bushwacked Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 wow. are you really asking that? there should be hugh evidence that shows our transformations, going from one mutation to another. all we can find are complete fossils of species as we have already catalogued them. everything else is woefully incomplete and in dispute. go back up and read the analogy i posted. Why would one expect evidence pointing towards a significant evolutionary process in one short geologic time period is what I meant to say...tried to type too many thoughts at once. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted August 9, 2007 Author Share Posted August 9, 2007 Why would one expect evidence pointing towards a significant evolutionary process in one short geologic time period is what I meant to say...tried to type too many thoughts at once. what is a short geological time period? we are finding stuff that we claim is over a million years old ... there either is fossil evidence, or there is not. if stuff that old is still around, then something should be able to be found to draw linkages. any linkages. something. we got zip. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thews40 Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 And what proof and or links do you creationists have that will factually make your claims hold any water at all except your faith that it is the so called truth? Can you say "zero", I thought you could. "Proof" being the operative word, I'll let you off easy... what "theory" do you have for the simple existence of matter itself? How did matter come to be? Lemme gusss... we're working on it? wow. are you really asking that? there should be hugh evidence that shows our transformations, going from one mutation to another. all we can find are complete fossils of species as we have already catalogued them. everything else is woefully incomplete and in dispute. go back up and read the analogy i posted. Stop making sense... doesn't work in here. Tangible data is king, and because a finch with a long beak will get more food proves that the beak evolves... not selective breeding of an existing species. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 (edited) Tornator, don't take offense, and if you think I'm backing down from an argument, then so be it, but I'm really not into discussing science on the innernets with someone who is biased towards completely ignoring a preponderances of scientific data. Edited August 9, 2007 by bushwacked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 if stuff that old is still around, then something should be able to be found to draw linkages. any linkages. something. we got zip. Rubbish Some creationists cite what they say is an incomplete fossil record as evidence for the failure of evolutionary theory. The fossil record was incomplete in Darwin's time, but many of the important gaps that existed then have been filled by subsequent paleontological research. Perhaps the most persuasive fossil evidence for evolution is the consistency of the sequence of fossils from early to recent. Nowhere on Earth do we find, for example, mammals in Devonian (the age of fishes) strata, or human fossils coexisting with dinosaur remains. Undisturbed strata with simple unicellular organisms predate those with multicellular organisms, and invertebrates precede vertebrates; nowhere has this sequence been found inverted. Fossils from adjacent strata are more similar than fossils from temporally distant strata. The most reasonable scientific conclusion that can be drawn from the fossil record is that descent with modification has taken place as stated in evolutionary theory. Special creationists argue that "no one has seen evolution occur." This misses the point about how science tests hypotheses. We don't see Earth going around the sun or the atoms that make up matter. We "see" their consequences. Scientists infer that atoms exist and Earth revolves because they have tested predictions derived from these concepts by extensive observation and experimentation. Furthermore, on a minor scale, we "experience" evolution occurring every day. The annual changes in influenza viruses and the emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria are both products of evolutionary forces. Indeed, the rapidity with which organisms with short generation times, such as bacteria and viruses, can evolve under the influence of their environments is of great medical significance. Many laboratory experiments have shown that, because of mutation and natural selection, such microorganisms can change in specific ways from those of immediately preceding generations. And a ton more where that came from. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 Some monkeys are a lot smarter than some denizens of this board. umm...why do people walk upright?.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cre8tiff Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 Rubbish And a ton more where that came from. And evolution in microbes can take place much sooner than centuries. Have fun with this little interactive ap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isleseeya Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 And what proof and or links do you creationists have that will factually make your claims hold any water at all except your faith that it is the so called truth? Can you say "zero", I thought you could. what proof is there , conclusive proof , that says otherwise ? nothing conclusive and none will be found Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Irish Doggy Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 we are finding stuff that we claim is over a million years old ... there either is fossil evidence, or there is not. if stuff that old is still around, then something should be able to be found to draw linkages. any linkages. something. we got zip. So, you post an article of a scientist looking for links between early-homo species and man, but turn around and give them no credit for their findings? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 So, you post an article of a scientist looking for links between early-homo species and man, but turn around and give them no credit for their findings? That goes back to the exact point I made at the beginning of the thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted August 9, 2007 Author Share Posted August 9, 2007 So, you post an article of a scientist looking for links between early-homo species and man, but turn around and give them no credit for their findings? not sure what your point is. the article shows that two supposedly different evolutionary forms of man existed at the same time, thus contradicting our traditional linear theory of evolution. i give them full credit for finding what they did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 not sure what your point is. the article shows that two supposedly different evolutionary forms of man existed at the same time, thus contradicting our traditional linear theory of evolution. i give them full credit for finding what they did. The article shows one piece of evidence to be weighted in amongst many pieces of evidence. Has anyone in the scientific community claimed a theory has been proven to be completely bunk or contradicted? When you aren't using selective circular logic, or ignoring data that doesn't support a fundamentalist view, you also do a pretty good job of talking out of your arse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 not sure what your point is. the article shows that two supposedly different evolutionary forms of man existed at the same time, thus contradicting our traditional linear theory of evolution. i give them full credit for finding what they did. Why wouldn't two different forms emanating from the same forebear exist simultaneously? I always thought there were several pre-humans around at the same time, such as Cro-Magnons and Neanderthals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted August 9, 2007 Author Share Posted August 9, 2007 Rubbish And a ton more where that came from. having different kinds of life forms show up in different spans of history does not prove that one came or evolved from the other. the page you linked claims that it is all nice and laid out, but that is hardly the case. any transitory species drawing linkages between the life forms are highly disputed and are not universally accepted. i'm not arguing with micro-evolutions that may cause a strand of influenza to change. i am arguing macroevolution which requires some major jumps from one life form to another. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cre8tiff Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 Why wouldn't two different forms emanating from the same forebear exist simultaneously? I always thought there were several pre-humans around at the same time, such as Cro-Magnons and Neanderthals. Evolution is based on mutation. Sometimes they work, like Homo Sapiens, sometimes they don't, like TimC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted August 9, 2007 Author Share Posted August 9, 2007 Why wouldn't two different forms emanating from the same forebear exist simultaneously? I always thought there were several pre-humans around at the same time, such as Cro-Magnons and Neanderthals. there are many that co-exist here, i'll say that ... where have all the neanderthals gone anyway? why aren't these ape-men running around today? we still have the apes ... we have the men ... where are the tweeners, other than in geico commercials? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 there are many that co-exist here, i'll say that ... where have all the neanderthals gone anyway? The may have been killed off by homo sapiens. (seriously) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cre8tiff Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 (edited) The may have been killed off by homo sapiens. (seriously) They also may have been unable to adapt to changing environments and loss of food sources. The apes of today have also evolved from more primitive forebears. They simply did not evolve as much as we did, likely due to lesser environmental or celestial pressures. Edited August 9, 2007 by cre8tiff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted August 9, 2007 Author Share Posted August 9, 2007 honestly, i have no idea if we evolved or not. my faith tells me we did not, but faith is not fact. those that cling to evolution, however, as THE scientifically verified answer, could be just as far off base. it is nice to see that acknowledged by some vs. us walking around believing without a doubt that homo sapiens originated from single celled organisms and the events that connect us to those blobs of protoplasm are random and purely survival based. we seem pretty far beyond that as a species when you consider music, art, love, etc. i'm poking at it not so much from being an expert on facts but more from seeing if those that firmly believe in evolution leave any room for doubt in that belief. that maybe we are more special than that and that our lives here could actually have purpose and some higher meaning ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cre8tiff Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 honestly, i have no idea if we evolved or not. my faith tells me we did not, but faith is not fact. those that cling to evolution, however, as THE scientifically verified answer, could be just as far off base. it is nice to see that acknowledged by some vs. us walking around believing without a doubt that homo sapiens originated from single celled organisms and the events that connect us to those blobs of protoplasm are random and purely survival based. we seem pretty far beyond that as a species when you consider music, art, love, etc. i'm poking at it not so much from being an expert on facts but more from seeing if those that firmly believe in evolution leave any room for doubt in that belief. that maybe we are more special than that and that our lives here could actually have purpose and some higher meaning ... I think that it is problematic trying to make God fit within the confines of human actions. Evolution could be God's method of creating the world. It isn't that hard to believe the science and still maintain faith. THe religous proletariat would have folks believe the words as written, despite the fact the men who wrote them couldn't have known what the heck "chromosomes" or "genes" were. The Bible was written for a technologically challenged generation of men, and taking it too literally cheapens the message of the God, IMHO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 i'm not arguing with micro-evolutions that may cause a strand of influenza to change. i am arguing macroevolution which requires some major jumps from one life form to another. A geologist will collect data in the field and will often times come across major gaps in times, or unconformities. A ton of other data could be collected capturing none, or part of the time gap. Ideas are put into place to figure out why and what happened in the gap. Now, every once in a great while (not in geologic time, but fundamentalist time), a geologist will find a spot in the earth or immediate subsurface (or deeper in drilling activities), that shines new light on the ideas and helps tie new things together; or debunk specific ideas of the overall theory. Your problem, "tormanondog" , is that you are claiming that major time gaps that can't tie the whole story together is automatic proof that science is a fraud. Far from it. New evidence is tirelessly sought out to better understand the issue. This article you posted could be a piece, although I don't think it is near the awkward shaped jumbo puzzle piece you want it to be. Because there are "gaps" in data or new evidence coming is discovered, doesn't disprove the theory of evolution, no matter how bad you want it to. You are the Huddle's living talking version of the Evolutionary Mystery. Can you claim with a straight face that you aren't heavily influenced by all of the that religious propaganda made to disprove science? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 Can you claim with a straight face that you aren't heavily influenced by all of the that religious propaganda made to disprove science? Well, what has science ever done for humanity? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 there are many that co-exist here, i'll say that ... where have all the neanderthals gone anyway? why aren't these ape-men running around today? we still have the apes ... we have the men ... where are the tweeners, other than in geico commercials? they are still among us. sh!t, they are half of the society. they are libs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thews40 Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 Well, what has science ever done for humanity? :highfive: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 (edited) honestly, i have no idea if we evolved or not. my faith tells me we did not, but faith is not fact. those that cling to evolution, however, as THE scientifically verified answer, could be just as far off base. it is nice to see that acknowledged by some vs. us walking around believing without a doubt that homo sapiens originated from single celled organisms and the events that connect us to those blobs of protoplasm are random and purely survival based. we seem pretty far beyond that as a species when you consider music, art, love, etc. i'm poking at it not so much from being an expert on facts but more from seeing if those that firmly believe in evolution leave any room for doubt in that belief. that maybe we are more special than that and that our lives here could actually have purpose and some higher meaning ... I don't feel the need to belittle Christian faith to believe in Science. Why are you hell bent on ignoring Science to validate your faith? Edited August 9, 2007 by bushwacked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.