An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

[Neoteny]

[13] And even when the fossil records show what appears to be missing links between the species they are not. It only appears to be evolution but the facts are grossly misrepresented by the scientific community. Take the evolution of the horse for example. The horse is perhaps the bastion stronghold for evolutionist. "Horses are among the best-documented examples of evolutionary development.(World Book Encyclopedia 1982 ed. p. 333.)

The f*ck? Maybe horses were a bastion stronghold for evolutionists 150 years ago. Maybe they were a bastion stronghold 30 years ago. But so much progress has been made in genetics and molecular biology over the last half century or so that the "bastion stronghold" for "evolutionists" has spread through most of the field of biology. You could argue that immunology or ecology are as much a bastion as horse phylogeny. When creationists say this sort of thing it becomes clear that he or she has not read anything biology-related that was published in the last decade.

Come on. I read Creation as Science. It was awful, but I make an effort damn it. Google, I dunno, epigenetics or something.

I don't see how Epigenetics, Molecular Biology, Immunity or ecology has anything to do with A Baseless theory that proposes that species of animal including mankind himself has evolved and rose from other, lower species of life.

Why don't you enlighten us with what you have read in the "past decade" or so. Just a taste if you'd be so inclined.

I think that it is more likely that you could not even get past the reading of my original post because as some have stated, It's a "long ass" post.

No worries. I have significant experience with reading, considering, and writing long ass-posts.

Those fields, like pretty much any biology-related field, have been heavily influenced by, and influenced in return, the theory of evolution. And, I mean, you're welcome to keep calling evolution baseless; the rest of us will keep piling up the evidence for it. You can call it unscientific, and we'll keep using the predictions stemming from an evolutionary mindset to further medicine and industry. I, like some others, am having trouble taking you seriously here, but if you really want to talk about something, (horses, I guess?) I'm down. But I seriously recommend maybe updating your knowledge base.

Here are some links to recent publications to get you started.

http://www.sciencemag.org/
http://www.nature.com/

[Metsfanmax]

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.

[_sabotage_]

:

The idea of where life started and how it has progressed has nothing to do with the question of God? Similar to the below quoted comments of ComicBoy, you are trying to quantify and split things into groups which cannot be split. I think it's quite basic that if there is no God or Gods, as some will have it, then He/She/They could not have had a hand in creation. Whereas if there is a God/s it would be difficult to say that our beginnings and continuation were without a contribution from such a source.

I believe that the scientific method is to observe, hypothesize, test and analyze.

I observe that the theories either begin with a Big Bang or with a God. I hypothesize that either had to come from something. I test and I find that we cannot account for the source of either. Upon analyzing this, I decide that we have several potential results. I have provided these several possible results.

Without any backing you claim that Vic's position is dishonest. And therefore one of my possible positions. Unfortunately you claim to use a scientific method. I claim that I am a human being trying to decide a course in my life. We are discussing different topics.

You claim that mine is a rigid philosophical approach and yet I expect the outcome to be quite rigid. We will either melt into nothingness, merge into history, or experience eternity.

What do you claim? You claim that we should go with the scientific evidence that we have been provided with and not question any holes in it. This seems both unscientific and rigid. We cease to observe in such an approach and deny a possibility that 2/3's of the world's population more or less concurs with because it doesn't suit your point of view.

Firstly I was simply adding to your point, not addressing you , so in fact I was claiming nothing whatsoever in regard to you , do for goodness sake pay attention. Secondly you are making things up , I never indicated that science should not be questioned and I specifically stated that there was nothing wrong with taking a philosophical position. My point was that philosophy and science stand alone , you cant use one to disprove the other, this also seems to be your point so what on earth are you arguing against ?
Incidentally 2/3 of the worlds population most certainly do not challenge evolution , the vast majority of religious folk , including most theologians, accept the theory with the proviso that God supplied the initial building blocks.

I have encountered many theories related by religious folks supporting the idea of evolution, I was talking about the question of God. By default, atheists believe in evolution and therefore I approach the question from this angle.

You say that philosophy and evolution are not connected. I believe that is like saying a man's actions have no correlation to his specific situation. I myself really don't know or have a strong opinion on evolution as opposed to building block supplier, trial and error or pure creation. In general anyone who purports to, from whichever perspective you choose to regard it as coming from, has an agenda. The Church recognizes evolution not because it is consistent with their history but as a mechanism to regain their fading status as their influence continues to decline. While I am not familiar with the factual, and since it is a theory, hypothetical backs and forths on evolution, I am well acquainted with the despicable behavior of the Church.

What I seek is a personal path. The question of evolution is mired in contention between the potential paths I put forth. We continue to divide and conquer ourselves over points which in themselves we suggest pertain to larger questions, even if they aren't linked to the larger questions. We pursue our economic Gods, military Gods, entertainment Gods and forget a simple concept, we build up these 'great' pursuits at the benefit of those who succeed in them, we don't build up people in general. In our current society we succeed not by helping our society but by finding a way to reign over it. We have isolated ourselves in order to protect our hard-earned wealth, our views are criticized, not discussed. I think the question of evolution doesn't matter and will not in one whit change how we act as a society. We already know that when a big black dog mates with a small white one, their pups could look like either, both or neither. We know the likelihood of what it will look like and are generally able to control our breeding to produce the results we desire.

We can pursue these avenues, and we do. But the revolution, will it ever come? will not be a coup, or a great politician reforming the tax code, but a change in direction. A change from creating demigods out of each other to focusing on improving the lot of everyone overall. When instead of saying this will make me rich and famous, we say this will change the world forever.

Please do not point out technology or medical advances, those are pure bullshit. We withhold technology and build defunct mechanisms into them in order that we cat stimulate our economy. Sony has their five year, fifteen year and other plans. But their plans focus on themselves.

I enjoy the change in attitude over the last 20 or so years. Now we consider, or at least the media and government consider, bosses as to be supplying jobs; a few years ago we thought of them as stealing our lives away with shitty jobs, pay and general conditions. One company here received a 5 billion dollar contract from the government. They fired 200 people and the guy who did it got a half million dollar bonus. Speculation was here and there, but I never heard from any source the true reason, by re-establishing their employment market, he was killing seniority, could hire back people at less wages and even though in the short term they wouldn't be able to fulfill their current contracts, it would save them millions when the money starts coming in from the government deal.

He probably used a PPT to display this, and if you can't grasp the idea, I'm sorry. But imagine this, the part of the 5 billion dollar pie going to the workers on the project got smaller and the part going to the investors got bigger. This is happening everyday while we sit and bullshit about stuff that doesn't matter.

The reason that evolution doesn't matter is simple: if we have a creationist theory, we are all brothers and sisters, and if we have an evolution theory, we are all brothers and sisters. Why don't we start treating each other as brothers and sisters and instead of sharing a pie where some people feel gratified that they get a bigger piece, we just make more pies?

I bet that most people who use this site, just as most people in North America these days, have preventative jobs. You work for the phone company, cable any services industry in general, you aren't helping people get cable, you are helping people get past the barriers put in place by the company to stop people from getting cable, internet, etc. But they need money to do what they do, otherwise why would they bother?

We have the concept of ME and not WE. The population of Canada hasn't greatly increased in the last 30 years and inflation has been kept low, roughly 2% per annum, yet house prices have sky-rocketed in comparison and house ownership has fallen. Why? It makes no economic sense, unless we consider that we are more and more isolated from each other and require greater amounts of personal space. This is the world we have created for ourselves and each person who can promote divisions between us is able to gain from it. These are the people our evolution/creation societies reward.

Evolution? Creation? Who really gives a f*ck? Choose your path and the world will be a better place. Use reason and logic, trial and error and we will find our own answers. And if someone doesn't agree, so what? That's their right, respect it as you do your own right.

[Viceroy63]

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.

[chang50]

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.

Every living thing is transitional,me you,your pet,your plants,yet fully belongs to a particular species,you will never find intermediate species because the whole concept is nonesense..

[betiko]

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?

[Haggis_McMutton]

I don't have time to play "beat up the fundie" just now, but I wanna mention something.

Viceroy posted some of this junk in the religon thread. I actually debunked every point.(I was bored)
He said: "I won't answer to that, it's too much work, I don't spend my evenings doing this blahbahblah".

2 weeks later he has now written what? like 20k words espousing more bullshit theories in this new thread ?

You've got to understand people, this is how the creationists "debate". They throw 100 bullshit claims at the wall, they then ignore the 95 that get refuted and claim that because 5 of them cannot at the present be expressly refuted they must be right. If pressed they will simply throw 100 more bullshit claims at the wall. Just read a couple pages of the Lionz stuff, it's exactly the same.

Essentially they are this:


I mean, if you enjoy continuously beating down the doll only to watch it pop back up and pretend nothing happened, then by all means. (I know I enjoy it too sometimes). Just thought I'd point out that the chances of a fundie actually acknowledging they MIGHT be wrong are basically nil. (otherwise they wouldn't be a fundie in the first place)

[PLAYER57832]

Faith is not blind but based on observable facts. But one must first be willing to open their eyes to the truth. That is why I can observe, with my open eyes the fact that Evolution is a lie and should not be taught in schools and universities, as Fact.

There is a big difference between saying that Evolution is not proven, which is correct, and saying "Evolution is a lie".

What evidence do you claim shows evolution is false?

Also, do you really know how much evidence is required for something to be considered fully proven in science?

I personally determine something to be a lie when it is pawned off as genuine or taught as fact. The fact of the matter is that regardless of whether people can come to grips with this or not, evolution has been taught as a scientific fact. It always has been.

No, but unfortunately a lot of people don't bother to read the fine print and claim that is true.

The facts SUPPORTING evolution are taught as facts, because they are. Show me any textbook that says that it is fact.

Please keep in mind that the evolution of the horse was the best exampled evidence of evolutionist and it turns out to be a hoax.

Whoever told you that knew nothing of evolution. Among other issues horses are a very modern group.
Please provide references so I can see to what you are referring.

I am deeply disappointed that supposedly open and intelligent minds can't see this for what it is, Thus the title of this thread, "The Rise of Ignorance." The same has been shown with all other works and displays that evolutionist have used to prove that evolution is a fact and not a theory.

You have yet to provide any real criticism. Most of what you have said just shows that you have never really read evolutionary theory.. in fact, most of what you say is found only in false explanations provided by young earth creationists. That you think you can attack that which you don't even understand is very sad, indeed.

"This is true of all the thirty-two orders of mammals . . The earliest and most primitive known members of every order already have the basic ordinal characters, and in no case is an approximately continuous sequence from one order to another known. In most cases the break is so sharp and the gap so large that the origin of the order is speculative and much disputed."
—*G.G. Simpson, Tempo and Mode in Evolution (1944), p. 105.

UH... 1944??? REALLY???? I can remember a textbook from the late 60's that said man cannot go to the moon. We could not when it was published. Things change.
A LOT of things thought true in 1940 are now known to be entirely false in many realms of science.

The Myth of Horse Evolution
One important subject in the origin of mammals is the myth of the "evolution of the horse," also a topic to which evolutionist publications have devoted a considerable amount of space for a long time. This is a myth, because it is based on imagination rather than scientific findings.

Until recently, an imaginary sequence supposedly showing the evolution of the horse was advanced as the principal fossil evidence for the theory of evolution.

Again, this is just not true. Its funny how young earthers concentrate on areas of error and then promote them as being the "most valid evidence".. while ignoring whole reams of truly valid and real evidence. (they also make the claim of whales, though whale phylogeny is tricky, claim that a bird/reptile combination that WAS a hoax is the "only" transition known.. and other false information). The lie is not from evolutionists, sorry.
As I said, start with fish...

Today, however, many evolutionists themselves frankly admit that the scenario of horse evolution is bankrupt. In 1980, a four-day symposium was held at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, with 150 evolutionists in attendance, to discuss the problems with the gradualistic evolutionary theory. In addressing this meeting, evolutionist Boyce Rensberger noted that the scenario of the evolution of the horse has no foundation in the fossil record, and that no evolutionary process has been observed that would account for the gradual evolution of horses:
(http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/natural ... _2_12.html)

"The evolution of the horse was never in a straight line."—*Encyclopaedia Britannica (1976 ed.), Vol. 7, p. 13.

Thank you for showing how real science works. People put forward evidence and try to explain them with ideas. Then everyone goes out and tries to disprove the theories, evidence. Sometimes information is left stand, sometimes errors are found and occasionally it is found that someone flat out committed fraud.

But what does that have to do with disproving the entire theory of evolution and all lines of evidence we have for the fact that species change over time (note my phrasing, please. Evolution is a theory.. but that species change over time is actually a proven fact).

For crying out loud people, If you can't trust the Encyclopaedia Britannica (1976 edition) then who the hell can you trust?

The 2012 Encyclopedia Britannica edition, for one...

People who claim that the Theory of Evolution has some type of foundation should post that evidence rather than say it does. Just post all your evidence for the Theory of Evolution in this thread.

Well, see, that's not how science works. To prove something means that you have to disprove each and every other possibility. In many cases, we don't even really know what all possibilities there are, which is why so many ideas remain scientific theory despite reams of evidence. Your question is part of why I said above that you don't seem to really understand what it actually takes for something to be proven as scientific fact.

Things like Evolutionary theory (or the Theory of Gravity -- that is, how gravity actually works) are unlikely to ever be anything but theory because its essentially impossible for people to directly observe the results or to utterly disprove each and every alternative.

BUT.. even so, you want evidence poste.. fine, its done and I already posted several of the links.

However, given that we are talking about several hundred PAGES, reposting them in this site is just not practical.

but here they are again:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=114455&hilit=creation+versus

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29535&p=2152183&hilit=creation+versus#p2152183


viewtopic.php?f=8&t=87553&p=2043214&hilit=creation+versus#p2043214

There are some others, a lot of that came up in the "is God logical?" thread, for example. However, those are some of the most comprehensive and longest standing threads on the subject of evolution.

[PLAYER57832]

PS given that the most recent evidence you post is from 1976.... I am beginning to think this is a troll thread. That, and the fact that you have ignored the other threads on the subject.

If I am wrong, present better evidence...

[Viceroy63]

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?

[SirSebstar]

you mean like a fetus develops past stages that we as a species from which we evolved have, while still in the womb?

if thats not what you mean.
yes, it is not wierd to se intermediary species. it is not only a gradual proces.. that has been mentioned a few pages above.
you see most fossils during a mass dieout. dieouts happen often in a glacial scale, but not in human terms.
so missing the intermediairy is logical.
Homo erectus is not us, but lived before us, is it seperate or intemediary?

[Neoteny]

noooo

[betiko]

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..

[AndyDufresne]

dieouts happen often in a glacial scale, but not in human terms.?

Mass extinction events often do happen over a larger timescale, but evidence regarding biodiversity and human expansion is starting to show we're probably in some sort of extinction event as we speak, largely created by the pressures of humanity.


--Andy

[Viceroy63]

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.