View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

Macro Evolution Debunked - No Transitional Fossils

Discuss Ancient Mysteries and Places - Atlantis, The Pyramids, Stonehenge, etc. Also Forbidden Archaeology.

Macro Evolution Debunked - No Transitional Fossils

Postby Scepcop » 05 Dec 2010, 19:19









Scientists present proof of intelligent design

Part 1 of 7:



Articles:

DARWIN'S THEORY OF EVOLUTION DEBUNKED
http://www.vedicsciences.net/articles/d ... unked.html

Debunking Evolution:
problems, errors, and lies exposed,
in plain language for non-scientists
http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29






Re: Macro Evolution Debunked - No Transitional Fossils?

Postby Arouet » 05 Dec 2010, 19:42

This again? Do you know how well researched and how well supported the TOE is? Over, and over , and over, and over again.

Dude, you really need to pick up a book on evolution.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Macro Evolution Debunked - No Transitional Fossils?

Postby ProfWag » 05 Dec 2010, 22:20

Arouet wrote:This again? Do you know how well researched and how well supported the TOE is? Over, and over , and over, and over again.

Dude, you really need to pick up a book on evolution.

If you don't mind Arouet, could I amend your statement by just stating "Dude, you really need to just pick up a book. Any book."
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Macro Evolution Debunked - No Transitional Fossils?

Postby caniswalensis » 06 Dec 2010, 00:54

Personal attacks aside, the idea that there are no transtional fossils betrays a lack of understanding of evolution.

People who have not taken time to study or consider the theory picture the process as an animal suddenly giving birth to a different animal. This is of course ridiculous. Evolution is a series of tiny steps. Small benificial mutations are selected and passed on, gradually spreading through a species by decent. You might not even be able to detect the modifications from one generation to the next. It is only over the span of many generations that the process becomes apparent. In essence, every fossil is a transitional form because almost all species are gradually being modified.

Regards, Canis
"It is proper for you to doubt ... do not go upon report ... do not go upon tradition ... do not go upon hear-say." ~ Buddha
caniswalensis
 
Posts: 208
Joined: 02 Jun 2010, 03:41

Re: Macro Evolution Debunked - No Transitional Fossils?

Postby Arouet » 06 Dec 2010, 02:31

Exactly. Everytime a new transitional fossil is discovered, two new gaps are created.

The fact is, the fossil record is only one part of modern evolutionary theory, and not even the most important part.

The evidence in favour of evolution is staggering, and its applications are vast. Here's a short interview with Massimo Pigliucci discussing some of them:

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evoluti ... iucci.html
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Macro Evolution Debunked - No Transitional Fossils?

Postby really? » 06 Dec 2010, 07:29

A member of this forum whom is a friend of scepcop says scepcop isn't very science literate in the friends opinion. I certainly don't have to take the friends word for it since it's self evident.
BTW I think this is the type of thing scepcop has in mind which he uses to buck the mythical status quo controlled by the elites.
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: Macro Evolution Debunked - No Transitional Fossils?

Postby Arouet » 06 Dec 2010, 08:03

Who needs transitional fossils? We can see it live!

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... irth-eggs/
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Macro Evolution Debunked - No Transitional Fossils?

Postby Scepcop » 08 Dec 2010, 11:32

caniswalensis wrote:Personal attacks aside, the idea that there are no transtional fossils betrays a lack of understanding of evolution.

People who have not taken time to study or consider the theory picture the process as an animal suddenly giving birth to a different animal. This is of course ridiculous. Evolution is a series of tiny steps. Small benificial mutations are selected and passed on, gradually spreading through a species by decent. You might not even be able to detect the modifications from one generation to the next. It is only over the span of many generations that the process becomes apparent. In essence, every fossil is a transitional form because almost all species are gradually being modified.

Regards, Canis


Dude did you even watch the videos posted above? Those arguments of yours have been ADDRESSED and debunked. The "every fossil is a transitional fossil" is a total cop out and denial. Very obvious.

You forget that the experts in the films above, such as Stephen Myer, have spent many years studying Evolution, are very familiar with it, and know the material very well. They are not Bible thumping Creationists. Stephen Myer is far more objective and smarter than you. Sorry if his conclusions do not agree with yours. Same with Jonathan Wells. He has studied this subject his whole life too.

As to picking up a book, not all books agree. So what's the point of that? I have my books to read already.

Why don't you guys read Jonathan Wells "Icons of Evolution" or "Darwin in a Black Box" or "Evolution in Crisis"? Those books have changed the minds of many scientists and biologists.
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: Macro Evolution Debunked - No Transitional Fossils?

Postby Scepcop » 08 Dec 2010, 11:37

really? wrote:A member of this forum whom is a friend of scepcop says scepcop isn't very science literate in the friends opinion. I certainly don't have to take the friends word for it since it's self evident.
BTW I think this is the type of thing scepcop has in mind which he uses to buck the mythical status quo controlled by the elites.


Which member? What friend? No one on this forum is anyone that I've met in person. So who are you talking about?

You forget that many science literate people like Stephen Myer do NOT agree with your conclusions. You are nothing but fundamentalists with a closed belief system of philosophy. And you forget that Science is not an entity that takes positions on things. It is a tool and methodology. Not a person. Sheesh.

And you falsely assume that all people who are science literate agree with your atheistic views on everything. Not true at all. You guys are religious fundamentalists cloaked under different terms, just like Quixtar is Amway cloaked under different terms. lol

Your flaws and errors are so many and yet you deny them all with mere words. Sorry no cigar. True independent thinkers can see right through you.
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: Macro Evolution Debunked - No Transitional Fossils?

Postby Scepcop » 08 Dec 2010, 11:38

Here are some more videos I found.

After 150 years of fossil digging, no transitional fossils have been found, thus Darwin's own fears (written in his own book) about being proven wrong by lack of transitional fossils, has materialized.



"Icons of Evolution" by Jonathan Wells. In these clips several experts and biologists explain why random mutations are NOT advantageous and how antibiotic resistant bacteria are actually proof against evolution, not for it. It's very interesting.





This clip explains how Evolution cannot explain the Cambrian explosion, and thus their textbooks ignore the event altogether since it doesn't fit in to their theory. In fact a Geologist in China made some discoveries that refute Darwinian evolution.

“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: Macro Evolution Debunked - No Transitional Fossils?

Postby Arouet » 08 Dec 2010, 11:48

Scepcop, find an actual scientific paper published in a peer reviewed journal and maybe we'll have something to talk about.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Macro Evolution Debunked - No Transitional Fossils?

Postby Scepcop » 08 Dec 2010, 12:29

Skeptics,
I'd like you to explain this one about chirality and how it conclusively debunks evolution. Please watch the video first before commenting or ridiculing.

“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: Macro Evolution Debunked - No Transitional Fossils?

Postby Scepcop » 08 Dec 2010, 12:32

Arouet wrote:Scepcop, find an actual scientific paper published in a peer reviewed journal and maybe we'll have something to talk about.


Journals do not equal truth. Stop making excuses.

The film I referenced does cite scientific journals that contain discoveries that refute evolution. See the clip about the embryos for example.
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: Macro Evolution Debunked - No Transitional Fossils?

Postby Arouet » 08 Dec 2010, 13:35

Youtube videos are so difficult to analyse since there is no cut and paste, you always have to start and stop and rewind. But anyhow, I'll give it a go. Remember, I'm a layperson, and not an expert on evolution.

1. Video says amino acids are not life. True. But they are the building blocks of life as the youtuber acknowledges. The video asserts that biologists believe they have proven how life began. AFAIK this is incorrect, there are hypotheses, but nothing confirmed - straw man.

2. Wow, shocker, he then jumps into intelligent design, but saying there must have been an assembler akin to a mechanic.

3. He mentions random-chance evolution. This is not how evolution works. The randomness comes in the mutations, but what follows is not random. A mutation that enhances survival will get passed on. One that doesn't will die out. Natural selection is NOT random.

4. Ok he states: FACT: chirality cannot be created in chemical molecules by a random process. He gets into some stuff that goes beyond my technical knowledge but what I see him doing is reading way too much into the Miller experiment. The experiment did not purport to show exactly how the early amino acids formed from non-biological materials, only that they could form from non-biological materials. This entire line of reasoning is a massive straw man. He also asserts certainty about certain "facts" without justifying them.

5. If I'm understanding him correctly, he then seems to be arguing that DNA just suddenly coalesced all at once. That is not what evolutionary theory holds.

6. He asserts that evolution cannot produce one molecule with chirality. Assuming he is right about chirality, he still hasn't established this, and therefore he can't use it as a premise to further his argument]]

Here is an exerpt from an article on talkorigins about this issue:

Regarding chirality (which creationists like to pontificate about without the slightest idea of what it means), there is actually no problem at all.

Pasteur discovered that most amino acids came in two forms which can be identified by how they refract light. We label theses L- (for levo or left) and D- (for dextro, or right). The interesting thing is that life on Earth uses the L form of amino acids, and hardly ever uses the D- form. A solution of just one form is called "chiral" and a mix of forms about 50/50 is called racimic. The kinds (L or D) are called enantomers.

The nucleic acid bases I mentioned earlier are also found in L- and D- forms, only in this case life on Earth only uses the D- form.

Creationists like to present this as a profound mystery that is supposed to "prove" that they are correct. I want to mention a neat instance where both left and right amino acids are used in a living thing. It seems very rare, but it does happen. Next time a creationist claims to be an "expert" and that amino acid chirility "proves" something supernatural, you can gob-smack-em. The protein is called Gramicidin A and it has 8 L-amino acids, 6 D-amino acids, and one glycine which is an amino acid that is neither L- or D- in its structure. I have found that even many biologists will bet an "adult beverage" that all proteins are exclusive L- amino acids.

Before we go forward another couple of basic chemical facts need to be added to the discussion. First, L- amino acids will randomly convert to D- amino acids over time, and D- forms will convert to L- forms. This is called "racimization" because eventually you will end up with equal amounts of L- and D- amino acids. The rate that this occurs at varies with the amino acid, and its surroundings. The fastest conversion happens to amino acid molecules all by themselves in hot water. Under cold, dry conditions when the amino acids are attached to one another, or better yet, if they are also attached to a mineral, racimization can be very slow. Very, very slow.

This means that if there is even a tiny advantage one way or the other, the favored form will become the dominant form. The advantage comes from a surprising direction: outer space.

Cronin, J. R. & Pizzarello, S., 1999. Amino acid enantomer excesses in meteorites: Origin and significance. Advances in Space Research 23(2): 293-299.

Service, RF, 1999. Does life's handedness come from within? Science 286: 1282-1283.

Antonio Chrysostomou, T. M. Gledhill,1 Fran‡ois M‚nard, J. H. Hough, Motohide Tamura and Jeremy Bailey 2000 "Polarimetry of young stellar objects -III. Circular polarimetry of OMC-1" Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society Volume 312 Issue 1 Page 103 - February

Michael H. Engel and Bartholomew Nagy, 1982 "Distribution and Enantiomeric Composition of Amino Acids in the Murchison Meteorite", Nature , 296, April 29, , p. 838.

Jeremy Bailey, Antonio Chrysostomou, J. H. Hough, T. M. Gledhill, Alan McCall, Stuart Clark, Fran‡ois M‚nard, and Motohide Tamura 1998 Circular Polarization in Star- Formation Regions: Implications for Biomolecular Homochirality Science 1998 July 31; 281: 672-674. (in Reports)

Chyba, Christopher F. 1997 Origins of life: A left-handed Solar System? Nature 389, 234- 235 (18 Sep 1997)

Engel, M. H., S. A. Macko 1997 Isotopic evidence for extraterrestrial non- racemic amino acids in the Murchison meteorite. Nature 389, 265 - 268 (18 Sep) Letters to Nature


http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/post ... 08_07.html

So much for faith eh? Science is pretty smart.

Here's another discussion: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB040.html

I was unable to find any peer-reviewed article by Dr. McCombs on this topic. That's not to say its not out there, but he's certainly not prolific.

He's described as a creationist with 20 chemical patents. No bio that I found cited any articles that he's published. Again, its possible that he has, but it doesn't look like its much.

He's also writing in an area that is speculative at this time from what I can see. There is no consensus. He is far too definitive in his conclusions.

Ok, so there are my lay person's quick analysis. I'd love for someone better versed in evolutionary biology to comment.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Macro Evolution Debunked - No Transitional Fossils?

Postby Scepcop » 10 Dec 2010, 17:00

Skeptics, check this out. It's from the scientific journal Nature and goes against Evolution! There you go!

"Darwin anticipated that microevolution would be a process of continuous and gradual change. The term macroevolution, by contrast, refers to the origin of new species and divisions of the taxonomic hierarchy above the species level, and also to the origin of complex adaptations, such as the vertebrate eye. Macroevolution posed a problem to Darwin because his principle of descent with modification predicts gradual transitions between small-scale adaptive changes in populations and these larger-scale phenomena, yet there is little evidence for such transitions in nature. Instead, the natural world is often characterized by gaps, or discontinuities. One type of gap relates to the existence of 'organs of extreme perfection', such as the eye, or morphological innovations, such as wings, both of which are found fully formed in present-day organisms without leaving evidence of how they evolved."-- Reznick, David N., Robert E. Ricklefs. 12 February 2009. Darwin's bridge between microevolution and macroevolution. Nature, Vol. 457, pp. 837-842.


See the arguments here. They are pretty rock solid.

http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

This section explains why Evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics and why the Darwinists' explanation of it doesn't hold.

Violating the law
The theory of Evolution violates two laws of science. The Second Law of Thermodynamics (law of increasing entropy) says that things which start out concentrated together spread out over time. If you heat one room in a house, then open the door to that room, eventually the temperature in the whole house evens out (reaches equilibrium). Knowing how far this evening-out has progressed at any point in time tells you the entropy. Entropy can measure the loss of a system's ability to do work. Entropy is also a measure of disorder, and that is where evolution theory hits an impenetrable wall. Natural processes proceed in only one direction, toward equilibrium and disorder. Things fall apart over time, they do not get more organized. We can overcome this by making a machine and adding energy, but the Second Law prevents such a machine from assembling spontaneously from raw materials. The Law of Biogenesis was established by Louis Pasteur three years after Darwin's book was published, and simply says that life only comes from life. Living cells divide to make new cells, and fertilized eggs and seeds develop into animals and plants, but chemicals never fall together and life appears. Evolutionists often call certain chemicals "the building blocks of life", giving people the false impression that you just stack the building blocks together and you get life. No one has ever done that, including the famous 1953 Miller/Urey experiment where all they got were clumps of amino acids. Many people mistakenly think scientists have made life from chemicals in the lab, but they have not (though many have tried very hard). If one were to succeed, you would know about it. He would get every science award there is, be all over the news, and have movies, books, buildings, statues, and schools dedicated to him, so desperate are evolutionists on this matter. For something to be a law of science, it can never be found to have been violated, even once, over thousands of trials. No exceptions. A theory that violates two laws of science is in big trouble.

When confronted with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, evolutionists usually use two tricks to try to escape. The first is to state that "it only applies to closed systems, and biological creatures are open systems, so it doesn't affect evolution" (they actually intend to say isolated, not closed, but we know what they mean). The fact is that the Second Law applies to all systems, open or closed, and to all actions and chemical reactions, from molecules to galaxies. The words "except for..." are not in this universal law. A thermodynamics system is simply any part of the universe we want to study. If we are doing an experiment in a bottle, the inside of the bottle is our system and the bottle itself is the "walls" of the system. There are only 3 kinds of systems: if no energy or matter can pass through the walls, it is an isolated system; if energy can pass through but matter cannot, it is a closed system; if both energy and matter can pass through the walls, it is an open system. Now, it is true that the laws of thermodynamics and entropy are defined in terms of isolated systems, because that is the simplest way to express them. However, experts who write textbooks on the subject are quick to say that isolated systems do not occur in nature. For practical applications, a procedure called the Legendre Transform mathematically converts entropy to a variable called Gibbs free energy that is useful for working with real-world systems. Most natural systems are open, but it is convenient to model them as closed. For example, even though a bacterium is an open system, modeling it as a closed system makes it easier to understand chemical reactions in it.2,7 You are an open system. You eat food (which comes from outside yourself) and your body survives and grows. Evolutionists believe that all we need is an open system with sufficient energy flowing into it for evolution to succeed. If that were so, you could just stand right behind a jet engine as the aircraft prepares for takeoff, absorb that blast of energy, and evolve to a higher life form. In reality, of course, you would be incinerated because absorbing energy without a mechanism to convert it to a useful form and employ it is destructive or useless. The mechanism must be very specific. Sticking food in your ear will not work; it must go into your mouth and through the digestive system. And the mechanism must be in place and functioning first, before energy is added, or the energy is wasted. The "closed system" ploy is just an attempt to avoid dealing with the Second Law because the Law prohibits any functioning biological mechanism from falling together by pure chance, without assistance or plan, using only the properties of matter.

The second trick they use is to say that "when you freeze water, the disordered molecules become beautifully ordered ice crystals or snowflakes. If water can bypass the Second Law and organize its molecules by a natural process, why not the chemicals of life?" At room temperature, water molecules are bouncing off each other and you have water. When you take away heat and they freeze, water molecules stick to each other with weak molecular bonds, forming ice crystals and snowflakes because of the shape of the H2O molecule. The same thing happens if you put a bunch of weak magnets in a jar and shake it. The magnets bounce around. When you stop, the magnets stick together. They are at a lower energy level. There is order, yet no complexity - just a simple repetitive structure that does not do anything. The Second Law is not bypassed or violated. But guess what. Amino acid molecules that form proteins, and nucleotide molecules that form DNA and RNA resist combining at any temperature. To combine, they need the help of mechanisms in a living cell or a biochemist in an organic chemistry laboratory.16 It means that nothing happens in the primeval soup, the pond of chemicals where evolutionists believe life began. DNA and RNA dissolve in water33, so there could not even be water in the primeval soup. DNA is made of only right-handed versions of nucleotides, while proteins are made of only left-handed versions of amino acids. Yet any random chemical reaction that produced nucleotides or amino acids would make an equal mix of left and right-handed versions of each. Even if the thousands of nucleotides or amino acids needed to form individual DNA or protein molecules were able to combine from this mix, they would be a jumble of left and right-handed versions that could not function at all. Ilya Prigogene coauthored a paper in 1972 that says in an open "system there exists a possibility for formation of ordered, low-entropy structures at sufficiently low temperatures. This ordering principle is responsible for the appearance of ordered structures such as crystals... Unfortunately this principle cannot explain the formation of biological structures."27 Prigogene won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1977 for research on dissipative structures, such as tornados, for contributions to nonequilibrium thermodynamics, and for bridging the gap between biology and other sciences. Evolutionists wrongly claim he won for showing how thermodynamics could explain the formation of organized systems, from fluctuations in chaos, that lead to the origin of life. They thought he was their hero. Over thirty years later, nothing has come of it. There is no escape from the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It prohibits the spontaneous origin of life and the progression from microbes to man.
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Next

Return to Ancient Mysteries and Places / Forbidden Archaeology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron