135 replies to this topic

[timwakefield]

Posted this as a response in another thread, but I figured I should move it. We always seem to get onto the topic....let's give it its own thread.





Here are 2 reasons that the fossil record is incomplete, and they are real reasons, arrived at by the scientific method. They are not excuses.

The first is that only a very tiny number of all the animals that ever lived were fossilized. Compared to every individual animal that ever lived, the number fossilized is extraordinarily tiny. More on that later.

The second reason is that most evolutionary theorists now believe that evolution occurs is steps....that there are periods of relative stasis interspersed with periods of relatively quick evolutionary change within a given population.

There are a number of reasons for this, one of which is that individuals of a given population (let's say mice for this example) are sometimes separated from their larger population, due to a storm, family migration, accident, etc. If the migrated population of mice has moved far enough, it will encounter new predators, food sources, environment, etc.

Possibly the new population will eventually die out, if they are not at all suited to their new home. But possibly (if they are plucky enough) the general population will evolve to suit their new environment. This will be a slow process, measured by human standards. It may take say 500,000 years (or 100,000 generations of mice, at a 5-year lifespan) for the new population to evolve into what we would now classify as a new species.

Now, just to push our example to the farthest, lets say something else happens: That any number of members of the new population of mice, 500,000 years later and now existing as a new species, for whatever reason returns to its ancestral stomping grounds, or at least relatively near to it. It is also possible that it never moved that far away, but was separated by a mountain for example.


Anyways, now scientists dig up fossils in that region. They find fossilized remains of 3 entire mice. They date from 14 million years ago, 12 million years ago, and 10 million years ago respectively.

The oldest mouse is 8 cm long. The second oldest mouse is 8.4 cm long. The least old mouse is 13.5 cm long, but is otherwise quite similar.

Now the 10 million year mouse has made a huge evolutionary leap from the 12 million year mouse. This is explained by the fact that the actual evolutionary change occurred over what, to a mouse, is an extraordinarily long time, but what, to a geologist, is an extraordinarily small amount of time. To find a cache of fossils cataloging the evolutionary change that happened during that half a million year period would be an incredible stroke of luck. Animals just aren't fossilized that often.

Charles Darwin, in the Origin of Species, wrote: "Many species once formed never undergo any further change....; and the periods, during which species have undergone modification, though long as measured by years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which they retain the same form."

[Mattnxtc]

The problem I see is that the theory still has so many inconsistancies with it. As darwin said, adaptation is the only way thing survive and adaptation is not evolution...Another problem is that many organism just dont fit with any relevant theory that exists today. Take the rat squirel that was recently found. Was supposed to have been extinct 11 million years ago yet it was found to still exist. According to darwin, the newer higher evolved animal should kill out the lower one. But that isnt the case...

Then again Darwin had this to say about women:

“It is generally admitted that with woman the powers of intuition, of rapid perception and perhaps of imitation, are more strongly marked than in man: but some, at least, of these faculties are characteristic of the lower races, and therefore of a pas”

[timwakefield]

The problem I see is that the theory still has so many inconsistancies with it. As darwin said, adaptation is the only way thing survive and adaptation is not evolution

I don't know what you mean. No...adaptation and evolution are not the same thing. This shows that evolution doesn't occur?

...Another problem is that many organism just dont fit with any relevant theory that exists today.

There is only one "relevant" theory, and it encompasses all of the species that have ever lived on earth. There are discrepancies and debates within the field, just as there are within Christianity, or even within any specific form of Christianity. But there is only one "relevant" theory to be discussed.

Take the rat squirel that was recently found. Was supposed to have been extinct 11 million years ago yet it was found to still exist. According to darwin, the newer higher evolved animal should kill out the lower one. But that isnt the case...

And they have found fish, thought to be extinct far longer than that, which still exist and are very similar to their ancient fossilized ancestors. This relates exactly to my previous post, about the periods of stasis. Populations can exist for hundreds of millions of years (or however long) without undergoing significant change.

And the newer animal does not exactly "kill out the lower one." Often the two types are competing for genetic reproduction, and the newly adapted animals will slowly take over the genetic make-up of the general population. Or, with a migrated population, the old population does not need to evolve. Perhaps it is perfectly suited for its environment. Only the newly migrated population needed to evolve to suit its new home.

Again, in my previous post, I had this quote from Darwin: "Many species once formed never undergo any further change." It is not surprising that we find species that we had thought were extinct. It is also not surprising that there are species living today which are hardly different than their remote ancestors.

Then again Darwin had this to say about women:

“It is generally admitted that with woman the powers of intuition, of rapid perception and perhaps of imitation, are more strongly marked than in man: but some, at least, of these faculties are characteristic of the lower races, and therefore of a pas”

....And our founding fathers were all slaveholders. Does that mean we throw out the Constitution?

[DerekTah]

The problem I see is that the theory still has so many inconsistancies with it. As darwin said, adaptation is the only way thing survive and adaptation is not evolution...Another problem is that many organism just dont fit with any relevant theory that exists today. Take the rat squirel that was recently found. Was supposed to have been extinct 11 million years ago yet it was found to still exist. According to darwin, the newer higher evolved animal should kill out the lower one. But that isnt the case...

Then again Darwin had this to say about women:

“It is generally admitted that with woman the powers of intuition, of rapid perception and perhaps of imitation, are more strongly marked than in man: but some, at least, of these faculties are characteristic of the lower races, and therefore of a pas”

Are you certain thats what Darwin said. I believe its more the higher evolved animal is more likely to surive (take giraffes for example, the ones with the longer necks will survive by reaching food that the lower neck giraffes can't reach, so when food is only obtainable on high trees the lower neck giraffes die out. Not the longer necks giraffes will wack the lower neck ones to death.)

This has to do with "survival of the fittess". In truth it survival for the one who adapts. Many animals have been able to survive despite not necessarily being more fit. For example I would consider the lion more fit then the zebra, but the zebra survives by adapting to the enviorment (granted one zebra gets taken by the lion, but we are talking about the race of zebras not just one or two that die).

I am not familar with this rat-squirl thing you are talking about, but it doesn't really go against darwin (just the scientists that thought it extinct).

[Mattnxtc]

I don't know what you mean. No...adaptation and evolution are not the same thing. This shows that evolution doesn't occur?

nah just wanted to toss in a darwin quote haha

There is only one "relevant" theory, and it encompasses all of the species that have ever lived on earth. There are discrepancies and debates within the field, just as there are within Christianity, or even within any specific form of Christianity. But there is only one "relevant" theory to be discussed.

at the moment but you know it will be changing soon enough

....And our founding fathers were all slaveholders. Does that mean we throw out the Constitution?

the original constitution doesnt mention slavery

[timwakefield]

at the moment but you know it will be changing soon enough

Actually it won't. I don't know why you think that. The earth orbits the sun.....this theory won't change.........and speciation occurs through a process of what is called natural selection.....this won't change.

the original constitution doesnt mention slavery

It does mention that a black man is to be counted as 3/5ths of a white man, for tax purposes or whatever.

Your were making a point that Darwin wasn't enlightened regarding the equality of the races and sexes.....my point is that his racist or sexist notions don't mean we should disregard his scientific ideas.

[Mattnxtc]

Actually it won't. I don't know why you think that. The earth orbits the sun.....this theory won't change.........and speciation occurs through a process of what is called natural selection.....this won't change.
It does mention that a black man is to be counted as 3/5ths of a white man, for tax purposes or whatever.

Your were making a point that Darwin wasn't enlightened regarding the equality of the races and sexes.....my point is that his racist or sexist notions don't mean we should disregard his scientific ideas.

On the first one...that isnt a good comparison. Darwins theory has changed from its original one. we know this and theres no reason to believe it wont change again. I mean we obviously dont have complete knowledge so you should expect that it should change also

As for the second, It was more darwin tryin to show the "gradual evolution" that he preached. That we could watch evolution shift.

Are you certain thats what Darwin said. I believe its more the higher evolved animal is more likely to surive (take giraffes for example, the ones with the longer necks will survive by reaching food that the lower neck giraffes can't reach, so when food is only obtainable on high trees the lower neck giraffes die out. Not the longer necks giraffes will wack the lower neck ones to death.)

This has to do with "survival of the fittess". In truth it survival for the one who adapts. Many animals have been able to survive despite not necessarily being more fit. For example I would consider the lion more fit then the zebra, but the zebra survives by adapting to the enviorment (granted one zebra gets taken by the lion, but we are talking about the race of zebras not just one or two that die).

I am not familar with this rat-squirl thing you are talking about, but it doesn't really go against darwin (just the scientists that thought it extinct).

Yes im certain about the quotes though i dont know which one you were talkin about haha. Both are quotes from darwin himself.

[timwakefield]

On the first one...that isnt a good comparison. Darwins theory has changed from its original one. we know this and theres no reason to believe it wont change again. I mean we obviously dont have complete knowledge so you should expect that it should change also

As for the second, It was more darwin tryin to show the "gradual evolution" that he preached. That we could watch evolution shift.

I agree, we don't have complete knowledge. We also don't have a complete understanding of the nature of light, for example.

Yes Darwin did believe in gradual evolution. But as my earlier quote showed, he also believed in periods of quickening and stasis.


Was Darwin 100% correct about all of his ideas? No. Was Einstein? No. But Darwin WAS right about evolution, as Einstein was right about special relativity.

[herokid7]

All I have to say for anyone who believes in evolution should take a look at www.drdino.com. It's by Dr. Kent Hovind and it's great site that disproves Darwinism and Evolution and such using both biblical and scientific principles.

[crowTrobot]

All I have to say for anyone who believes in evolution should take a look at www.drdino.com. It's by Dr. Kent Hovind and it's great site that disproves Darwinism and Evolution and such using both biblical and scientific principles.

you know, there are some pretty intellectual-sounding creationist sites on the web that at least pretend to reach their conclusions through a scientific approach - this isn't one of them. this one is just designed to influence the ignorant through misinformation that no informed person would take seriously. you should look for better creationist sites if you're gonna post them.

[herokid7]

you know, there are some pretty intellectual-sounding creationist sites on the web that at least pretend to reach their conclusions through a scientific approach - this isn't one of them. this one is just designed to influence the ignorant through misinformation that no informed person would take seriously. you should look for better creationist sites if you're gonna post them.

I just can't believe you could say this if you've ever seen one of Dr.Hovind's seminars. His lectures are so information-filled to me that only the most stubborn atheists out there could not at least say, "This is interesting."

[crowTrobot]

adaptation is not evolution...

adaptation through natural selection is the definition of darwinian evolution.

According to darwin, the newer higher evolved animal should kill out the lower one. But that isnt the case...

no, not if the "newer" species is a branch off the older - which happens when a sub population of a species starts to evolve on a separate path from the main population through genetic isolation. in other words a branch can diverge from the main species without eating it up if it is reproductively isolated from the main branch. on geologic time scales this actually has been shown to have happened a lot, due to extreme environmental change (populations being fragmented due to ice ages, being isolated on islands etc). also it's not necessarily the newer species that survives longer that the older - just depends on which is better able to adapt to environmental change.

[LongLiveYorke]

All I have to say for anyone who believes in evolution should take a look at www.drdino.com. It's by Dr. Kent Hovind and it's great site that disproves Darwinism and Evolution and such using both biblical and scientific principles.

I read some of the articles that describe how, using modern physics, one can show that the universe could have been created only 10,000 years ago. He describes a "white hole" as the mechanism through which the universe was created. Unfortunately (for his theory) a white hole is a physical impossibility (in the real world). But it sure makes him sound smart, right?

[crowTrobot]

I just can't believe you could say this if you've ever seen one of Dr.Hovind's seminars. His lectures are so information-filled to me that only the most stubborn atheists out there could not at least say, "This is interesting."

sorry, i read through this site the first time you posted it and it put me to sleep. again, there are more intelligent arguments for creationism than are presented here. these are at a pretty low level designed to appeal to people who are uninformed about the issues.

[herokid7]

sorry, i read through this site the first time you posted it and it put me to sleep. again, there are more intelligent arguments for creationism than are presented here. these are at a pretty low level designed to appeal to people who are uninformed about the issues.

Yeah, you really don't get the full effect of it by just reading. You should really think about ordering some of his DVDs you might particularly like some of his debate videos.

[crowTrobot]

Yeah, you really don't get the full effect of it by just reading. You should really think about ordering some of his DVDs you might particularly like some of his debate videos.

what do you mean full effect? i would think much more information can be presented on a website or book than in a seminar. if by effect you mean that there's more emotionalism involved in how you view these issues when you see them presented live then you aren't viewing them objectively.

[timwakefield]

Taken from an article on DrDino:

"Noah would have taken young specimens, not huge, older creatures. Dinosaurs would have emerged from the ark to inhabit an entirely different world. Instead of a warm, mild climate worldwide, they would have found a harsh climate which soon settled into an ice age. If climatic hardships did not cause the dinosaur's extinction, man's tendency to destroy probably did."



This is a joke. Dinosaurs and man never lived at the same time. Not even close. At all.

Also from an article titled More Clues That The Earth Is Young:

"The spiral galaxies Should Have long ago unspiraled, and the uneven dispersion of matter in the universe Should Have long ago dispersed."

This is made up. He gives no reason why a spiral galaxy should "unspiral." That's because there isn't one. And regarding his second point.....the galaxies are spread out very evenly.

[herokid7]

what do you mean full effect? i would think much more information can be presented on a website or book than in a seminar. if by effect you mean that there's more emotionalism involved in how you view these issues when you see them presented live then you aren't viewing them objectively.

No, that's not what I mean. Dr. Hovind is a very good speaker. When reading them online it does come of as dry and boring. Dr. Hovind is actually very entertaining when giving his seminars and his debates are just engaging. There's no emotionalism involved. It's kind of like the difference between taking an online college course or actually taking a course on campus. You just get a better sense of what the lesson is.

Taken from an article on DrDino:

"Noah would have taken young specimens, not huge, older creatures. Dinosaurs would have emerged from the ark to inhabit an entirely different world. Instead of a warm, mild climate worldwide, they would have found a harsh climate which soon settled into an ice age. If climatic hardships did not cause the dinosaur's extinction, man's tendency to destroy probably did."
This is a joke. Dinosaurs and man never lived at the same time. Not even close. At all.

Also from an article titled More Clues That The Earth Is Young:

"The spiral galaxies Should Have long ago unspiraled, and the uneven dispersion of matter in the universe Should Have long ago dispersed."

This is made up. He gives no reason why a spiral galaxy should "unspiral." That's because there isn't one. And regarding his second point.....the galaxies are spread out very evenly.

How do you know that dinosaurs and man never lived at the same time? Just because your teacher told you in school? I'm not an expert on this subject by any means. I suggest sending an e-mail to Dr. Hovind. I've sent him a couple and he has answered them. He could answer your question a lot better than I could.

[crowTrobot]

"The spiral galaxies Should Have long ago unspiraled,

actually there sort of is a real issue with this one, although as usual it's one that creationists have seized on and taken completely out of context to fit into their propaganda campaign. the visible (shining) mass of galexies does not appear to be enough for them to hold together (or form in the first place for that matter). of course rather than automatically invoking a creator, the logical assumption is that there is a lot of mass in the universe that isn't shining - possibly black holes that formed when the universe was young, unkown elementary particle(s) that don't interact with photons, or some other form of "dark matter" that can account for the mass discrepency.

[crowTrobot]

No, that's not what I mean. Dr. Hovind is a very good speaker. When reading them online it does come of as dry and boring. Dr. Hovind is actually very entertaining when giving his seminars and his debates are just engaging.

this isn't about entertainment value. the website is boring because he's trying to pawn off anti-intellectual propaganda on the ignorant, not even caring that anyone that happens to know anything at all about the subjects he brings up could easily refute everything he says.

ideas like all known land species including the dinosaurs (which is hundreds of thousands - or millions if you include insects) being able to fit on an ark of any size a human could build should be insulting to your intelligence, not feeding your faith.

How do you know that dinosaurs and man never lived at the same time?

because their fossils without exception are never found in the same strata (not even remotely close), and because multiple corroborating dating methods have accurately placed the last existing dinosaurs at ~65 million years ago and the first proto-humans ~3-5 million, among other reasons.