 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 (nobody)...and 190 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2618562 Today 1 Topics 127845 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
fossils appear in their definite shape... that's what I'm talking about. You need to tell me what you mean by definite versus indefinite shape. You seem to think that if evolution were true, fossils would have an indefinite shape, right? What does that mean? If evolution were true, what would you expect to see in the fossil record that we do not see? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i'm just pointing out that evolution is considered amongst the accademic community to be as true as the spherical earth theory. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
...and it follows that some people feel similar toward skeptics of evolution by natural selection as they do towards skeptics of round earth theory. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
what I mean, and sorry for not being so accurate in my writings, is that when looking for stages of evolution, we only find complete species. All "stages" of gradual evolution are complete species. We find no "in-between" species, eventough they must have existed if the theory of gradual evolution is true. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
the species themselves are inbetween. there are no partial species. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
for example, ancient amphibians are "in-between" species between fish and reptiles. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
really...? hehe. that's in no way similar, since we can only assume when it comes to evolution. We can never know our past. But we can observe how (many) things are at present. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
well that isn't gradual. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
and there are winged fossil species that suggest an evolution of birds from dinosours (sp?)... though some people are certain on this progression, there's still a fair amount of dispute here. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
if you look at the fossil records it's undeniably gradual |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i'm not saying that i equate the two skepticisms, i'm just letting you know how it is amongst those who live and breath the evidence |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
did you know that we have witnessed evolution in many instances? brocolli, cauliflower, brussel sprouts, lettuce, cabbage, some others i can't think of... all "artificually" selected by us humans. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I have no idea what ancient amphibians are. But if the species themselves are the stages, then they do not evolve, which is my point. [but maybe that's not what you meant] They just appear suddenly and at once in their definite shape; that do not thereafter evolve towards better adaption, but become rarer or finally disappear, while quite different forms arise again. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
can you please explain that? I didn't get it. sounds interesting though. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
so how do you explain brocolli? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
plant breeding for specic traits and forms. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
what I mean, and sorry for not being so accurate in my writings, is that when looking for stages of evolution, we only find complete species. All "stages" of gradual evolution are complete species. We find no "in-between" species, eventough they must have existed if the theory of gradual evolution is true. What would an "in-between" or "incomplete" species look like? How would you differentiate it from one that is complete? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
can you explain that even more please? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
we select which plants to be allowed to breed, slowly altering the forms, creating eventually plants that are so different they cannot breed with eachother (speciation) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
at one point in human history, since agriculture, we didn't have these vegetables, they were breed from a single plant species. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Jupitah: you are letting him make you do all the work. Be socratic - ask him questions that make him question his premises. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
What would an "in-between" or "incomplete" species look like? How would you differentiate it from one that is complete? well. you tell me what it looks like, I don't believe in it. If all species are complete, that you seem to believe in, then they haven't evolved gradually... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
the reason you don't see "in-beteen" species is because of all the specimens, the chances that the dead body will end up in a situation that allows for fossiliazation is EXTREMELY rare. for this reason the fossil record is far more scarce than would be required for a continous fossil record. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
good point. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I'm not saying that all species are "complete". I don't even know what you mean by that. Again, what do you mean by complete? What would you expect to see in a complete species versus an incomplete one? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
key, you are wondering why the record is not continuous, right? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
okay. sorry again for not being accurate. I use my own definitions so I should try to explain more. Are you saying you believe some species aren't complete? hehe. it's my poor choice of word of course.. ;) what I mean is e.g. an ape is a specie. it's complete. it's an ape. It's not something between whatever came before the ape and whatever came after. It's a specie on its own, not a mix between the past and the future. you get me now? I will explain further if you don't. again, I'm sorry for being inaccurate. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
key secret, please tell us specifically what you think is missing from the fossil record or evidence that is would prove evolution. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I don't think it's gradual if you only can find complete species that are species on their own. [read my previous post] |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
no, i want to know what is missing because we can't fully understand you. what is it that is missing from the fossil record? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
It's like you're looking at the frames of a movie, and saying this picture is complete. It isn't in between the frame that came before it or the frame that came after it. I think you're just not seeing things at the level of the movie. But you're saying there is no movie, there are only individual frames or pictures. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
what would an incomplete species look like if we were to find one? i'm pretty sure you don't get the theory completely because there are no incomplete species according to the theory. AND AS I'VE STATED ALREADY, evolution has been witnessed in many situations within human history among domesticated species, especially plants. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
if the species have evolved gradually, then why can we only find "complete" species? that's what I want to know. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
what I mean is, if all species are fluid, there wouldn't be any complete species at all. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
it's amazing people still cling on to his superseded, fossilized theories. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
hm... I so want to explain what I believe... but it just won't come out right =( |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
you are way too un-nuanced there is no such things as a complete species, what you have is species that are constantly evolving step-by-step, and it is just because you look at it in the prsent time that you see a big difference with 100 years ago... a better example is how we evolve during the time we are in foetus mode... quite like the evolution of Humans in 9 months... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
here's another quote, since my own langue isn't working at the moment =/ : "Darwinism identifies 'common ancestors' as the key to understanding the history of life on Earth. This is a philosphical deduction based on materialistic (un)naturalism; and is not a fact. What has unfolded itself on this spinning blue planet, in ever-increasing richness of organic form, is the great classes of living beings which exist without any transition types. Out of the million upon millions of fossils now uncovered, no "common ancestors for any two species on Earth has been found." |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
if there are no compete species, how come that's all we have found so far? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
take the giraffe. maybe its ancestors were some horse-like creature. slowly, however, they acquired a taste for food that grew higher in trees or something. so they had to adapt. and grew a longer neck. over millions of years, yes, and i'm certain there's plenty 'transition species' with interesting sounding latin names. it's all about adaptation to the circumstances. of course there's common ancestors. every mammal is pretty much similar in it's most basic form, right? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
WE DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN BY COMPLETE SPECIES! and regarding your quote, found."> that's silly and the very opposite of truth. there are fossils of primates that are the common ancestor to you, the chimps, the apes.... come on! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
please tell us the different from "complete species" and "incomplete species" |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
hey! what a great example! take the giraffe. maybe its ancestors were some horse-like creature. slowly, however, they acquired a taste for food that grew higher in trees or something. so they had to adapt. and grew a longer neck. over millions of years, yes, and i'm certain there's plenty 'transition species' with interesting sounding latin names. first of all. How could the horse know what was growing up in the tree if it couldn't reach it from the start? [if it could reach it from the start, it had no reason to change itself] Second of all, how did that horse tell itself to evolve? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
key secret, how can you dispute the theory when you obviously don't know what the theory is? theory of evolution has nothing to do with creatures making decisions to evolve. do you even know what natural selection means? please don't try to argue something when you don't even comprehend the something. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
jeez i dunno! maybe some leaves fell of during winter and it thought 'heck this be good stuff!' of course it didn't tell itself to evolve, you silly boy, you need to see the bigger picture. the film example fleetmouse gave was very good. but i'll grant you i'm not good at examples myself :) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
key secret, take a course in evolutionary biology and then you can decided whether you believe or not. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
damn? you don't? ok. it's my own fault, I agree to that, cause I used the term "complete". A complete specie is e.g. an animal, e.g. an giraffe, that if you look at it you can state "hey it's a giraffe!". There are some things about this giraffe that makes it a giraffe (and not "a horse with a long neck"). This giraffe breeds giraffe-babies and eats giraffe-food. Giraffe is a complete specie. sorry for using the term complete as it a very bad choice of word. But the giraffe is a specie, and breeds giraffes, that is what I mean by "complete". A specie that give birth to its own kind. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I did... but it was way back. I'm old you know. but how is that decision to evolve explained? I don't believe in random things btw. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
you call it complete cause you're used to it. there have been millions of species that were complete in their own time but evolved since. i bet you wouldn't recognise the giraffe in say 2 million years from now |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Shit, you're talking Lamarck, not Darwin. :: sobs, beats head against desk :: |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
