pro-evolutionists and pro-creationists, the argument is very strong for a creationist argument, combined with a micro-evolution (or macro-adaptation) answer. If you choose to reject the biblical creation story, that is your choice, just as if you choose to embrace it.

In many areas the scientific community is nearly unanimous in the final suppositions gained from research. Evolution is one of the areas where it is widely divided. Both for creationism and for evolution, there is a lack of rock-solid, empirical evidence for either case. The "smoking gun", if you will, is yet to be found. Most likely in our life as we know it, it never will be.

 

[r0beph]

Actually R0beph, palerider isn't attacking a strawman at all. Evolution does suggest in many cases that some animals become something completely different over time. Evolution accounts for mammal marine life such as dolphins and whales by saying they evolved from prehistoric creatures that looked like wolves. This is just one of the many cases of macroevolution that science has yet to offer any proof of.

It seems to be Truth-Bringer, 9sublime, and yourself that are beating the strawman here. I don't think palerider is trying to argue that creationism is the answer, and I am certainly not making that argument in this thread. I am simply stating that there are a lot of holes in the evolutionary theory when you start talking about big changes. I'm not claiming that I have the answer, but I am claiming that you don't either.

He most certainly is. He's stating that evolution supports large rift species conversion, the evolutionary argument absolutely does not assert this point, thus for him to use the "Sheeps cannot bear goat's as offspring" is a strawman.

The holes in the evolutionary EVIDENCE are not holes in the theory. The lack of fossil record (not all things buried become fossils, in fact it's a very very very and I reiterate very minute amount of life from the past that became fossilized. You're asserting that the lack of evidence creates a hole in the theory, where the theory itself accounts for this lack by asserting (hypothesizing if you will) that the reason the evidence does not exist is DUE to the very nature of fossilization, it requires very certain conditions. This is somewhat of another logical fallacy, called denying the antecedent. If A then B, thus if not B, A must be false. A is Evolution, B is fossil record showing complete transitional phases. This argument cannot work since it's admitted that the fossil record does not exist because the conditions for a complete transitional epoch record to be fossilized would require the conditions that induced fossilization to remain static for the entire transitional period of hundreds of thousands of years. The whole point is this is not a sufficient nay say against the possibility of evolution. It is however a valid point against the assertion that evolution is FACT as it is written. It very well could be different from darwin's writ, however evidence still points towards some form of evolutionary subspeciefication and diversion.

Your argument that "evolution" states that dolphins and whales came from wolf like prehistoric creatures is an over-broad definition of the "evolution" in encompassing that specific hypothesis, and "evolution" as a theory does not necessarily require this assertion to be valid. I have no knowledge of who made that statement nor what data they were going on, so that is an invalid argument. Evolution cannot be used in any statement like that unless it's an integral part of the theory on whole you are attacking. That is akin to me saying that Eric Rudolph was christian, he blew up an abortion clinic, therefor all christians believe that was the right thing to do. Just because someone made some speculation and was speaking in terms of evolution does not concrete that as a premise of evolution as a theory. To do so is a highly invalid argument. You are effectively saying that Joe Smith says that dolphins came from prehistoric wolf like creatures, so evolution must be invalid, since (even though it may be true) it is invalid. Can't accept that, sorry.

And what I would like is an alternative. If in fact evolution is incorrect, what is correct. I mean everything came from somewhere, you continually attack evolution yet proffer no data, but rather attempt to pigeonhole various evidences and hypotheses on an individual and esoteric manner. Give me an alternative please.

 

[Dave]

He most certainly is. He's stating that evolution supports large rift species conversion, the evolutionary argument absolutely does not assert this point, thus for him to use the "Sheeps cannot bear goat's as offspring" is a strawman.

The holes in the evolutionary EVIDENCE are not holes in the theory. The lack of fossil record (not all things buried become fossils, in fact it's a very very very and I reiterate very minute amount of life from the past that became fossilized. You're asserting that the lack of evidence creates a hole in the theory, where the theory itself accounts for this lack by asserting (hypothesizing if you will) that the reason the evidence does not exist is DUE to the very nature of fossilization, it requires very certain conditions. This is somewhat of another logical fallacy, called denying the antecedent. If A then B, thus if not B, A must be false. A is Evolution, B is fossil record showing complete transitional phases. This argument cannot work since it's admitted that the fossil record does not exist because the conditions for a complete transitional epoch record to be fossilized would require the conditions that induced fossilization to remain static for the entire transitional period of hundreds of thousands of years. The whole point is this is not a sufficient nay say against the possibility of evolution. It is however a valid point against the assertion that evolution is FACT as it is written. It very well could be different from darwin's writ, however evidence still points towards some form of evolutionary subspeciefication and diversion.

Your argument that "evolution" states that dolphins and whales came from wolf like prehistoric creatures is an over-broad definition of the "evolution" in encompassing that specific hypothesis, and "evolution" as a theory does not necessarily require this assertion to be valid. I have no knowledge of who made that statement nor what data they were going on, so that is an invalid argument. Evolution cannot be used in any statement like that unless it's an integral part of the theory on whole you are attacking. That is akin to me saying that Eric Rudolph was christian, he blew up an abortion clinic, therefor all christians believe that was the right thing to do. Just because someone made some speculation and was speaking in terms of evolution does not concrete that as a premise of evolution as a theory. To do so is a highly invalid argument. You are effectively saying that Joe Smith says that dolphins came from prehistoric wolf like creatures, so evolution must be invalid, since (even though it may be true) it is invalid. Can't accept that, sorry.

And what I would like is an alternative. If in fact evolution is incorrect, what is correct. I mean everything came from somewhere, you continually attack evolution yet proffer no data, but rather attempt to pigeonhole various evidences and hypotheses on an individual and esoteric manner. Give me an alternative please.

I took his comment to mean that one species cannot become another species over time, and many evolutionary scientists claim this to be true with little evidence to back it up.

Holes in evidence ARE holes in the theory. If you don't have the evidence to back up a theory, then it deserves no credibility. There is not enough evidence to back up macroevolution, therefore it deserves no credibility. I'm not arguing that evolution is definitely falst, I'm just saying you don't have the evidence to say that it is correct. The theory of evolution states that changes occur over long periods of time, but the wealth of information in the fossil record shows that sometimes, these changes take huge leaps over short periods of time. I'm not saying that evolution doesn't explain the small changes or is invalid. I'm just saying it doesn't account for the big leaps. Therefore, I conclude that something else must be at work here.

I don't have to provide alternatives to show that your statements are incorrect. Like I said, I'm not claiming to have the answers, I'm just saying that you don't have them either.

 

[r0beph]

I took his comment to mean that one species cannot become another species over time, and many evolutionary scientists claim this to be true with little evidence to back it up.

That was not what his comment said. If that is what he means, then that's what he should have said.

Holes in evidence ARE holes in the theory. If you don't have the evidence to back up a theory, then it deserves no credibility. There is not enough evidence to back up macroevolution, therefore it deserves no credibility. I'm not arguing that evolution is definitely falst, I'm just saying you don't have the evidence to say that it is correct. The theory of evolution states that changes occur over long periods of time, but the wealth of information in the fossil record shows that sometimes, these changes take huge leaps over short periods of time. I'm not saying that evolution doesn't explain the small changes or is invalid. I'm just saying it doesn't account for the big leaps. Therefore, I conclude that something else must be at work here.

Of course I don't have the evidence to say it's correct. If I did we'd not call it theory. Lack of evidence does NOT disprove a theory. Contrary evidence does. There are obvious discrepancies during transitional time lines that contain almost NO fossil records. This isn't so much that there is a severe jump from one species to another, but rather that there is a period for which there is no fossil record during a transitional phase from one point to the next. Let me illustrate to be more clear.

Let's say species A ~> B and there are 5 stages expected in the transition where -> = 500-1million years or any arbitrary number for the example.

A -> T1 -> T2 -> missing fossil record -> missing fossil record -> T5 -> B.

were the case A->T1->T2->T5 -> B then yes, it would put some major cloud to the evolutionary theory. But the time can be accounted for, just the fossil records are missing.

I don't have to provide alternatives to show that your statements are incorrect. Like I said, I'm not claiming to have the answers, I'm just saying that you don't have them either.

Well to so fervently attack the theory one would assume you have an alternate assumption as to how we came to be. Evolution cannot be proven at this point, but nor can it be disproved without contrary evidence. A LACK of evidence does not disprove anything. By it's very nature evidence must either exist for or contrary to the argument for it to be rectified. Without these evidences it is a negative proof (yet another logical fallacy). I'll stick by my belief that eventually Evolution is at this time the most logical theory for where things came from. Until you can provide something with enough empirical evidence to infer it's likelihood over that of what evolution has empirically to offer, then I'll stand staunch. Quite simply, we had to come about somehow, so you cannot simply say all the theories are not at minimum going along the lines of how it came about, unless you are ascribing to a nihilistic view on whence we came.

 

[Coyote]

Truth be told, there is continuing significant debate, even among scientists who believe that evolution (in SOME form) is supported by fossil records. The special and specific conditions required for fossils to form, the lack of multiple stratas in various global locations, the lack of complete skeletal structures are all some of the areas upon which the traditional hypothesis of evolution is formed are all lacking.

Across the board of pro-evolutionists and pro-creationists, the argument is very strong for a creationist argument, combined with a micro-evolution (or macro-adaptation) answer. If you choose to reject the biblical creation story, that is your choice, just as if you choose to embrace it.

In many areas the scientific community is nearly unanimous in the final suppositions gained from research. Evolution is one of the areas where it is widely divided. Both for creationism and for evolution, there is a lack of rock-solid, empirical evidence for either case. The "smoking gun", if you will, is yet to be found. Most likely in our life as we know it, it never will be.

The scientific community is by no means widely divided on evolution - it is in pretty much total agreement that evolution occurs - there is a great deal of rock solid evidence from a variety of research areas. The only disagreement is in the details. The fossil record is clear on macro-evolution for example, in the case of the horse which provides an incredible record of the steps from Eohippus to the modern day equine. There are also "walking fish" and of course the archeoptyrix (sp?) - partway between bird and reptile.

The evidence supporting creationism is extremely weak - in fact every bit of it can be shot down. The fact that there are still gaps in evolutionary theory does not mean those gaps are evidence for creation theory.

 

[palerider]

The fossil record is not the only support. What about DNA which shows relationships between unrelated species?

That we are all made of the same stuff? The improbability of DNA forming out of chaos is enough of a leap, but to suggest that each species should have developed something besides DNA? I favor intelligent design and if I were designing a set of life for a world, I would reuse the same materials as much as possible.

 

[r0beph]

That we are all made of the same stuff? The improbability of DNA forming out of chaos is enough of a leap, but to suggest that each species should have developed something besides DNA? I favor intelligent design and if I were designing a set of life for a world, I would reuse the same materials as much as possible.

I'm missing your point. Intelligent Design is a great load negative proof arguments without any shred of empirical evidence. At least evolution has enough evidence to infer a viable theory. There is "life" of sorts without DNA. such as prions. those little folding replicating proteins. No DNA in those guys and they replicate.

 

[Coyote]

That we are all made of the same stuff? The improbability of DNA forming out of chaos is enough of a leap, but to suggest that each species should have developed something besides DNA? I favor intelligent design and if I were designing a set of life for a world, I would reuse the same materials as much as possible.

No, it is not that we all have DNA/RNA - it's that we have very similar DNA/RNA and species far removed geographically have DNA more similar then nearby species that occupy the same ecological niche and developed similarly.

 

[Coyote]

The problem with Intellegent Design is that all of it's arguments and "evidence" can be consolidated into one statement: Life is so complex it couldn't possibly have evolved naturally.

What kind of "proof" is that? Negative evidence is not proof. Why don't they submit any of this to peer review?

 

[palerider]

I'm missing your point. Intelligent Design is a great load negative proof arguments without any shred of empirical evidence. At least evolution has enough evidence to infer a viable theory. There is "life" of sorts without DNA. such as prions. those little folding replicating proteins. No DNA in those guys and they replicate.

And evolution is much of the same. Stories are fabricated, without empirical to fill the great gaps in the fossil record. How is intelligent design different? And at this point, there is not enough evidence to make macroevolution a viable theory unless you are simply putting more stock in the stories than they deserve.

Give me a reason to accept that one species can evolve into another species as you must believe this happened in order to subscribe to macroevolutionary theory. Your lion / tiger argument doesn't argue macroevolution. Should members of the same class, order, family and genus mate, the offspring will still belong to that class, order, family and genus. That is not macroevolution.

Give me a reason to believe that somehow animals from class saurischia
evolved and became class mammalia.

 

[palerider]

No, it is not that we all have DNA/RNA - it's that we have very similar DNA/RNA and species far removed geographically have DNA more similar then nearby species that occupy the same ecological niche and developed similarly.

Describe "very similar". Two species that have an 85% similarity in their DNA are very far apart. Even among species that supposedly have very similar DNA (man and the great apes for example) a closer look reveals that they aren't that close at all.

When the DNA testing began on neanderthals there was great hope to find a closer relationship to europeans and an ever smaller relationship to peoples further from europe, but when the results came it, it was found that neanderthal was a closer relative to chimps than any human being and the dissimilarity between neanderthal and people scattered across the globe was nearly universal.

 

[Coyote]

Describe "very similar". Two species that have an 85% similarity in their DNA are very far apart. Even among species that supposedly have very similar DNA (man and the great apes for example) a closer look reveals that they aren't that close at all.

Well - to put it simply the presence of similar or identical genes in two organisms is a genetic fingerprint of a common ancestor somewhere down the line. It provides a more accurate mapping of a species family tree then fossils. The more similar the DNA in one species is to another - the more recently the divergence. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by asking me to describe "very similar" - does it matter? What I find interesting is what DNA analysis reveals. For example - in studying species occupying a similar niche.

Researchers studied DNA from an extinct cheetah-like cat found in America. The evolutionary tree drawn from the data showed that the American cheetah-like cat was genetically most closely related to the puma, rather than to the true African cheetah. The American cheetah-like cat and the true cheetah show remarkable similarity in their development, including elongated limbs and enlarged nostrils. But the genetic data indicates that this similarity is in fact an example of parallel evolution; the development of similar bodies in response to similar ecological pressures. In otherwords - evolution.

Another interesting aspect of DNA is looking at it within the context of the movement of continental plates and the geographical seperation of species. Species that are physically quite disimilar now and exist on different continents still show a close relationship in their DNA - closer then nearby physically similar species.

When the DNA testing began on neanderthals there was great hope to find a closer relationship to europeans and an ever smaller relationship to peoples further from europe, but when the results came it, it was found that neanderthal was a closer relative to chimps than any human being and the dissimilarity between neanderthal and people scattered across the globe was nearly universal.

I'm not sure what you are getting at...perhaps I'm confused here. I am under the impression that the neandrathal has long been eliminated from the direct line of the homosapiens tree. As a matter of fact - not that it makes any diff here - I seem to remember reading something recently about neandrathal's and homosapiens co-existing for a brief period.

 

[Coyote]

And evolution is much of the same. Stories are fabricated, without empirical to fill the great gaps in the fossil record. How is intelligent design different? And at this point, there is not enough evidence to make macroevolution a viable theory unless you are simply putting more stock in the stories than they deserve.

Give me a reason to accept that one species can evolve into another species as you must believe this happened in order to subscribe to macroevolutionary theory. Your lion / tiger argument doesn't argue macroevolution. Should members of the same class, order, family and genus mate, the offspring will still belong to that class, order, family and genus. That is not macroevolution.

Give me a reason to believe that somehow animals from class saurischia
evolved and became class mammalia.

Well, the Archaeoptyrx provides an excellent example of transition from saurischia to avian...

 

[palerider]

Well, the Archaeoptyrx provides an excellent example of transition from saurischia to avian...

Sorry, but archaeoptryx is not a good example of a transition from anything to anything.


Archaeoptryx had fully formed flying feathers (including asymmetric vanes and ventral, reinforcing furrows as found in modern flying birds). It had the elliptical wings of modem woodland birds, and a large wishbone for attachment of muscles responsible for the downstroke of the wings.

Further, CT scans of the skull of archaeopteryx has revealed that it had a brain like that of a modern bird. Its brain was 3 times the size of a dinosaur of similar size and very large optic lobes necessary to process the visual imput a flying creature would recieve. Also, its inner ear had a cochlea length and semicircular canal that were in nearly exact proportion to modern birds.

Archaeoptryx also had had pneumatized vertebrae and pelvis. This would indicate the presence of both a cervical and abdominal air sac (at least two of the five sacs present in modern birds). And this in turn strongly indicates that the unique bird lung design was already present in what almost every evolutionists claims is the earliest bird.

And Dr Alan Feduccia, a world authority on birds at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and an evolutionist himself (see Feduccia v Creationists), says:

“Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that.”

Archaeoptryx was a flying, perching bird. It is not an example of a transitional creature. Just look at the evidence, not just in the case of archaeoptryx, but everything. The sudden appearance, fully formed, of all the complex invertebrates (snails, clams, jellyfish, sponges, worms, sea urchins, brachiopods, trilobites, etc.) with no trace of ancestors. The sudden appearance, fully formed, of every major kind of fish (supposedly the first vertebrates) with no trace of ancestors. Where is the evidence of evolution.

By the way, there are three other types of flying creatures—flying insects, flying reptiles (now extinct), and flying mammals (bats). What are the odds that millions of years of evolution of these three different types of flying creatures, each involving the fantastic transition from a land animal into a flying animal, would have failed to produce large numbers of transitional forms. If all of that evolution has occurred, the museums should be full of fossils of intermediate forms for each. But alas, not a trace of a transitional form has ever been found for any of these creatures.