Sponsors: Expat Living Forum


View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Mobile Version          Join Mailing List


Macro Evolution Debunked - No Transitional Fossils

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

Re: Macro Evolution Debunked - No Transitional Fossils?

Postby ProfWag » December 10th, 2010, 3:21 am

Share |

Arouet wrote: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.

Great stuff Arouet! Thanks for taking the time to do some honest investigating.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3787
Joined: August 4th, 2009, 12:54 pm






Re: Macro Evolution Debunked - No Transitional Fossils?

Postby ProfWag » December 10th, 2010, 3:35 am

Scepcop wrote: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.

Uhhhhhhh, actually it doesn't go against Evolution Scepcop. Dr. Reznick simply expands upon Darwin's theory providing further information on the natural process of evolution. Google his name and read some of the information he has found. Although evolution is not one of my interests, his work with guppies is quite interesting.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3787
Joined: August 4th, 2009, 12:54 pm

Re: Macro Evolution Debunked - No Transitional Fossils?

Postby caniswalensis » December 10th, 2010, 8:50 am

The Theory of Evolution does not violate the 2nd Law of thermodynamics.

Here is plenty of good reading on the subject: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/entropy.html
"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: 209
Joined: June 1st, 2010, 12:41 pm

Re: Macro Evolution Debunked - No Transitional Fossils?

Postby Craig Browning » December 10th, 2010, 11:51 am

:shock: I Didn't Know We Were in Church?! :shock:

By that statement I'm saying this, "Scepcop, why are you so hell-bent is pushing the (not so)Intelligent Design issue?" idea… what you’re arguing and defending, is one of their main points when it comes to creating doubt in the minds of the less-educated and biblically gullible…

… and no, I do not believe for a second that “all” Christians are ignorant. Yet, the vast majority of them (especially in the U.S.) are “stupid”! Ignorance can be changed via study & schooling; Stupidity on the other hand, is voluntarily created by those that are too damned lazy or arrogant to actually LEARN. But back to the topic…

The issues you are bringing up first get tabled in Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_Pandas_and_People) by Percival Davis and Dean H. Kenyon and have been challenged (and proven impotent) time and again, the most public side of which involved the famed Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District) and the related documentary Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial (see the documentary here http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/judgment-day-intelligent-design-on-trial/) So, given the amount of actual INTELLIGENT debate and the mountains of actual FACTS presented by the scientific community http://ncse.com/creationism/general/intelligent-design-not-accepted-by-most-scientists vs. faith-bases conjecture, why in the hell is this being made an issue?

Am I missing something?

Sorry, but I’m just seeing the same old rhetoric tied to this chestnut and for anyone that’s halfway studied, especially in the higher education arenas, to start playing pitchman for the religious right… let’s just say that it makes me real nervous. Hell, I believe that some kind of “Higher Consciousness” exists in the Universe, but I do not believe for one second that IT literally created “ALL” let alone the delusion that everything just sprang up from nowhere here or on any other life-bearing body (as we are seeing, some moons and potentially, asteroids have life-giving potential… including micro-fossils (collected by our landers on Mars and elsewhere I believe… can’t recall the details but do remember seeing something on Science Channel about it) denoting previous life-existence)

Yes, it is quite possible that, as Darwin has had the words spoken for him, “God merely used natural process” in order to populate the planet – POSSIBLE, but not likely… at least, not in the Genesis sense of things (which, by the way, isn’t where the original “Creation Tale” of the Hebrew came from (try the Indus Valley and accounts that pre-date the biblical tales by over 1,000 years) and too, Genesis has TWO different creation myths, not just one… something the bible-thumpers try to obfuscate or explain away, but…)

I’m not vested in all the analytical elements around this argument, I simply cannot and have never been able to digest and embrace the fantastic idea that everything “just happened”, even when I was a kid and being taught what I was “supposed” to believe… it was just one side of the bible game that wasn’t digestible…one of many. So I must ask again, why has this been brought up as an issue Scepcop? Unless you’re being sucked into some kind of religious nut club, why are you buying this? I simply can’t believe you are that gullible.
User avatar
Craig Browning
 
Posts: 1528
Joined: February 12th, 2010, 2:20 pm
Location: Northampton, MA

Re: Macro Evolution Debunked - No Transitional Fossils?

Postby ProfWag » December 10th, 2010, 1:45 pm

I have come to the conclusion that Scepcop wants to disagree with anything and everything that a skeptic or the majority believe. I really do think it's just become a conditioned response to disagree with the majority no matter what the topic.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3787
Joined: August 4th, 2009, 12:54 pm

Re: Macro Evolution Debunked - No Transitional Fossils?

Postby Arouet » December 10th, 2010, 2:27 pm

It's called Scepcop's Connundrum: The truth value of a proposition is inversely proportional to the number of people who believe it.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2545
Joined: August 6th, 2010, 12:07 pm

Re: Macro Evolution Debunked - No Transitional Fossils?

Postby Andy9000 » September 8th, 2011, 9:19 pm

If I understand correctly, creationists believe all life was created at the same time (correct me if I'm wrong). Why then have we found fossils dating hundreds of millions of years old, but the oldest found fossils of modern humans have only been dated to be about 195,000 years old? If we were created all at the same time, then we should find human fossils dating hundreds of millions of years, and also dinosaur fossils dating only hundreds of thousands.

The funniest thing about creationism is that it never explains where the creator came from. Was the creator created too? Where did the creator who created the creator come from? At some point, life/intelligence MUST have popped into existence by natural means. Evolutionists believe a very simple life form suddenly popped into existence by some rare naturally occurring phenomenon, and creationists believe a complex all knowing creator suddenly popped into existence by some magic phenomenon. I say, there had to be nothing before something, and going from nothing to a simple life form is more likely than going from nothing to complex all knowing intelligence.
User avatar
Andy9000
 
Posts: 3
Joined: September 8th, 2011, 8:26 pm

Re: Macro Evolution Debunked - No Transitional Fossils?

Postby Craig Browning » September 9th, 2011, 10:04 am

Here's part of your answer. . . fundamentalist don't believe in radio-carbon dating unless it supports the details they want people to buy into and of course, the idea that the world is less than 10,000 years in age. For them "science" is only "good science" when it toes the churchianity extremes rather than challenging it. But here is where you can find them "shifting" their views. . .

There's a Nat Geo (I think it was) program about the Plagues of Egypt rendered by god via Moses, Aaron and the magic staff.

Even when these calamities hit Egypt there were known reports of a massive volcanic eruption that caused the Nile to turn red, etc. It was likewise known that certain areas where the sea stood had sand-bars that became passable during key times of the year because of how the wind moved in that area. . . there are a few other things that were KNOWN in those days, especially to a Prince of Egypt who had access to the Temple and was taught by the Priests . . . one theory suggesting it would have been priests sympathetic to Aknauton, the king that first suggested that only one God existed.

Anywho. . . for most of the past 2,500+ years Jews & Christians have defended the miraculous and discounted these known factors. Today however, they are embracing the "scientific" perspectives as being proof to the Exodus tale even though certain elements tied to that tale do not host a chronology that fits; anything associated with a Hebrew revolution and departure that coincides with these NATURAL calamities.

The more fundamental side of religion embraces science when it benefits them and aids them in recruiting young people that have enough insight to question certain things such as the Exodus tale. As a rule however, the "church" has always loathed science, seen it as evil because it seemed to contradict the teachings. In truth, it only contradicts the dogma that man has attached to the idea -- the wisdom & philosophic concepts that promote humanitarianism, mutual respect, responsibility for one another and the planet, etc. etc. etc.
User avatar
Craig Browning
 
Posts: 1528
Joined: February 12th, 2010, 2:20 pm
Location: Northampton, MA

Re: Macro Evolution Debunked - No Transitional Fossils?

Postby Nostradamus » November 1st, 2011, 6:16 pm

Stephen Myer is a bible thumping ID advocate. He is a fraud in that he pretends not to be a creationist by saying ID. The same goes for the other fraud Jonathan Wells. Both of these frauds were implicated in the Dover decision in which these charlatans replaced creationism with ID and then pretended that they did not.

It is an outrageous lie to claim that either of these frauds are anything other than bible thumping creationists. If these posers were truthful they would not have altered their own literature in a fraudulent attempt to pretend that ID is not creationism.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: August 7th, 2009, 11:08 pm

Re: Macro Evolution Debunked - No Transitional Fossils?

Postby Nostradamus » November 1st, 2011, 6:22 pm

A big problem for creationists is the fact that genesis was 2 different creation myths. How do we know? The 2 tales have different sequences of creation. Neither of the sequences matches the fossil record. Two guesses and 2 wrong answers.

The first person to openly question fossils as being due to the biblical flood was DaVinci. He wrote an elegant analysis that shows that the fossils are from creatures that lived at the location of the fossil find and were not swept there by a flood. He also argued against the other hypothesis of his time that the fossils were tricks of the devil.

I have no idea why creationists argue as they do. They have bigger fish to fry. There is absolutely no evidence for exodus. There is no record or archaeological evidence for any of the events.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: August 7th, 2009, 11:08 pm

Re: Macro Evolution Debunked - No Transitional Fossils?

Postby Nostradamus » November 3rd, 2011, 5:27 am

There are lots of transitional fossils. One of the best sequences known is the transition from reptile to mammal. In fact, the problem is that it is hard to determine if some fossils are reptile or mammal since there is a such a well established transition from one to the other.

Where creationists often point is human evolution. Here is a set of species that were not numerous and yet quite a few specimens are found. More numerous fossils such as brachiopods and ammonites are known with great detail since they were common and many, many specimens have been found and their relationships mapped.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: August 7th, 2009, 11:08 pm

Re: Macro Evolution Debunked - No Transitional Fossils?

Postby Craig Browning » November 4th, 2011, 6:21 am

You left out the other more anthropological reason why Genesis is wrong. . .

In a cave found in the Indus Valley the exact same creation tales can be seen illustrated but crediting Shiva (I believe it was) as the Hermaphroditic deity that brought about creation. According to biblical scholars this known and popular version of the creation tale was adopted by the Essene scribes that were commissioned by the Alexandrian government & library to write the Hebrew story as a contribution to the famed library. It is this version of the Talmud that we rely on today in that the original copies penned by Abraham, Moses, Joshua, etc. no longer existed and hadn't for hundreds of years due to Hebrew enslavement in Babylon and later groups.

As the more analytical perspective suggests, these scribes didn't want to reveal the more esoteric secrets of the Jewish people so they hid said information (supposedly the essence of the Kabalah & Sefer Yetzerah) within these common myths and the symbols set within them.

In other words, most of the Creation tale found in Genesis comes from a completely different time and place that predates the existence of the Hibru people by some 1,500 years. Similarly, the book is rife with tales from Babylon and other societies such as the great flood and ark which predates the Hibru by centuries as does much of Exodus and Leviticus which are a combination of Babylonian and Egyptian tradition. Psalms and Proverbs interestingly, mirror the accolades and pros credited the radical king Aknauton and his praise of the Aten (the ONE God).

There's so much historically, the contrasts grossly when it comes to the "truth" and chronology of the Old Testament.
User avatar
Craig Browning
 
Posts: 1528
Joined: February 12th, 2010, 2:20 pm
Location: Northampton, MA

Re: Macro Evolution Debunked - No Transitional Fossils?

Postby RichardT » August 25th, 2012, 2:11 pm

I found the "Debunking PseudoSkeptical Arguments of Paranormal Debunkers" book interesting, until I realized that there was a section on evolution and how "marco" evolution had been supposedly never observed. That section is complete garbage / bullshit and I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one who has that view. When it is claimed that speciation has never been observed for example, that statement is wrong anyway you look at it.
User avatar
RichardT
 
Posts: 8
Joined: August 25th, 2012, 2:08 pm

Re: Macro Evolution Debunked - No Transitional Fossils?

Postby NinjaPuppy » August 25th, 2012, 4:21 pm

RichardT - Welcome!
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 3933
Joined: July 28th, 2009, 5:44 am

Re: Macro Evolution Debunked - No Transitional Fossils?

Postby RichardT » August 26th, 2012, 4:47 am

NinjaPuppy wrote:RichardT - Welcome!


Thanks. I'll be lurking around this forum. I'm deeply interested in alternative views on a plethora of issues as long as evidence can be presented and supported.
User avatar
RichardT
 
Posts: 8
Joined: August 25th, 2012, 2:08 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Ancient Mysteries and Places / Forbidden Archaeology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron