An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

[AndyDufresne]

[3] The gaps are simple to understand when you realize that the Theory explains that life evolved "gradually" over millions of years. That word "gradually," is the key to understanding the gaps. If it takes millions of years for one species to evolve into another, then there should be millions of years worth of fossilized remains everywhere showing the gradual changes over all those millions of years. You just don't show a dinosaur and then a bird and say, "walla, evolution, see!"

Very true, since it is very true common fact that we have looked beneath the entire surface of the earth everywhere.


--Andy

[Neoteny]

Viceroy: no one here is arguing that evolution is a fact. No one anywhere is arguing this. We are arguing that it is a scientific theory that is not in conflict with any known data, and that explains a great deal of the data we do have. So who exactly is being ignorant? Who is it exactly that you're claiming is the problem here?

Incidentally, the fact that one possible description of a given evolutionary transition is shown to be wrong is not actually an argument against the theory of evolution. Darwin's idea of gradual and smooth change over millions of years is not the only possible history. Evolutionary biology is compatible with the idea that you can either have gradual change or you can have rapid change in response to external factors like natural disasters and other geological changes. The fact that the gradual and smooth transition doesn't explain everything in the fossil record is not an argument against common descent.

There is no data that conflicts because there is no date period. The Rise of Ignorance is not meant as an accusation but an observation. People have been duped by nonexistent data or the confusion that mutations are steps in the evolutionary process and so there is your evidence??? And that is simply not the case. If you have some data that proves it then post it. Not the mutation but the evolution. Mutations do occur in nature but that is not evolution. Mutation is not proof of evolution.

But there is no missing link and never have been. If there is then here is an excellent place to drop that missing link on us. Drop that intermediate species here that missing link that proves that Evolution has occurred on this planet and responsible for us being here. The whole article in the original post is that there is no intermediate creature between any other two creatures that exist.

That's the whole point of this.

I'm a bit confused with your way of thinking here... so you do aknowledge that mutations occure? Let's go step by step. Would you agree to say that for example the african elephant and the asian elephant both share the same dna but have suffered different type of mutations and are now quite distinctive subspecies? that they share a common ancestor the mamouth that has disapeared due to its changing environment? That the now a day african & asian elephants aredescendent species of the mamouth, and that therefore the mamouth himself is the descendant of some other sort of pachidermic creature adapted to a different environment than the mamouth was living in?

Yes; I agree that all elephants are part of the same family and that it is obvious. These are examples of mutations but not evolution. When you show me an elephant with wings then we would have found an intermediate species between the elephant and some bird family creature.

But you can not present any intermediate creatures because there are none. You would think, as I noted in my article, that if evolution takes millions of years of gradual changes for one type of creature to become another, that there would be plenty of examples of this intermediate creature found in the fossil records.

Does it not seem too selective that only a certainly family of creature is found among the fossil records and no intermediate creatures?

I'm talking about mammouth here not just elephant. mammouth have a slightly different dna and are extinct, you could consider it as intermediary creature between the modern day elephant and whatever was the name of a mammouth's ancestor. You know that millions of species disapear over time, you admit that almost every specie suffers mutations. Several species of proboscibeans (animals using their nose like elephants do, yes their nose that is now a trump) up to 26M years old have been discovered. All species are intermediate as they are all by definition constantly evolving.
They don't all evolve at the same pace take crocodiles for example, they have barely evolved since several eras and are basically the same creatures than millions of years ago..

I'm sorry betiko, but that just doesn't work man. You can not say that all species are intermediates of each other because they are all evolving when evolution is a gradual process taking millions of years for one species to evolve into another. At least that is what the theory proposes. That's why I wrote...

[3] The gaps are simple to understand when you realize that the Theory explains that life evolved "gradually" over millions of years. That word "gradually," is the key to understanding the gaps. If it takes millions of years for one species to evolve into another, then there should be millions of years worth of fossilized remains everywhere showing the gradual changes over all those millions of years. You just don't show a dinosaur and then a bird and say, "walla, evolution, see!"

[4] One could argue, "but how?" and the debate would go something like this; "Don't you see the similarities in the bone structures of the arms of the dinosaur and the wings of the bird? Why they are practically identical!" But what about the intermediate species that evolved between the dinosaur and the bird? well it turns out that the fossil records is not perfect or that we have yet to find them? Then why is evolution taught as fact in schools everywhere when it is not a proven fact?

[5] Charles Darwin, who wrote, "The Origin of Species," devoted an entire chapter explaining the problem with evolution or as we would say today, debunking his own work.

""But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."
-The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin, 1859

And thank you bekito for taking this seriously.

Honk if you understand punctuated equilibrium.

[Neoteny]

Viceroy: no one here is arguing that evolution is a fact. No one anywhere is arguing this. We are arguing that it is a scientific theory that is not in conflict with any known data, and that explains a great deal of the data we do have. So who exactly is being ignorant? Who is it exactly that you're claiming is the problem here?

Incidentally, the fact that one possible description of a given evolutionary transition is shown to be wrong is not actually an argument against the theory of evolution. Darwin's idea of gradual and smooth change over millions of years is not the only possible history. Evolutionary biology is compatible with the idea that you can either have gradual change or you can have rapid change in response to external factors like natural disasters and other geological changes. The fact that the gradual and smooth transition doesn't explain everything in the fossil record is not an argument against common descent.

There is no data that conflicts because there is no date period. The Rise of Ignorance is not meant as an accusation but an observation. People have been duped by nonexistent data or the confusion that mutations are steps in the evolutionary process and so there is your evidence??? And that is simply not the case. If you have some data that proves it then post it. Not the mutation but the evolution. Mutations do occur in nature but that is not evolution. Mutation is not proof of evolution.

But there is no missing link and never have been. If there is then here is an excellent place to drop that missing link on us. Drop that intermediate species here that missing link that proves that Evolution has occurred on this planet and responsible for us being here. The whole article in the original post is that there is no intermediate creature between any other two creatures that exist.

That's the whole point of this.

I'm a bit confused with your way of thinking here... so you do aknowledge that mutations occure? Let's go step by step. Would you agree to say that for example the african elephant and the asian elephant both share the same dna but have suffered different type of mutations and are now quite distinctive subspecies? that they share a common ancestor the mamouth that has disapeared due to its changing environment? That the now a day african & asian elephants aredescendent species of the mamouth, and that therefore the mamouth himself is the descendant of some other sort of pachidermic creature adapted to a different environment than the mamouth was living in?

Yes; I agree that all elephants are part of the same family and that it is obvious. These are examples of mutations but not evolution. When you show me an elephant with wings then we would have found an intermediate species between the elephant and some bird family creature.

But you can not present any intermediate creatures because there are none. You would think, as I noted in my article, that if evolution takes millions of years of gradual changes for one type of creature to become another, that there would be plenty of examples of this intermediate creature found in the fossil records.

Does it not seem too selective that only a certainly family of creature is found among the fossil records and no intermediate creatures?

I'm talking about mammouth here not just elephant. mammouth have a slightly different dna and are extinct, you could consider it as intermediary creature between the modern day elephant and whatever was the name of a mammouth's ancestor. You know that millions of species disapear over time, you admit that almost every specie suffers mutations. Several species of proboscibeans (animals using their nose like elephants do, yes their nose that is now a trump) up to 26M years old have been discovered. All species are intermediate as they are all by definition constantly evolving.
They don't all evolve at the same pace take crocodiles for example, they have barely evolved since several eras and are basically the same creatures than millions of years ago..

I'm sorry betiko, but that just doesn't work man. You can not say that all species are intermediates of each other because they are all evolving when evolution is a gradual process taking millions of years for one species to evolve into another. At least that is what the theory proposes. That's why I wrote...

[3] The gaps are simple to understand when you realize that the Theory explains that life evolved "gradually" over millions of years. That word "gradually," is the key to understanding the gaps. If it takes millions of years for one species to evolve into another, then there should be millions of years worth of fossilized remains everywhere showing the gradual changes over all those millions of years. You just don't show a dinosaur and then a bird and say, "walla, evolution, see!"

[4] One could argue, "but how?" and the debate would go something like this; "Don't you see the similarities in the bone structures of the arms of the dinosaur and the wings of the bird? Why they are practically identical!" But what about the intermediate species that evolved between the dinosaur and the bird? well it turns out that the fossil records is not perfect or that we have yet to find them? Then why is evolution taught as fact in schools everywhere when it is not a proven fact?

[5] Charles Darwin, who wrote, "The Origin of Species," devoted an entire chapter explaining the problem with evolution or as we would say today, debunking his own work.

""But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."
-The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin, 1859

And thank you bekito for taking this seriously.

Honk if you understand punctuated equilibrium.

EDIT: that would probably be a good thing for you to google. It's not from the last decade, but the discussion PE created is worth looking into.

[Metsfanmax]

BTW, it's spelled "voila."

[AndyDufresne]

show: Viola

--Andy

[Viceroy63]

[3] The gaps are simple to understand when you realize that the Theory explains that life evolved "gradually" over millions of years. That word "gradually," is the key to understanding the gaps. If it takes millions of years for one species to evolve into another, then there should be millions of years worth of fossilized remains everywhere showing the gradual changes over all those millions of years. You just don't show a dinosaur and then a bird and say, "walla, evolution, see!"

Very true, since it is very true common fact that we have looked beneath the entire surface of the earth everywhere.

--Andy

Thank you Andy!

It is not only true and logical, it's what you would expect to find if you go looking for it. When you consider that most Dinosaur bones are found by accident while digging for something else other than bones, Then when archeologist actually go looking for dinosaur bones then one would think that they would find something. Even perhaps a whole variety of specimen to indicate several intermediate species.

just over the last 100 years alone we have been purposely digging all over the world specifically for "dino-bones." But no luck on any missing link. It just sounds way to selective to me that we find a certain type of dinosaur bone, mixed in with other types of "dino-bones" of course, but no intermediate go between, cross-referencing with other species as well.

The only answers that science have given us is that the geological records are not perfect and that time will prove evolution correct. Sounds like they want to teach that or advance that as fact to me?

And something that just occurred to me is, who has the time to verify if what is being taught is actually on the up and up and on the level? Our lives can get so busy that if we manage to read just one science digest per year we can say that we've studied while not neglecting our families. =)

So when a man of science or a reporter on television says something on the news or a brand new dino-exhibit just opens up at the museum, we accept it because no one really has the time to see if it is true. What is true however is that museums and the world in general is run at a profit. Everything is connected including schools and universities. It's all just one big industry earth.

And so is the manager of the museum or the scientist who knows better really going to hurt his own wallet by disclosing the true facts? I don't think so.

[jonesthecurl]

Oddly enough Viceroy, I seem to remember you in another thread, which you ran away from, that you expected everybody to accept as unquestionable authority what "science teaches us"...even though you couldn't show us where it did that.

[AndyDufresne]

And so is the manager of the museum or the scientist who knows better really going to hurt his own wallet by disclosing the true facts? I don't think so.

I think we're onto something here. I remember back in '90 in the midst of the Gulf War, I was doing some internet searching investigating about this sort of theory fact. I'll see if the wayback machine can find it, but there was a website that purported documented the paleontology illuminati (also known as, to us in the inner circle, as the Paleonati), and their desire to cover up the lack of prehistoric fossils to keep their museum cash-cows lining their rich and dirt filled pockets.

They may try to win us over with free passes...

...but I think most of us will not allow the wool to be pulled over our eyes anymore.

The Paleonati are a fiendish bunch.



Keep your eyes peeled, friends. And next time you bring your kids to a museum, or attend one on a school trip, know full well that if they find out what you know, you may one day end up on the wrong end of their science dastardly work.



--Andy

[Viceroy63]

I realize that you're just making a joke Andy, and it is humorous, but still, museum buildings are not free to construct and the land that they are built on also has value. The exhibits cost money to maintain and staff needs to be paid. Not to mention utilities, insurance and a whole host of expenditures like sending people to dig for bones. So some one must be paying for it all. Don't you think? It can't possibly be paid for by free passes to the museum?

Whether it's our tax dollars at work or private donations, if there is money involved, you can bet your bottom dollar that the decision to keep the truth from the public is not that difficult a choice make. And so, The Rise of Ignorance.

To Lootifer:
I have as much right to be here as anyone else. And to express my opinions and beliefs. And if what I express happens to be the truth that folks don't want to hear then that is too bad. You Lootifer, are the one who does not have to be here posting on this thread if you do not like what I am saying. So why don't you just take your own advice. Please!

[Lootifer]

Go away Viceroy, you contribute nothing to this community.

There are very few people that believe a single word you have said in this thread. And the only reason its 5 pages is a testament to the retarded fact that we as humans much prefer the negative discussion (i.e. conflict/argument) over the positive discussion (e.g. spending time with your kids is great and increases the likelihood they will be successful, #tumbleweed).

So i beg of you; please go away; you will not change any of us, and likewise we will not change you. Its pointless so please please please stop posting.

[Timminz]

Go away Viceroy, you contribute nothing to this community.

There are very few people that believe a single word you have said in this thread. And the only reason its 5 pages is a testament to the retarded fact that we as humans much prefer the negative discussion (i.e. conflict/argument) over the positive discussion (e.g. spending time with your kids is great and increases the likelihood they will be successful, #tumbleweed).

So i beg of you; please go away; you will not change any of us, and likewise we will not change you. Its pointless so please please please stop posting.

Don't listen to him, Vic. Variety is the spice of life, and you are certainly different.

[DoomYoshi]

I have enough time to verify that what scientists say is correct. In fact, most of my non-CC time is spent doing just that.

Also, metsfan, evolution is a fact.

When a bacterium in a hospital all of a sudden becomes antibiotic resistant, that is evolution. It happens, we have seen it happen. Evolution is a word to describe a process which we know exists. Perhaps you could argue that evolution from a common ancestor is a theory, but I don't have any more time for this stupid thread.

[DoomYoshi]

Also, viceroy, there are many intermediate species discovered. In fact, many species today are intermediate species. Unless you want to enter the messy array of biology and try to actually define the word "species", you have no reason to write about anything in this subject.

[Metsfanmax]

Perhaps you could argue that evolution from a common ancestor is a theory

This is precisely what is being discussed. Viceroy didn't seem to object to the idea of microevolution.

[DoomYoshi]

Perhaps you could argue that evolution from a common ancestor is a theory

This is precisely what is being discussed. Viceroy didn't seem to object to the idea of microevolution.

Ok. It's really a wasted question, in that a) there are countless examples of intermediate species b)there are countless examples of molecular evolutionary processes and c) modularity of metazoans means that intermediate species don't need to exist for evolution to occur d) the possibility of lateral evolution means that intermediate species don't need to exist for evolution to occur.

[comic boy]

I realize that you're just making a joke Andy, and it is humorous, but still, museum buildings are not free to construct and the land that they are built on also has value. The exhibits cost money to maintain and staff needs to be paid. Not to mention utilities, insurance and a whole host of expenditures like sending people to dig for bones. So some one must be paying for it all. Don't you think? It can't possibly be paid for by free passes to the museum?

Whether it's our tax dollars at work or private donations, if there is money involved, you can bet your bottom dollar that the decision to keep the truth from the public is not that difficult a choice make. And so, The Rise of Ignorance.

To Lootifer:
I have as much right to be here as anyone else. And to express my opinions and beliefs. And if what I express happens to be the truth that folks don't want to hear then that is too bad. You Lootifer, are the one who does not have to be here posting on this thread if you do not like what I am saying. So why don't you just take your own advice. Please!

The Rise of ignorance;
www.creationmuseum.org
A perfect example of what Viceroy is railing against.

[Metsfanmax]

Perhaps you could argue that evolution from a common ancestor is a theory

This is precisely what is being discussed. Viceroy didn't seem to object to the idea of microevolution.

Ok. It's really a wasted question.

Sure, debating about whether the idea of common descent is accurate, isn't going to get anywhere. But I find it very necessary to speak up when someone suggests that despite being the scientific consensus, it should not even be taught in school, because that is a dangerous proposal.

[Viceroy63]

I have enough time to verify that what scientists say is correct. In fact, most of my non-CC time is spent doing just that.

Also, metsfan, evolution is a fact.

When a bacterium in a hospital all of a sudden becomes antibiotic resistant, that is evolution. It happens, we have seen it happen. Evolution is a word to describe a process which we know exists. Perhaps you could argue that evolution from a common ancestor is a theory, but I don't have any more time for this stupid thread.

DoomYoshi; The theory of Evolution that Darwin postulated is what I am talking about and not genetic mutations. The Theory of Evolution attempts to explain the rise and diversity of life on the planet. It postulates that species of animals evolve from other lower forms of animals or species thereof.

What is described in a laboratory with germs and viruses are still germs and viruses. Now if you were to say the same thing about say, Cat's and Dogs, two totally different species of animals then I could understand that Evolution is real. Or even if you showed me a half dog and half cat, then I would agree that there is evidence to support the Theory of Evolution. But viruses and germs mutating into other viruses and germs is not the same thing. They may use the same name, "Evolutionary Biology," but they are not the same thing. Perhaps this is where people get off the tracks.

To date there is no evidence to support the Theory of evolution that postulates that our species arose from some other species of animal. There is no missing link found between our species and some other. And that states a lot all by itself.

[Metsfanmax]

Viceroy, you are welcome to interpret the data as you please. But will you please agree that the consensus of professional scientists is what should be taught in science class?

[Viceroy63]

Viceroy, you are welcome to interpret the data as you please. But will you please agree that the consensus of professional scientists is what should be taught in science class?

What consensus is that? That man evolved from apes? Then show me the homo-erectus ape?

[DoomYoshi]

I have enough time to verify that what scientists say is correct. In fact, most of my non-CC time is spent doing just that.

Also, metsfan, evolution is a fact.

When a bacterium in a hospital all of a sudden becomes antibiotic resistant, that is evolution. It happens, we have seen it happen. Evolution is a word to describe a process which we know exists. Perhaps you could argue that evolution from a common ancestor is a theory, but I don't have any more time for this stupid thread.

DoomYoshi; The theory of Evolution that Darwin postulated is what I am talking about and not genetic mutations. The Theory of Evolution attempts to explain the rise and diversity of life on the planet. It postulates that species of animals evolve from other lower forms of animals or species thereof.

What is described in a laboratory with germs and viruses are still germs and viruses. Now if you were to say the same thing about say, Cat's and Dogs, two totally different species of animals then I could understand that Evolution is real. Or even if you showed me a half dog and half cat, then I would agree that there is evidence to support the Theory of Evolution. But viruses and germs mutating into other viruses and germs is not the same thing. They may use the same name, "Evolutionary Biology," but they are not the same thing. Perhaps this is where people get off the tracks.

To date there is no evidence to support the Theory of evolution that postulates that our species arose from some other species of animal. There is no missing link between our species and some other.

Dogs and cats haven't shared a common ancestor for 30 million years.

How about a half-dog/half-wolf? Or half-dog/half-coyote? Or half-dog/half-dingo?

[AndyDufresne]

I realize that you're just making a joke Andy, and it is humorous, but still, museum buildings are not free to construct and the land that they are built on also has value. The exhibits cost money to maintain and staff needs to be paid. Not to mention utilities, insurance and a whole host of expenditures like sending people to dig for bones. So some one must be paying for it all. Don't you think? It can't possibly be paid for by free passes to the museum?

Looking into the museum system as something other than a histo-tainment for a few bucks puts a smile on my face. I don't mean to poke too much fun, but I've honestly never heard the museum cover-up/conspiracy/what-have-you idea before, and I found it great fodder for semi-amusing post in the late afternoon.


--Andy

[Metsfanmax]

Viceroy, you are welcome to interpret the data as you please. But will you please agree that the consensus of professional scientists is what should be taught in science class?

What consensus is that? That man evolved from apes?

No, that man and the other apes evolved from a common ancestor.

[DoomYoshi]

Viceroy, let's postulate that man did not evolve from a common ancestor of the apes. Why would our DNA share 98% sequence similarity with chimpanzees? Why is our DNA closer to apes than to muskox, cnidarians or fungus?

[AndyDufresne]

Dogs and cats haven't shared a common ancestor for 30 million years.

How about a half-dog/half-wolf? Or half-dog/half-coyote? Or half-dog/half-dingo?

Solved. You can thank me, world.


--Andy