Intelligent Design stomps all others.

[youngterrier]

I mean seriously, this guy in the article is retarded. Evolution is a theory in the same sense that electromagnetism theory, gravity is a theory, that the center of our solar system is the sun is a theory, or the theory of relativity. The term theory is not used by scientists in the same sense as it is used by laymen. It's not a hypothesis, it's pretty much a fact.

[Vidav]

I mean seriously, this guy in the article is retarded. Evolution is a theory in the same sense that electromagnetism theory, gravity is a theory, that the center of our solar system is the sun is a theory, or the theory of relativity. The term theory is not used by scientists in the same sense as it is used by laymen. It's not a hypothesis, it's pretty much a fact.

Yeah, people saying "But it's just a theory!!" are right up there with those that say "if we come from monkeys why are there still monkeys?!?"

[youngterrier]

2009 Pew research poll
http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/ ... er-issues/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

87% of scientists believe in evolution by natural selection (that is of 97% who believe in evolution) which factors out to a hair under 90% of scientists.

^^^Those are very convincing numbers, and as a non-professional, I have to say where there's smoke there is fire. There's an overwhelming consensus. I'm more inclined to think that it is more likely that those 10% have a misconception than the 90% is shouting over them.

[SeattleGriz]

I mean seriously, this guy in the article is retarded. Evolution is a theory in the same sense that electromagnetism theory, gravity is a theory, that the center of our solar system is the sun is a theory, or the theory of relativity. The term theory is not used by scientists in the same sense as it is used by laymen. It's not a hypothesis, it's pretty much a fact.

It is still a theory because it cannot be proven.

Some big issues as to why evolution is questioned:

1) Mathematically impossible. Impossible in the sense that the odds are so astronomical, it would be considered impossible.
2) Fossil record does nothing to help evolution.
3) No way to examine central tenet of evolution that natural selection and random mutations is enough to drive all the diversity and complexity of life.
4) Can't run any simulations with darwinian mechanisms.
5) Absence of lab information.

I get that it is accepted as the leading theory as to why we are here, but they have NEVER been able to actually test the theory that we all came from a common ancestor and we are all that we are today by random mutations and natural selection. In addition, a good amount of the acceptance came when the science of the cell was very weak. As they get further along and see the complexity, it is bringing up more questions that just can't be dismissed.

Like I said, Dawkins published a book called The Selfish Gene is which he talked about all the noncoding portions of DNA being useless - junk. They guy was wrong because he didn't have the fortune to have massive loads of genetic information like he does now.

Here is an example of how it works.

Humans, who split off from the Apes some 10 million years ago, have 500 genes for hearing. Those 500 genes were said to have undergone accelerated evolution due to our language skills and the need to be able to communicate. The Apes didn't have the same genes because they don't have language like we do...except the fact they just mapped the Apes genes and realize they do have the same genes. Well, what caused the accelerated evolution if the Apes don't speak? They don't know, but stated they must be used for some unknown reason. Brilliant!

First speaking out of their ass about accelerated genes when there was no way to verify that claim, and now change the tune once they were proven wrong through genetics.

http://www.bendbulletin.com/article/201 ... 203120311/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

One of the similarities is prompting scientists to reconsider how language developed in humans. Previous studies had shown that genes involved in hearing evolved rapidly in humans. But the new study found that auditory genes evolved rapidly in gorillas, too — calling into question the interpretation that the genetic changes were linked to the rise of language.

[dbackjon]

I mean seriously, this guy in the article is retarded. Evolution is a theory in the same sense that electromagnetism theory, gravity is a theory, that the center of our solar system is the sun is a theory, or the theory of relativity. The term theory is not used by scientists in the same sense as it is used by laymen. It's not a hypothesis, it's pretty much a fact.

It is still a theory because it cannot be proven.

Some big issues as to why evolution is questioned:

1) Mathematically impossible. Impossible in the sense that the odds are so astronomical, it would be considered impossible.
2) Fossil record does nothing to help evolution.
3) No way to examine central tenet of evolution that natural selection and random mutations is enough to drive all the diversity and complexity of life.
4) Can't run any simulations with darwinian mechanisms.
5) Absence of lab information.

1) How is it mathematically impossible? That is a big bunch of hogwash
2) BULLSHIT - fossil record is very clear that evolution exists. Only someone stupid enough too not understand, or too stubborn to admit that the Bible is wrong can not see that.
3) It is seen all the time - see above
4/5 see above.

[SeattleGriz]

It is still a theory because it cannot be proven.

Some big issues as to why evolution is questioned:

1) Mathematically impossible. Impossible in the sense that the odds are so astronomical, it would be considered impossible.
2) Fossil record does nothing to help evolution.
3) No way to examine central tenet of evolution that natural selection and random mutations is enough to drive all the diversity and complexity of life.
4) Can't run any simulations with darwinian mechanisms.
5) Absence of lab information.

1) How is it mathematically impossible? That is a big bunch of hogwash
2) BULLSHIT - fossil record is very clear that evolution exists. Only someone stupid enough too not understand, or too stubborn to admit that the Bible is wrong can not see that.
3) It is seen all the time - see above
4/5 see above.

1) To have all the components that make up a cell interact just perfectly in the right order is mathematically impossible. I realize something mathematically impossible HAD to happen or we wouldn't be here, but you try and put an odd on it happening by random mutation and natural selection, the number gets quite large.

2) Fossil record is not clear and that is easily admitted by paleontologists and others within the field.

3) You've seen a brand new species come from an old one? I would like to see that. I think you are talking about natural selection, which is verifiable, but still only horizontal not vertical.

4) Same as 3.

5) We have never made a new species in the lab. Once again, true but horizontal. No new species.

[youngterrier]

I mean seriously, this guy in the article is retarded. Evolution is a theory in the same sense that electromagnetism theory, gravity is a theory, that the center of our solar system is the sun is a theory, or the theory of relativity. The term theory is not used by scientists in the same sense as it is used by laymen. It's not a hypothesis, it's pretty much a fact.

It is still a theory because it cannot be proven.

Some big issues as to why evolution is questioned:

1) Mathematically impossible. Impossible in the sense that the odds are so astronomical, it would be considered impossible.

If I give you 13 cards out of a deck of 52 different cards, the chances of you getting one combination of cards is 1 in 160 billion....so is it impossible to get that combination of cards? Is there a divine dealer guiding your cards to be given to you? most certainly not. The improbability of something happening if certain factors had changed does not make it impossible! If I win the lottery, or anyone for that matter wins the lottery, you can think God did it, but the fact of the matter remains that someone had to win the lottery. Saying it's statistically improbably does not mean it is impossible, and is not an argument, it's a fallacy.
2) Fossil record does nothing to help evolution.
I disagree, I think it fortifies our outlook on evolutionary history if anything, there are many many "missing links" but there are still more than enough to get a basic idea of how evolutionary history works.
3) No way to examine central tenet of evolution that natural selection and random mutations is enough to drive all the diversity and complexity of life.
ummm....no other possible way of it happening, unless you want to suggest one? Otherwise we can only assume that those are the ways at which complexity reached the level it is as of now. You can think God invoked it, but there is no physical evidence of that happening, as God an the supernatural is left out of science and by definition cannot be exposed with science. If he is, he's eventually written out as the God of the gaps, once additional understanding of the universe is found. You can think God influenced it all, but that's not scientific, it's no more scientific than saying God holds the Earth in orbit. You can believe it, but it doesn't make it a scientific fact.
4) Can't run any simulations with darwinian mechanisms.
Explain this. As I've said we've done artificial selection for centuries with dogs. Nature chooses it's winners and losers by survival ability, so natural the way things are are the way things are because those who could not survive died. You're right, it's impossible to test natural selection in a lab, however it can be observed in the wild and it has.

5) Absence of lab information.
How so? They've run tests on E Coli, dogs, and foxes. There are plenty of lab results and information.

I get that it is accepted as the leading theory as to why we are here, but they have NEVER been able to actually test the theory that we all came from a common ancestor and we are all that we are today by random mutations and natural selection. In addition, a good amount of the acceptance came when the science of the cell was very weak. As they get further along and see the complexity, it is bringing up more questions that just can't be dismissed.

Well of course we'll never be able to test that we came from a common ancestor, we don't have time machine, but the evidence that we have strongly suggests that we did, and imply such things is just what scientists do in other areas like physics with the big bang, etc. Asserting that we can't prove we had a common ancestor is like saying we can't prove Charles Manson killed his victims because hey, we didn't observe it happening! Yet the forensics, facts, etc. point to that conclusion! The same goes for evolution! The fact of the matter is, evolution happens every day, now it may not be observable on a daily basis, but it is observable on a yearly, if not decade basis. The only explanation of these modern changes are natural selection.
Like I said, Dawkins published a book called The Selfish Gene is which he talked about all the noncoding portions of DNA being useless - junk. They guy was wrong because he didn't have the fortune to have massive loads of genetic information like he does now.

Here is an example of how it works.

Humans, who split off from the Apes some 10 million years ago, have 500 genes for hearing. Those 500 genes were said to have undergone accelerated evolution due to our language skills and the need to be able to communicate. The Apes didn't have the same genes because they don't have language like we do...except the fact they just mapped the Apes genes and realize they do have the same genes. Well, what caused the accelerated evolution if the Apes don't speak? They don't know, but stated they must be used for some unknown reason. Brilliant!

First speaking out of their ass about accelerated genes when there was no way to verify that claim, and now change the tune once they were proven wrong through genetics.

http://www.bendbulletin.com/article/201 ... 203120311/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

One of the similarities is prompting scientists to reconsider how language developed in humans. Previous studies had shown that genes involved in hearing evolved rapidly in humans. But the new study found that auditory genes evolved rapidly in gorillas, too — calling into question the interpretation that the genetic changes were linked to the rise of language.

First of all I'd say I'm not a geneticist or biologist, but I'd say that one of the reasons our hearing went through more evolution was because it was a necessity for our survival to communicate, unlike our gorilla friends. Communication was our key to survival, therefore those who couldn't communicate well died and were unable to reproduce. Eventually our communication skills became more superior as our environment changed and our "knowledge" grew (language is simply ideas in action, as our ideas grow, so does our language), while the gorillas still did not need to communicate to survive. Now this could all apply to hearing, but again I''m not a biologist, and this is just my best guess from the average Joe.

Again, I'm no professional, but what you raise is weak sauce, and I'm not trying to be condescending or anything but I really think you should read that Dawkins book

Then again you are probably trolling me

[youngterrier]

1) How is it mathematically impossible? That is a big bunch of hogwash
2) BULLSHIT - fossil record is very clear that evolution exists. Only someone stupid enough too not understand, or too stubborn to admit that the Bible is wrong can not see that.
3) It is seen all the time - see above
4/5 see above.

1) To have all the components that make up a cell interact just perfectly in the right order is mathematically impossible. I realize something mathematically impossible HAD to happen or we wouldn't be here, but you try and put an odd on it happening by random mutation and natural selection, the number gets quite large.

2) Fossil record is not clear and that is easily admitted by paleontologists and others within the field.

3) You've seen a brand new species come from an old one? I would like to see that. I think you are talking about natural selection, which is verifiable, but still only horizontal not vertical.

4) Same as 3.

5) We have never made a new species in the lab. Once again, true but horizontal. No new species.

1)Mathematically improbable, not impossible. I mean, it's like if you go back in time and change one thing, the world is different, and just because it's a certain way today because of sequences in the past in evolution or otherwise, does not mean that evolution is false or was divinely guided.

2) no, that's just wrong.

3) It doesn't come from a new species in a generation, but rather over time. Artificial selection fortifies natural selection, all you have to do is take away the people and it happens. The problem is that it's slowed down of a process when it doesn't involve people, which is why it takes so long to occur in the first place. We've seen plenty of new breeds of Dogs come from old ones in the last 300 years, now it may not have happened in a generation, but it happened.

4) We've done it, have you not seen the E Coli? or the Foxes? Or even the dogs mentioned above?

5) yes, yes we have. There called motherfucking Dogs.

[SeattleGriz]

1) To have all the components that make up a cell interact just perfectly in the right order is mathematically impossible. I realize something mathematically impossible HAD to happen or we wouldn't be here, but you try and put an odd on it happening by random mutation and natural selection, the number gets quite large.

2) Fossil record is not clear and that is easily admitted by paleontologists and others within the field.

3) You've seen a brand new species come from an old one? I would like to see that. I think you are talking about natural selection, which is verifiable, but still only horizontal not vertical.

4) Same as 3.

5) We have never made a new species in the lab. Once again, true but horizontal. No new species.

1)Mathematically improbable, not impossible. I mean, it's like if you go back in time and change one thing, the world is different, and just because it's a certain way today because of sequences in the past in evolution or otherwise, does not mean that evolution is false or was divinely guided.

2) no, that's just wrong.

3) It doesn't come from a new species in a generation, but rather over time. Artificial selection fortifies natural selection, all you have to do is take away the people and it happens. The problem is that it's slowed down of a process when it doesn't involve people, which is why it takes so long to occur in the first place. We've seen plenty of new breeds of Dogs come from old ones in the last 300 years, now it may not have happened in a generation, but it happened.

4) We've done it, have you not seen the E Coli? or the Foxes? Or even the dogs mentioned above?

5) yes, yes we have. There called motherfucking Dogs.

1) Everyone keeps missing that I am saying two processes are what makes up Darwinian Evolution. Mutations and natural selection. With those two it is improbable. Who's to say there are not another 3 process we don't know about? That is a big part of my point. I don't think evolution has all the missing parts.

2) We will just have to disagree on #2. I say yes, you say no.

3,4 and 5. All those are examples of the dogs genetic diversity. There were no new species created. A new breed yes, but they all are still dogs (horizontal). Not a new animal that has some features of a dog and whatever it is turning into. Something so different, it is no longer considered a dog. I don't use dogs as an example because what you said above is true - it would take so long we wouldn't see it in a lifetime.

That is why I use bacteria as the example. They have such a short time to a new generation and we can throw mutagens at them like mad. But still, even then, no new species that once used to be E Coli and it's progeny are now classified as being unique from E Coli.

[youngterrier]

1)Mathematically improbable, not impossible. I mean, it's like if you go back in time and change one thing, the world is different, and just because it's a certain way today because of sequences in the past in evolution or otherwise, does not mean that evolution is false or was divinely guided.

2) no, that's just wrong.

3) It doesn't come from a new species in a generation, but rather over time. Artificial selection fortifies natural selection, all you have to do is take away the people and it happens. The problem is that it's slowed down of a process when it doesn't involve people, which is why it takes so long to occur in the first place. We've seen plenty of new breeds of Dogs come from old ones in the last 300 years, now it may not have happened in a generation, but it happened.

4) We've done it, have you not seen the E Coli? or the Foxes? Or even the dogs mentioned above?

5) yes, yes we have. There called motherfucking Dogs.

1) Everyone keeps missing that I am saying two processes are what makes up Darwinian Evolution. Mutations and natural selection. With those two it is improbable. Who's to say there are not another 3 process we don't know about? That is a big part of my point. I don't think evolution has all the missing parts.

2) We will just have to disagree on #2. I say yes, you say no.

3,4 and 5. All those are examples of the dogs genetic diversity. There were no new species created. A new breed yes, but they all are still dogs (horizontal). Not a new animal that has some features of a dog and whatever it is turning into. Something so different, it is no longer considered a dog. I don't use dogs as an example because what you said above is true - it would take so long we wouldn't see it in a lifetime.

That is why I use bacteria as the example. They have such a short time to a new generation and we can throw mutagens at them like mad. But still, even then, no new species that once used to be E Coli and it's progeny are now classified as being unique from E Coli.

1) And that's fine, but the thing is, until those other outlets are discovered, we have to go with mutation and natural selection because there are the only ones that are observable. If you discover another way, then collect your nobel prize. Science will gladly adapt to it if it discovered. This where my lack of expertise kicks in, as I'm sure there are bio majors on here that could elaborate on how that is wrong. Either way, it's like saying that the theory of the world revolving around the sun is wrong because it's only going to do it for a certain amount of time and then stop. This assumption might be right and it might be wrong, but ultimately it's not a scientific theory because there's no way at which to come at that conclusion other than the guise of "well......we just don't know everything and we haven't observed everything so it's possible." That's not how science works! Either way, it sounds like you're speculating something that no one speculates with reasonable understanding of the subject. I mean it literally is saying "yeah you're right based on the evidence......but it could be something else!" it's just not rational thinking, you're postulating something that can't be falsified so it isn't scientific. Futhermore, statistics are not a means at which to falsify anything. It's improbable, correct, but that doesn't mean it's false

2) the fossil record isn't necessary to prove evolution, but it most certainly fortifies the theory (see below)

3-5) You're missing the point, the point is that if we continue to breed dogs in a diverse manner, eventually they will be a new species, this is where the fossil record comes in handy, because we can see transitional fossils. Essentially, the problem you're having here is that you're assuming that at one point there was a perfect species of dog at which every modern dog came from. The latter statement may be true, however once you reach that point in ancestor, it's not going to look like our modern view of a dog, in fact it would probably look closer to the common ancestor of a cat or another mammal. You can trace their common ancestor, and so on. Now that concept of evolution does not need fossil record to fortify it, but the fossil record most certainly fortifies the common ancestor theory. If one understands evolution, one can infer with strong evidence whether they be DNA or otherwise that we came from a common ancestor, but the fossil record proves it.

[Ibanez]

I'm just saying...

[JohnStOnge]

I mean seriously, this guy in the article is retarded. Evolution is a theory in the same sense that electromagnetism theory, gravity is a theory, that the center of our solar system is the sun is a theory, or the theory of relativity. The term theory is not used by scientists in the same sense as it is used by laymen. It's not a hypothesis, it's pretty much a fact.

I have seen that line of argument before with respect to evolution but I think it's misleading. Some theories are supported with experimental evidence and some are not. The theory of gravity, for instance. Predictions can be made, experiments conducted, predictions verified through the experiments. Evolution is not like that. It's at a different level of certainty. It is primarily suppported through observational evidence.

Relativity is also more subject to verification through experimentation than the overall theory of evolution is.

And I don't think the position of the sun in the context of our solar system is a theory. It's a direct observation.

Anyway, the "all theories are created equal" in terms of certainty, I think, is bogus. Whether something is a fact or not is independent of what we think about it. It either is or it isn't. I think the position of the sun in the solar system is a factual observation. It is known to be fact. The overall theory of evolution is not. For instance: The idea that all life we see today began with populations of single celled organisms is not known to be a fact.

[youngterrier]

I mean seriously, this guy in the article is retarded. Evolution is a theory in the same sense that electromagnetism theory, gravity is a theory, that the center of our solar system is the sun is a theory, or the theory of relativity. The term theory is not used by scientists in the same sense as it is used by laymen. It's not a hypothesis, it's pretty much a fact.

I have seen that line of argument before with respect to evolution but I think it's misleading. Some theories are supported with experimental evidence and some are not. The theory of gravity, for instance. Predictions can be made, experiments conducted, predictions verified through the experiments. Evolution is not like that. It's at a different level of certainty. It is primarily suppported through observational evidence.

Relativity is also more subject to verification through experimentation than the overall theory of evolution is.

And I don't think the position of the sun in the context of our solar system is a theory. It's a direct observation.

Anyway, the "all theories are created equal" in terms of certainty, I think, is bogus. Whether something is a fact or not is independent of what we think about it. It either is or it isn't. I think the position of the sun in the solar system is a factual observation. It is known to be fact. The overall theory of evolution is not. For instance: The idea that all life we see today began with populations of single celled organisms is not known to be a fact.

And I would agree with you, however, the evidence strongly implies that it is true. I could imagine if I was a bio student or paleontologist I could give a stronger case with evidence, but I can't so I won't. I am of the belief that there is evidence, I'm just not certified to present or explain(or willing to try to find it).

[JohnStOnge]

This. Sadly, science does not postulate into the supernatural and endorse theories that can't be explained or can't possibly be falsified (that's philosophy), so ID can't be incorporated as scientific concept in schools until it's actually proven true. Which it can't be.

I can see that you've probably read the statements such as I frequently see that say that falsifiability is a rule of science. It is not. It is a philosophy of science made popular by Karl Popper. It is not part of the sceintific method.

In fact, science often proceeds by falsifying the contrary. That's how statistical hypothesis testing works. You infer the hypohesis by falsifying the idea that the hypothesis is not correct. Say you want to infer that a solar radiation has a certain effect on frog eggs. You set up the experiment to reject the null hypothesis that it does NOT have the effect. Then you try to reject the null.

And if you don't reject the null, you have NOT falsified the hypothesis you are trying to infer (the alternative). You have simply failed to reject the null.

There is a limit to the potential certainty associated with trying to "prove" intelligent design because it is not something that lends itself to controlled experiments. But one concept I've read about is using certain techniques similar to those used by archeologists to try to determine how "likely" it was that something is a natural formation or is an artifact fashioned by humans.

For an extreme example of the concept: If we were a person from 200 years ago wandering in the forest and we found an Ipod, we would know that someone had designed it. We can't do an experiment to prove it. But we'd think it obviously didn't arise without some intelligence behind it.

That is the idea. And to say that it can't be "science" because it can't be "falsified" just isn't accurate.

[Ibanez]

[youngterrier]

This. Sadly, science does not postulate into the supernatural and endorse theories that can't be explained or can't possibly be falsified (that's philosophy), so ID can't be incorporated as scientific concept in schools until it's actually proven true. Which it can't be.

I can see that you've probably read the statements such as I frequently see that say that falsifiability is a rule of science. It is not. It is a philosophy of science made popular by Karl Popper. It is not part of the sceintific method.

In fact, science often proceeds by falsifying the contrary. That's how statistical hypothesis testing works. You infer the hypohesis by falsifying the idea that the hypothesis is not correct. Say you want to infer that a solar radiation has a certain effect on frog eggs. You set up the experiment to reject the null hypothesis that it does NOT have the effect. Then you try to reject the null.

And if you don't reject the null, you have NOT falsified the hypothesis you are trying to infer (the alternative). You have simply failed to reject the null.

There is a limit to the potential certainty associated with trying to "prove" intelligent design because it is not something that lends itself to controlled experiments. But one concept I've read about is using certain techniques similar to those used by archeologists to try to determine how "likely" it was that something is a natural formation or is an artifact fashioned by humans.

For an extreme example of the concept: If we were a person from 200 years ago wandering in the forest and we found an Ipod, we would know that someone had designed it. We can't do an experiment to prove it. But we'd think it obviously didn't arise without some intelligence behind it.

That is the idea. And to say that it can't be "science" because it can't be "falsified" just isn't accurate.

And you may have gotten me on that one, but what I'm trying to say is that we can't scientifically postulate anything that we can't prove wrong.

For instance, scientifically we can't say there is an elephant in your back yard. You say you can prove it. It doesn't appear to be there. You say it's invisible. We try to touch it, nothing happens. You say it's untouchable, and so on.
This process continues.

Scientifically, you can't say a designer did anything, just as you can't say there is an elephant in your back yard. There isn't evidence and it's more likely that we'll find a natural answer than a supernatural one.

[JMU DJ]

Aliens is the answer. Trust me.

I'd get into all of the scientific studies examining micro and macro evolution, but I feel like I'd be wasting my time....again.

[Grizalltheway]

Aliens is the answer. Trust me.

I'd get into all of the scientific studies examining micro and macro evolution, but I feel like I'd be wasting my time....again.

How's the ol' doctorate coming?

[JMU DJ]

I'd get into all of the scientific studies examining micro and macro evolution, but I feel like I'd be wasting my time....again.

How's the ol' doctorate coming?

Defending at the end of the month and moving back to VA to start a postdoc.

[SeattleGriz]

Aliens is the answer. Trust me.

I'd get into all of the scientific studies examining micro and macro evolution, but I feel like I'd be wasting my time....again.

By the way, about 2/3rds of the stuff you gave me last time I couldn't access because I needed a subscription...and I think you would be correct, because I have readily admitted to not having the brainpower to understand what is correct. I will read one article and think it makes sense, only to have another article refute the previous one. Not enough overall knowledge to tell who is correct.

That's is why I keep saying the real discussion occurs at the PhD level. Hell, we can't even agree if the fossil record helps or hurts.

[youngterrier]

I'd get into all of the scientific studies examining micro and macro evolution, but I feel like I'd be wasting my time....again.

By the way, about 2/3rds of the stuff you gave me last time I couldn't access because I needed a subscription...and I think you would be correct, because I have readily admitted to not having the brainpower to understand what is correct. I will read one article and think it makes sense, only to have another article refute the previous one. Not enough overall knowledge to tell who is correct.

That's is why I keep saying the real discussion occurs at the PhD level. Hell, we can't even agree if the fossil record helps or hurts.

Look, the thing is, what you are postulating isn't an issue in biological evolution. They don't debate it on the PhD level because its the consensus that the fossil record supports it. I apologize that I'm unable to explain it to you, but please either take my word for it or do more research

[SeattleGriz]

By the way, about 2/3rds of the stuff you gave me last time I couldn't access because I needed a subscription...and I think you would be correct, because I have readily admitted to not having the brainpower to understand what is correct. I will read one article and think it makes sense, only to have another article refute the previous one. Not enough overall knowledge to tell who is correct.

That's is why I keep saying the real discussion occurs at the PhD level. Hell, we can't even agree if the fossil record helps or hurts.

Look, the thing is, what you are postulating isn't an issue in biological evolution. They don't debate it on the PhD level because its the consensus that the fossil record supports it. I apologize that I'm unable to explain it to you, but please either take my word for it or do more research

I think where we are disconnecting is that my statement about the fossil record not supporting evolution is that you don't see the slow march from simple organism to complex in the record. What you do see is distinct species, not all the intermediates. That is what I am trying to say by it not supporting the Darwinian model of evolution in which we came form a single celled organism all the way to what we have today.

As well, are we talking about Ida and the like? Huge news conference and PR campaign, only to have it totally refuted.

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/sh ... hp/id/1503" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There's one final tale to be told regarding "Ida." As I've discussed before, it's often only when evolutionists think they have found some "missing link" that they feel safe enough to admit how little they actually knew about the alleged evolutionary transition in question. What happens when the link goes bust--as we've seen is the case with Ida? We're left with lots of admissions of ignorance about evolution and no links to fill the now-exposed gap.

This is why Colin Tudge's book about Ida, The Link: Uncovering Our Earliest Ancestor (Little Brown & Co, 2009), is so intriguing. He thought he had a missing link to explain the early evolution of primates on the line that supposedly led to humans, so the book is filled with would-be retroactive confessions of evolutionist ignorance about primate evolution. For example:
Although, because of gaps in the fossil record, paleontologists have had to hypothesize about what happened after the primitive primate, they have determined that by 40 million years ago, there were, as we know, two distinct primate groups: those with wet noses--lemurs and lorises; and those with dry noses--tarsiers and apes and monkeys. At some point during the Eocene, this important split in primate evolution occurred; without it, humankind as we know it would not exist. Until the fossil in the photograph was found [Ida], no complete skeleton had ever been discovered of an "in-between" species to prove this split. [Jørn] Hurum was fast concluding that the specimen he was looking at could be one of the holy grails of science--the "missing link" from the crucial time period.

(Colin Tudge, The Link: Uncovering Our Earliest Ancestor, p. 13 (Little Brown & Co, 2009).)
Except, of course, it now is becoming clear that Jørn Hurum (the Norwegian paleontologist who works at the Geological museum of the University of Oslo, who wrote the foreword to The Link) was a little too fast concluding that he'd found a "missing link," meaning that apparently we don't necessarily have "an 'in-between' species to prove this split."

Tudge continues to admit the lack of fossils evidence for primate evolution during the Eocene:
Radical transitions in primate evolution occurred throughout the Eocene, from 56 million to 34 million years ago. Many scientists argue that the primates that were in the direct line of humans must have lived during the Eocene in sub-Saharan Africa, but exactly what kind of primates those would have been is not known because there are huge gaps in the fossil record. This is where studying Ida in her entirety and with a view forward opens up a new chapter in primate evolution. Just as Ida complicates primate history, she gives us hints of where a transition occurred in the great story line of primates, because she allows us to see a combination of complex primate traits all in one skeleton.

(Colin Tudge, The Link: Uncovering Our Earliest Ancestor, pp. 101-102 (Little Brown & Co, 2009).)
Except now, critics are saying things like, "Many lines of evidence indicate that Darwinius has nothing at all to do with human evolution," and, "What's amazing about Darwinius is, despite the fact that it's nearly complete, it tells us very little that we didn't already know from fossils of closely related species."

And what comes after the Eocene? The Link asks "what do we actually know about the post-Eocene primates?" and admits in its answer: "The short answer to this question, What do we know? Is, as ever, Not much." (p. 173) More specifically, The Link admits the paucity of fossil evidence documenting primate evolution from the past 5 million years:
The primate fossil record is so sparse that only around fifty significant specimens exist from the past 5 million years. The most famous is Lucy, the 3.2 million year old australopithecine discovered by Donald Johanson in November 1974. Lucy revolutionized science by providing the first evidence of a primate that walked upright--a crucial link in our own evolution that distinguishes us from all other primates. But even Lucy, considered a remarkable specimen, was only 40 percent complete.

(Colin Tudge, The Link: Uncovering Our Earliest Ancestor, pp. 16-17 (Little Brown & Co, 2009).)
These sorts of admissions come readily when you think you have, as The Link quotes Jørn Hurum saying about Ida, "the icon for the early evolution of primates," (p. 243) which will "be the image of our early evolution for generations to come." (p. 229) But now that Ida has gone bust, where does the evidence actually stand?

Does that sound like the fossil record told the whole truth or could even properly deduce.

[youngterrier]

Look, the thing is, what you are postulating isn't an issue in biological evolution. They don't debate it on the PhD level because its the consensus that the fossil record supports it. I apologize that I'm unable to explain it to you, but please either take my word for it or do more research

I think where we are disconnecting is that my statement about the fossil record not supporting evolution is that you don't see the slow march from simple organism to complex in the record. What you do see is distinct species, not all the intermediates. That is what I am trying to say by it not supporting the Darwinian model of evolution in which we came form a single celled organism all the way to what we have today.

As well, are we talking about Ida and the like? Huge news conference and PR campaign, only to have it totally refuted.

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/sh ... hp/id/1503" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There's one final tale to be told regarding "Ida." As I've discussed before, it's often only when evolutionists think they have found some "missing link" that they feel safe enough to admit how little they actually knew about the alleged evolutionary transition in question. What happens when the link goes bust--as we've seen is the case with Ida? We're left with lots of admissions of ignorance about evolution and no links to fill the now-exposed gap.

This is why Colin Tudge's book about Ida, The Link: Uncovering Our Earliest Ancestor (Little Brown & Co, 2009), is so intriguing. He thought he had a missing link to explain the early evolution of primates on the line that supposedly led to humans, so the book is filled with would-be retroactive confessions of evolutionist ignorance about primate evolution. For example:
Although, because of gaps in the fossil record, paleontologists have had to hypothesize about what happened after the primitive primate, they have determined that by 40 million years ago, there were, as we know, two distinct primate groups: those with wet noses--lemurs and lorises; and those with dry noses--tarsiers and apes and monkeys. At some point during the Eocene, this important split in primate evolution occurred; without it, humankind as we know it would not exist. Until the fossil in the photograph was found [Ida], no complete skeleton had ever been discovered of an "in-between" species to prove this split. [Jørn] Hurum was fast concluding that the specimen he was looking at could be one of the holy grails of science--the "missing link" from the crucial time period.

(Colin Tudge, The Link: Uncovering Our Earliest Ancestor, p. 13 (Little Brown & Co, 2009).)
Except, of course, it now is becoming clear that Jørn Hurum (the Norwegian paleontologist who works at the Geological museum of the University of Oslo, who wrote the foreword to The Link) was a little too fast concluding that he'd found a "missing link," meaning that apparently we don't necessarily have "an 'in-between' species to prove this split."

Tudge continues to admit the lack of fossils evidence for primate evolution during the Eocene:
Radical transitions in primate evolution occurred throughout the Eocene, from 56 million to 34 million years ago. Many scientists argue that the primates that were in the direct line of humans must have lived during the Eocene in sub-Saharan Africa, but exactly what kind of primates those would have been is not known because there are huge gaps in the fossil record. This is where studying Ida in her entirety and with a view forward opens up a new chapter in primate evolution. Just as Ida complicates primate history, she gives us hints of where a transition occurred in the great story line of primates, because she allows us to see a combination of complex primate traits all in one skeleton.

(Colin Tudge, The Link: Uncovering Our Earliest Ancestor, pp. 101-102 (Little Brown & Co, 2009).)
Except now, critics are saying things like, "Many lines of evidence indicate that Darwinius has nothing at all to do with human evolution," and, "What's amazing about Darwinius is, despite the fact that it's nearly complete, it tells us very little that we didn't already know from fossils of closely related species."

And what comes after the Eocene? The Link asks "what do we actually know about the post-Eocene primates?" and admits in its answer: "The short answer to this question, What do we know? Is, as ever, Not much." (p. 173) More specifically, The Link admits the paucity of fossil evidence documenting primate evolution from the past 5 million years:
The primate fossil record is so sparse that only around fifty significant specimens exist from the past 5 million years. The most famous is Lucy, the 3.2 million year old australopithecine discovered by Donald Johanson in November 1974. Lucy revolutionized science by providing the first evidence of a primate that walked upright--a crucial link in our own evolution that distinguishes us from all other primates. But even Lucy, considered a remarkable specimen, was only 40 percent complete.

(Colin Tudge, The Link: Uncovering Our Earliest Ancestor, pp. 16-17 (Little Brown & Co, 2009).)
These sorts of admissions come readily when you think you have, as The Link quotes Jørn Hurum saying about Ida, "the icon for the early evolution of primates," (p. 243) which will "be the image of our early evolution for generations to come." (p. 229) But now that Ida has gone bust, where does the evidence actually stand?

Does that sound like the fossil record told the whole truth or could even properly deduce.

Facepalm, I'll admit (mainly due to my own ignorance) that I can't point to a fossil that displays single celled organisms to multicellular organisms, however the lack of transitional fossils is not an issue. Every fossil, by definition, is a transitional fossil, and that is what you need to understand. If you are not going to understand or acknowledge that fact, I can't help you.

One last metaphor, it's like uncovering 8th, 10th, 12th, 14th century French language books and saying that modern french language did not derive from that because we're missing an 9th, 11th, and 13th century language books. Regardless of what is missing from our collection of ancient French literature, the similarities of words with spanish words strongly imply on their own that they have a common ancestory in the latin language. If anything, the fossils show us where we start to branch off from other animals, much like language books over the centuries. What you are asking for in evidence in the fossil record is not only not necessary to prove evolution (and the lack thereof is not sufficient to disprove evolution) but is ultimately unrealistic. The ultimate way of which to display macroevolution would be to have fossils of every generation, and that's a very tall order. The similarities in bone structure,etc show us where they are on the tree of life. When new fossils are found, they are determined to be placed somewhere on the "tree" somewhere between already recovered fossils.

The fossil record is most certainly not a means of disproving evolution, in fact it fortifies it.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

SeaGriz... denies evolution, embraces birthers...

dude... I've got some great bargains from my friends at Amway you really need to take advantage of...

[Cap'n Cat]

SeaGriz... denies evolution, embraces birthers...

dude... I've got some great bargains from my friends at Amway you really need to take advantage of...

SeaGee - this is almost as embarrassing to watch as JoltinJoe get kicked around the place. Give it up.