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.

Re: Macro Evolution Debunked - No Transitional Fossils?

Postby NinjaPuppy » 27 Aug 2012, 01:10

RichardT wrote:
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.

We're glad to have you around. Yeah, well.....since these topics seem to fall short of evidence that will stand up to most skeptics, please feel free to give us your take every once in a while and let us know your POV.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44






Re: Macro Evolution Debunked - No Transitional Fossils?

Postby RichardT » 27 Aug 2012, 09:38

NinjaPuppy wrote:
RichardT wrote:
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.

We're glad to have you around. Yeah, well.....since these topics seem to fall short of evidence that will stand up to most skeptics, please feel free to give us your take every once in a while and let us know your POV.


For one, I think that there is an abundance of evidence for extraterrestrial visitations to earth. It's an unpopular view but that doesn't matter to me. I'm here to know more about the real universe we live in, not the one imagined by skeptics who haven't had access, or have thought enough, about all sets of data and information available.
User avatar
RichardT
 
Posts: 9
Joined: 26 Aug 2012, 05:08

Re: Macro Evolution Debunked - No Transitional Fossils?

Postby NinjaPuppy » 27 Aug 2012, 20:20

RichardT wrote:For one, I think that there is an abundance of evidence for extraterrestrial visitations to earth. It's an unpopular view but that doesn't matter to me. I'm here to know more about the real universe we live in, not the one imagined by skeptics who haven't had access, or have thought enough, about all sets of data and information available.

I'll certainly state that I believe in UFOs constantly "checking us out" but more along the line of drones or unmanned crafts like our own Mars Rover. As for actual alien life forms coming and going in those crafts, I tend to think that "they" have been established here for a long, long time. Exactly where they are from, why they're hanging out here or "who" they are can be a topic that can have as many different guesses as there are people willing to discuss it.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Macro Evolution Debunked - No Transitional Fossils

Postby Scepcop » 06 Nov 2012, 23:50

The brain size of the skulls of fossils that would be evidence for Darwinism, are serenely placeable in human taxon human or in ape taxon.

We do not have before us a gradual evolution, we are just dealing with some extinct human races and apes extinct.

"Man is not descended from monkeys, Man is descended from Man"
(Giuseppe Sermonti)

Image
“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 » 07 Nov 2012, 00:41

What is this chart supposed to help us conclude?
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Macro Evolution Debunked - No Transitional Fossils

Postby really? » 07 Nov 2012, 11:28

Isn't it obvious ?
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: Macro Evolution Debunked - No Transitional Fossils

Postby Twain Shakespeare » 07 Nov 2012, 17:35

Scepcop wrote:The brain size of the skulls of fossils that would be evidence for Darwinism, are serenely placeable in human taxon human or in ape taxon.

We do not have before us a gradual evolution, we are just dealing with some extinct human races and apes extinct.

"Man is not descended from monkeys, Man is descended from Man"
(Giuseppe Sermonti)

Image


At its simplest, the chart implies that habilines are not hominids, but were still anthropoids, AND that there was what Stephn Jay Gould called a punctuation of the equilibrium, which tend NOT to make it into the fossil record. I see that as the valid minimalist meaning of the evidence, Anything more is speculation, anything less a superstitious attachment to false catagories. Thankx, really, that made the dividing line VERY distinct!

Like the quote. Love the ambiguities of evidence. Even a punctuted equilibrium deserves no more than theoretical status.

I haven't looked at the whole thread. Don't recall other evidence discussed
"What's so Funny about Peace, Love, and Understanding?"
User avatar
Twain Shakespeare
 
Posts: 375
Joined: 20 Jul 2010, 05:19
Location: El Paso Del Norte on the sunny Jornada del Muerta

Re: Macro Evolution Debunked - No Transitional Fossils

Postby SydneyPSIder » 09 Nov 2012, 21:24

???

What about the montmorillonite theory of the formation of RNA? 2nd law of thermo doesn't really come into it when entropy can be reversed with energy (provided by the sun, say) in an endothermic chemical reaction, i.e more complex structures can arise from less complex ones. In other words, chemical reactions can overcome the so-called second 'law' of thermo. otherwise by that logic we could not make anything, not an iPhone, nothing, because the 2nd law of thermo would always trump every other force of physics and chemistry on every attempt -- and we would not be here either to contemplate an iPhone -- every planet would just be a random chaotic swirling wasteland. Then there is the possible role of montmorillonite, a kind of clay, in allowing these RNA ladders to form, and also explains the lipid envelope we observe around cells. A handy fluke -- for us. In other words, simple 'crystalline' structures as described incredulously in one of the ID articles above in fact provided the framework for life.

How did life begin?
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/ ... m=storyrhs

Life must have started in the simplest possible way, as a cycle, a natural chemical reaction that repeated itself, spinning off byproducts, and some stayed around to maintain and develop the cycle. Wachtershauser theorises it is likely the cycle started in some mineral surface such as iron pyrites, or fool's gold, that is known to be a good catalyst.

Natural chemicals such as carbon monoxide could have been combined into biological building blocks. At some stage, the cycle acquired a cover of protective chemicals, to separate its own reactions from the general milieu. When the cover eventually enveloped the cycle and broke free of the mineral surface, the first cell was born.

Important components of today's biochemistry can be formed on iron pyrite surfaces, notably pyruvate, the fuel for a basic energy-producing reaction known as the citric acid cycle A different entry point to the origin of life involves RNA, the close chemical cousin of DNA, which performs all of the trickiest operations in the cell, whether retrieving information from the DNA or turning this information into proteins.

Biologists have long supposed that RNA was the pivotal actor in the earliest cells and later delegated most of its information-storage duties to DNA, a less versatile but stabler chemical.

Origin-of-life chemists think that before DNA there was an RNA world in which RNA, or some similar precursor polymer, ran the show. It is not easy to see how RNA came into existence, but a clay called montmorillonite, formed from weathered volcanic ash and familiar in many households as cat litter, has the interesting property of catalysing the formation of RNA from its subunits.

Science magazine last month, reported that the researchers of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that the montmorillonite clay had another property of possible relevance to the origin of life. It makes droplets of fat molecules rearrange themselves into small bubbles, similar to the membranes that make up the walls of living cells.

Often the clay particles are incorporated into the bubbles, the MIT team found, along with any attached RNA molecules. Mineral particles may have greatly facilitated the emergence of the first cells, they said.

In a second experiment, the researchers found they could make their protocells divide by forcing them through fine holes in a filter. A natural counterpart to this process, they suggest, would be water currents forcing bubbles through rock pores.


+

Montmorillonite-catalysed formation of RNA oligomers: the possible role of catalysis in the origins of life
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/ ... /1777.full

Clay's matchmaking could have sparked life
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4307
Last edited by SydneyPSIder on 11 Nov 2012, 09:42, edited 2 times in total.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Macro Evolution Debunked - No Transitional Fossils

Postby SydneyPSIder » 09 Nov 2012, 21:48

Surely every fossil and every organism alive is a transitional life form to something else. Although fossil records are often patchy due to the nature of fossilisation itself -- e.g. the period of 5-15MYA in the African jungles that might show the evolution of homo sapiens from a common gorilla- or chimp-like ancestor is particularly bad for fossils -- things just don't fossilise much in jungle environments, dead animals are quickly eaten by scavengers, the soil isn't right, fossil-forming sedimentary events just haven't happened, etc.

Anyhow, there are examples in the fossil record of little proto-Tyrannosaurus rex predator species many millions of years later becoming the much larger Tyrannosaurus rex -- the animals grew larger and evolved into new species.

Further, there is now evidence that genes can re-program themselves and adapt in the living animal as circumstances change, and then pass on these changes to their descendants -- that species are far more adaptable than the 'random mutations' and 'accidents' suggested in early Darwinian theory. This is actually closer to Lamarck's theories of continual and dynamic adaption that were discredited, but now have new currency (epigenetics). Further, some of Mendeleev's results concerning his theory of genetic transmission were falsified to create a better fit of the data to his theory, meaning that biology textbooks contain errors of fact -- genetic transmission is far more complex than originally postulated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics
Last edited by SydneyPSIder on 10 Nov 2012, 10:29, edited 1 time in total.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Macro Evolution Debunked - No Transitional Fossils

Postby SydneyPSIder » 10 Nov 2012, 09:58

I don't know if this has any bearing on the argument at all, but it's pretty freaky:

Cat got your tongue, or is it Cymothoa exigua?

Cymothoa exigua, or the tongue-eating louse, is a parasitic crustacean of the family Cymothoidae. This parasite enters fish through the gills, and then attaches itself at the base of the fish's tongue.

Parasites often alter their host's behaviour or appearance, but Cymothoa exigua goes one further - it is the only parasite known to replace an entire organ. Its unfortunate host is typically the rose spotted snapper, which it enters through the gills and lodges itself at the back of the mouth. It hooks its claws at the base of the tongue and interrupts the blood flow, consuming the blood instead. Due to the lack of blood the tongue atrophies and falls off, where the isopod parasite attaches itself to the remaining stub. It then "becomes" a functional tongue for the fish, able to be moved as the fish would have moved its original tongue.

Like most cymothoid isopods, C. exigua is a hermaphrodite. In one study females were only found in the mouth, whereas males could be found in the gills and the mouth (and in the mouth they were clinging to females, suggesting copulation). A small proportion of extremely unlucky fish were found with females as the tongue and males simultaneously occupying the gills. Despite the "organ-replacement" part, it doesn't appear C. exigua has other adverse effects on the fish.

In case you were wondering (and we're sure it crossed your mind at some point), C. exigua does not affect humans. That said, don't pick one up - they deliver quite a nip.

Photo credit: Dr. Nico Smit.

http://arthropoda.southernfriedscience. ... g=cymothoa

http://rcmarinas.ens.uabc.mx/index.php/ ... ew/885/807

Image


On a side note, note the freaky human teeth on the fish also....
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Macro Evolution Debunked - No Transitional Fossils

Postby SydneyPSIder » 11 Nov 2012, 10:54

The ID discussion reminds me of the theme of John Updike's novel 'Roger's Version':

In 1986 he published the unconventional novel Roger's Version, the second volume of the so-called Scarlet Letter trilogy, about an attempt to prove God's existence using a computer program. Author and critic Martin Amis called it a "near-masterpiece."[24]

I'm reminded of the scene at a party of academics where the young protagonist's thesis is adroitly dismantled by a brilliant academic in physics.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Macro Evolution Debunked - No Transitional Fossils

Postby bouke285 » 06 Jul 2014, 08:41

It's funny to watch you guys build each other up to bully any creationist out of the room. I have spent a lot of time reading through this thread. The smoke and mirrors you guys use is intolerable. You have convinced yourself that your "science" is fact despite the EXTREME lack of ANY real evidence to support you. Seriously. The lizard moving from eggs to live birth? Seriously...There is more evidence that lizards had the ability for both types of reproduction and lost one. This in no way supports your "evolution in action" It shows a sub group of a single species which doesn't change methods of reproduction, but produces differently than another sub group of a similar species.

RichardT wrote: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.


Macro evolution has never been observed. This is fact. Speciation has never been observed, fact. Transitional fossils offer little to no solid grounds from which to post your arguments. Your community survives by their use of trickery, and there persuading those not informed.

Nostradamus wrote: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.


The match between the Bible's narrative of the Exodus and the secular history of Egypt at the end of the Old Kingdom might possibly be brushed aside as coincidence were it not for the fact that this match happens at the right date according to modern Biblical chronology.

Dr. Aardsma's chronology places the Exodus 2447+/-12 B.C. The current "standard" chronology of Egypt places the end of the Old Kingdom---when the evidence discussed above says the Exodus happened---around 2200 B.C. The difference of 247 years between these two dates is close enough for such ancient times to regard the dates as the same. Uncertainties of a few hundred years in historical/archaeological chronologies are normal at such early times in the history of civilization. Nicholas Grimal notes that "The chronological span of the First Intermediate Period [which must be known to date events in the Old Kingdom accurately] is also a problem." Haas et al. have suggested, based on an extensive suite of radiocarbon dates (totally independent of Dr. Aardsma's work), that the First Intermediate Period should be lengthened by about 260 years. This would push the secular date for the end of the Old Kingdom back to around 2460 B.C., indistinguishable from Dr. Aardsma's Biblical date of 2447+/-12 B.C. for the Exodus. Pottery analysis in the Sinai Peninsula by E. D. Oren and Y. Yekuteli is also supportive of this adjustment.

Thus the qualitative match between the Bible's narrative of the Exodus and the secular history of Egypt at the end of the Old Kingdom is supported by quantitative chronology.

Conclusion

Evidence for the Exodus from Egypt is plentiful---as long as one has their Biblical chronology right, and thus knows to examine Egypt's history around 2450 B.C., rather than around the traditional 1450 B.C. (http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/ans ... _egypt.php)


You have some work of your own to do, but I know how hard it is for this crowd to use the Bible for its historic value. Archaeology is a very fallible form of evidence.

Many critics who doubt the historicity of the Exodus share a problem: over-reliance on what archaeology can prove. Archaeology is, in fact, a limited and imperfect area of study in which the interpretation of findings, as archaeologists readily admit, is more of an art than a hard science.

Archaeologist Edwin Yamauchi points out the limits of this science when he explains:

(1) little of what was made or written in antiquity survives to this day;

(2) few of the ancient sites have been surveyed and a number have not even been found;

(3) probably fewer than 2 percent of the known sites have been meaningfully excavated;

(4) few of these have been more than scratched; and

(5) only a fraction of the fraction that have been excavated have been published and data made available to the scholarly world (1972: chapter 4).

Considering not only the limits but also the positive side of archaeology, it is remarkable how many Biblical accounts have been illuminated and confirmed by the relatively small number of sites excavated and finds uncovered to date. Even though, regrettably, some professionals go out of their way to present a distorted picture of what archaeology does reveal, it does provide some of the strongest evidence for the reliability of the Bible as credible and accurate history.

Evidence Destroyed

A major challenge in reconstructing an accurate view of history is that, through the ages, most negative or embarrassing evidence was never written down or was intentionally destroyed by later rulers. In fact, the Bible stands in marked contrast to most ancient literature in that it objectively records the facts about Biblical personalities, whether good or bad.

When new kings ascended the throne, they naturally wanted to be seen in the best light. So in many nations they covered up or destroyed monuments and records of previous monarchs. This pattern of expunging earlier historical evidence can be repeatedly seen in Egyptian monuments and historical records. For example, after the Hyksos rulers were expelled from Egypt, the Egyptians erased the records of that humiliating period so thoroughly that some of the names and the order of the Hyksos kings remain uncertain.

Some time later Pharaoh Thutmosis III destroyed virtually all records relating to Queen Hatshepsut, the previous ruler, whom he despised. Visitors to her famous temple can still see where Thutmosis’s workmen carefully chiseled away her image from the walls of the structure. A few decades afterwards, the ruling priests eliminated virtually all possible traces of the teachings of Pharaoh Akhenaten, who had introduced what they considered to be heretical Egyptian religious reforms. (http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/20 ... px#Article)
User avatar
bouke285
 
Posts: 1
Joined: 06 Jul 2014, 08:16

Re: Macro Evolution Debunked - No Transitional Fossils

Postby SydneyPSIder » 11 Jul 2014, 16:36

bouke285 wrote:It's funny to watch you guys build each other up to bully any creationist out of the room. I have spent a lot of time reading through this thread. The smoke and mirrors you guys use is intolerable. You have convinced yourself that your "science" is fact despite the EXTREME lack of ANY real evidence to support you. Seriously. The lizard moving from eggs to live birth? Seriously...There is more evidence that lizards had the ability for both types of reproduction and lost one. This in no way supports your "evolution in action" It shows a sub group of a single species which doesn't change methods of reproduction, but produces differently than another sub group of a similar species.

Macro evolution has never been observed. This is fact. Speciation has never been observed, fact. Transitional fossils offer little to no solid grounds from which to post your arguments. Your community survives by their use of trickery, and there persuading those not informed.

Considering not only the limits but also the positive side of archaeology, it is remarkable how many Biblical accounts have been illuminated and confirmed by the relatively small number of sites excavated and finds uncovered to date. Even though, regrettably, some professionals go out of their way to present a distorted picture of what archaeology does reveal, it does provide some of the strongest evidence for the reliability of the Bible as credible and accurate history.


haha, something is certainly very funny. there are massive interconnections between species suggesting their evolutionary paths, summed up in the saying: "ontogeny follows phylogeny", e.g. the stages that a human embryo goes through in development mimic exactly the appearance of different forms of life as they evolved into higher orders over many millions of years -- first the embryo resembles a fish with gills, then an amphibian, then a reptile and finally mammalian. Paleontology of course has shown us the great ages of differing life forms appearing as they have been inferred from carbon dating and other dating methods: plant life in the sea, then the first forms of motile life in the sea, then the age of fish, then the walking tetrapod animals following the plants onto dry land as a food supply, which went through stages of amphibian development, followed by the age of reptiles, followed by dinosaurs, birds and then mammals -- these are the 5 main phyla of vertebrates of course. Then there's the Tiktaalik fossil showing a creature with a mixture of gills and air breathing lungs, with 4 legs but no hands or feet, but the bones corresponding to these in place, and a neck (which fish don't have) for looking for prey in shallow water, and the ability therefore to hop from pond to pond over land breathing air for short periods, etc etc. A true transitional fossil, but no doubt completely content with itself as a finished product and a handsome specimen too.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... vograms_04

Image
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Macro Evolution Debunked - No Transitional Fossils

Postby Emily » 08 Aug 2014, 15:47

The lizard moving from eggs to live birth? Seriously...There is more evidence that lizards had the ability for both types of reproduction and lost one. This in no way supports your "evolution in action" It shows a sub group of a single species which doesn't change methods of reproduction, but produces differently than another sub group of a similar species.


I think we need to make a distinction here. The site (and FAR too many others) use trickery and flashy, eye grabbing titles for to increase viewership and profits. The real science isn’t in anyway related to what the article is saying. The actual article concerned the increased retention of eggs in the womb, and the possible consequences that this could have on the egg shells. That’s it. The skink isn’t moving from eggs to live birth. Scientists NEVER CLAIMED they were, just these stupid “news” (pseudo)scientific sites. Sorry, these popular “science” sites drive me crazy because they are ALWAYS wrong about the science.

At any rate, the blame should go to where it is deserved. The stupid writers for these “science” sources, not the actual scientists. The full article can be found here: http://www.researchgate.net/publication ... ae_Saiphos) , and the doi is DOI: 10.1002/jmor.10877 incase you would prefer looking at it somewhere else.

Macro evolution has never been observed. This is fact. Speciation has never been observed, fact. Transitional fossils offer little to no solid grounds from which to post your arguments. Your community survives by their use of trickery, and there persuading those not informed.


Macro evolution has been/is currently being observed, though within human lifetime it is mostly in plants, insects, and microbials due to either simpler genetic codes, faster rates of reproduction, or a combination of the two. Most people don't know about these examples because I think most of us would agree that talking about different types of mosquitoes isn't very exciting. Speaking of which! :)

An example of this is the Culex Pipiens Molestus (a type of mosquito originating from the common Culex pipiens pipiens species). They have different genetics as well as different breeding preferences and needs. Though they are technically a subspecies now (the two populations have only been separated for approximately 100 years or so), scientists continue to monitor them for additional genetic divergences (which is indeed being seen.)
Emily
 
Posts: 22
Joined: 18 Jun 2014, 06:46

Re: Macro Evolution Debunked - No Transitional Fossils

Postby SydneyPSIder » 09 Aug 2014, 11:18

You know, it would have been 'handier' if we had evolved with 6 fingers and toes on each limb, as we would then most likely have a base 12 numbering system -- base 12 is mathematically superior to base 10 as 12 is divisible by all of 2, 3 and 4, all common ratios used for dividing things up, whereas 10 really only has 2 and 5. Ah, such is life.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Previous

Return to Ancient Mysteries and Places / Forbidden Archaeology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest