Fossil Record Shows Complete Record of MACROevolution (if you want to use that word)

[Mott the Hoople]

????.....this is micro evolution....a single creature adapting to changing weather conditions.....why are you calling it macro-evolution......

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VIADefinition.shtml

Ewwww Ib1 is pwned! LOL He didn't do his homework and chose the wrong word! You are quite right though it should be noted that Dr. Dawkins did not claim that this was an example of macroevolution. Rather he called this, and correctly so, an example of a complete transition from one species to another.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I'd love for Dr. Dixie to chime in with his scientific expertise.

Considering how badly I've trounced Dixie on this subject, proven every single one of his points wrong and that he has a grossly incorrect understanding of what science is, you have to admit, he doesn't give up! LOL Dixie, the indomitable anachronism! LOL

 

[Mott the Hoople]

the problem that seculars run into is failing to recognize that a fossil is not evidence of transition......the fact that creature A existed and that creature B existed is not evidence that creature B evolved from creature A......seculars believe as a matter of faith that there is transition, but the transition is not in itself, science, since it is not testable.......

You posit an argument based on a false paradigm. First you're marginalizing those who may not agree with your point of view as "secularist". You are implying that if one understands and accepts the principles of science that it precludes them from having spiritual beliefs. This is not true particularly when one considers almost all mainstream religions accept evolutionary theory as sound science. Secondly, you haven't demonstrated that you have a sound understanding of evolutionary theory either.

However, your main point here is basically true but it is also an incomplete argument. Just because a fossil exist of creature A and creature B is not in and of it self evidence of evolutionary transition or macroevolution. However it's equally true that homology creates phylogeny and if these fossils of creatures A and B have anatomical features that are homologous, particularly if creatures A and B are of independent and divergent phylogenies then that would be powerful and compelling evidence for the common descent of creatures A and B and of macroevolution. Such fossil evidence abounds.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

It evolved into an entirely new species, which you idiots say isn't possible. You know what the definition of a species is, don't you?

Now, now, don't change the subject. He's actually got you here Ib1, lol, take it in good grace. PiMP is right, Dr. Dawkins demonstration was not evidence of macroevolution but of microevolution. Just goes to show you that you have to be careful. Even someone who understands this topic as well as you do.

 

[ib1yysguy]

Now, now, don't change the subject. He's actually got you here Ib1, lol, take it in good grace. PiMP is right, Dr. Dawkins demonstration was not evidence of macroevolution but of microevolution. Just goes to show you that you have to be careful. Even someone who understands this topic as well as you do.

What the hell is macro evolution if not speciation? I guess my problem is keeping track of all the bogus biological jargon they make up.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

What the hell is macro evolution if not speciation? I guess my problem is keeping track of all the bogus biological jargon they make up.

Only organic chemist are worse than biologist when it comes to jargon. Personally I do think the distinction between microevolution and macroveolution is a bit bogus. It's still the same natural process. All's one needs for macroevolution is microevolution and lots and lots of time.

 

[Minister of Truth]

It evolved into an entirely new species, which you idiots say isn't possible. You know what the definition of a species is, don't you?

Your Mom.

 

[ib1yysguy]

Your Mom.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

It evolved into an entirely new species, which you idiots say isn't possible. You know what the definition of a species is, don't you?

Species actually has TWO definitions, believe it or not. It can refer to the subtle differences in a single genus, like a german shepherd and poodle are two 'species' of dog, or it can be used to describe completely different genus', like a dog and cat are different 'species' of animal. The former definition is what is articulated through Darwin's theory of evolution and natural selection, and I have never disputed there is evidence to support this theory. Things appear to have "evolved" or changed with time in order to adapt to conditions or environment. The later definition is what is articulated in "macroevolution" and this theory is non-conclusive and unsupported by anything we've observed in biology, regardless of what Mott claims.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Only organic chemist are worse than biologist when it comes to jargon. Personally I do think the distinction between microevolution and macroveolution is a bit bogus. It's still the same natural process. All's one needs for macroevolution is microevolution and lots and lots of time.

though you are still stuck with the problem of origin, since something cannot evolve from nothing.....

 

[Cancel5]

the problem that seculars run into is failing to recognize that a fossil is not evidence of transition......the fact that creature A existed and that creature B existed is not evidence that creature B evolved from creature A......seculars believe as a matter of faith that there is transition, but the transition is not in itself, science, since it is not testable.......

Seculars? Do you mean scientist?

 

[Cancel5]

lol seriously you pinheads crack me up! You run your mouths over and over but none of you make any sense! Let me put it in baby terms so that you might be able to wrap your pinhead brains around this simply concept. All this video shows us is how complicated life is. To suggest that this happens by random events is completely UNPROVEN. Did watches evolve into grandfather clocks? OF COURSE NOT. But this is EXACTLY what you guys are saying! Pocketwatches evolving into grandfather clocks spontaneously and randomly. Just one day, and poof!!, I suppose my pocketwatch will be a grandfather clock anyday now!

Considering how much more complicated the human body is compared to a pocketwatch, just shows how assinine and deluded you pinheads are. If a watch has an intelligent designer, man must have one too. It's simple logic, but I won't hold my breath to see you pinheads come around anytime soon

Jesus loves you for calling us names and bringing division, instead of sowing peace! thank you

How many angels can you get on top of a pinhead?

 

[PostmodernProphet]

LOL

Okay, so the fossils are found in different strata representing different periods of history. They don't exist prior to the strata they're found in or afterward. So if they didn't evolve, God had to create independent fully developed life forms once every epoch.

That's WAY more reasonable than showing fossils making gradual changes over time.

there are tens of thousands of instances of fossils showing up in strata that creates an anomaly These are ignored because they don't comply with the faith structure of the evolutionist....

 

[Cancel5]

there are tens of thousands of instances of fossils showing up in strata that creates an anomaly These are ignored because they don't comply with the faith structure of the evolutionist....

Yep, you sound frustrated, and it shows you never took one biology course in college. You have not been to the Museum of Natural History, your religiosity is showing!

 

[ib1yysguy]

there are tens of thousands of instances of fossils showing up in strata that creates an anomaly These are ignored because they don't comply with the faith structure of the evolutionist....

Uh, no there aren't. If you could ever find a fossil of a human in the jaws of a t-rex, nobody would ignore it. If you could find a human footprint next to a dinosaur footprint, that wouldn't get ignored either. The problem is you guys have forged a few of them and got caught doing it.

Now you're just making shit up. Tens of thousands is a figure pulled straight from your ass or the ass of someone who has a blog somewhere.

The fact is, fossils NEVER turn up out of order. You never find a human from the paleozoic strata, and you never find a t-rex in the upper layers. They're all precisely where you would predict them to be. In fact, they've used fossil stratification to predict where they're going to find certain creatures and how deep, then they go and dig them up and what do you know? They find them right where they should be.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

You posit an argument based on a false paradigm. First you're marginalizing those who may not agree with your point of view as "secularist". You are implying that if one understands and accepts the principles of science that it precludes them from having spiritual beliefs.

hardly....my position instead is that for many secularism IS a spiritual belief.....be that as it may, Christians can understand and and accept the principles of science as well as seculars can.....

This is not true particularly when one considers almost all mainstream religions accept evolutionary theory as sound science. Secondly, you haven't demonstrated that you have a sound understanding of evolutionary theory either.

I believe my understanding of evolution exceeds that of the vast majority of graduates of the American public school system....for one thing, it is commonly assumed by most that evolution explains the origin of life......

However, your main point here is basically true but it is also an incomplete argument. Just because a fossil exist of creature A and creature B is not in and of it self evidence of evolutionary transition or macroevolution. However it's equally true that homology creates phylogeny and if these fossils of creatures A and B have anatomical features that are homologous, particularly if creatures A and B are of independent and divergent phylogenies then that would be powerful and compelling evidence for the common descent of creatures A and B and of macroevolution. Such fossil evidence abounds.

why would this be evidence of macroevolution....could not such creatures as easily have been created as they existed? When we look at the common features of Windows 3.2 and Vista do we assume it to be a random evolution or designed plan?.......

if, as evolutionists argue, a change from one diverse species to another can occur at random over a millenia, could not an intelligent designer create the same change in a single generation by "nudging" the DNA of a species?......

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Seculars? Do you mean scientist?

of course not.....

 

[PostmodernProphet]

How many angels can you get on top of a pinhead?

stand still a minute....

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Have you read any parts of the book Forbidden Archeology.....obviously as a believer in intelligent design I do not agree with the author's conclusions, but you cannot deny that in the 900 pages of the book he has documented thousands upon thousands of anomalies that contradict the accepted theories of transition......

 

[Mott the Hoople]

though you are still stuck with the problem of origin, since something cannot evolve from nothing.....

I'm not stuck on anything and don't change the subject. Were not talking about the ultimate origins of life. Were talking about the evidence for macroevolution and your understanding of the theory.