Darwin

[hyperlitegirl819]

Why do schools insist on teach about Darwin and calling his work "science"? Has every scientist over-looked the principle of irreducible complexity? Irreducible Complexity states that some organisms are made up of basic component parts, and the organism could not exist (because it couldn't function) without all of the component parts existing at the same time. Even Darwin said that his theory would not hold up if irreducible complexity was proven.

If it could be demonstrated that
any complex organ existed which
could not possible have been formed
by numerous, successive, slight
modifications, my theory would absolutely
break down. (from On The Origin of Species)

Back in Darwin's time, people didn't have the technology to see what contemporary science has since proven. Living Organisms are irreducibly complex. Humans, for example, are too complex for Darwin's theory to even be considered. We consist of many parts that have to be present for us to live. I would like someone to explain to me why the textbooks and curriculum for highschool biology over-looks this principle among others, which I will be posting soon.[/i]

[LillSnopp]

You have it all wrong happyhumanist. The relationship of macroevolution to microevolution would be like this: You play a whole lot of baseball games, and suddenly you have a football game. Thats what macroevolution is. It suddenly produces a new species(sport) from a different species(sport), and it's impossible.

No, this is what it is all about axeplayer, you always use "suddenly". Suddenly in this context would be millions of years, wheres i presume your suddenly means a moment....

I assume you accept Microevolution, yes ?
Now, see all does small changes being made, imagine it continue like that for thousands, and hundreds of thousands, and millions of years, suddenly, yes, suddenly, you have MacroEvolution. It cant be that hard to understand(?)

[Bent]

Unfortunately the timescales involved are many times a human lifetime so it won't be something that we can experience by direct observation.

Then don't you think some sort of transitional fossil would have been found by now? I understand where you're coming from... but I honestly have a hard time believing that with the billions of dollars and the extensive amount of time spent looking for these fossils that would prove evolution to be true, that there are any. We've found dinosaurs, mammoths, sabertooth tigers, etc. but evolutionists haven't found any transitional fossils what-so-ever. I understand what you're saying about the timescales being so long that a human can't even begin to comprehend...but where's the evidence? You would think that these creatures would leave some trace of them behind. They have yet to be found.

A common misconception. Yes we have found a number of different fossils, but I don't think anyone could imagine the number of fossils that we haven't found, and never will.

To begin with fossils don't form very easily. They're exceptions rather than the rule. Conditions have to be just right. Maybe, think of the fossil record as like a personal photo album. You look through the album and there are various photos of events in your life. There might be a number of photos from one specific event (say your high school graduation), then there is probably a gap in time, then photos of the next significant event (say a party you attended a few months later). But what about the time in between those two events? Did you not exist in that time? Of course you did, you lived your everyday life doing things like brushing your teeth, going to the mall, watching tv, reading, surfing the net, but there are no photos in the album of you doing these things. Unless you walk around with a camera all day every day and take photos every few minutes to document every little thing you do, you will have many gaps in your photographic record. So think of a fossil like a photo. If the conditions aren't right for it to form (which is more often the case) it will not happen, just like a photo cannot be taken if there is no one with a camera handy.

For the fossils that are there, we've been essentially lucky to have found what we have. We can't go digging up the whole earth's surface, so unfortunately there is a lot of stuff we'll probably never find.

On to the matter of transitional fossils, well, they actually have been found. The problem is that creationists simply dissmiss them. A fossil may be found that has the features of species A and B, but creationists just wave it away and say its just another variant of A (or B). Or they move the goal posts and say "but where are the transitionals between this new fossil and A?" and so on. An example? Try the most famous, Archaeopteryx. Look up some info on it. And look at work done by experts in the field, ie. paleontologists, biologists and such who actually know about this stuff, and try to avoid blindly accepting the work of amatuers who's main agenda is to promote creation propaganda.

[USIncognito]

ok happyhumanist. Go into your backyard and gather as many rollypollies/doodle bugs as you can, put them in a jar, with food of course, and leave them there for 30, 40, 50 years. If a single one of the rolly pollies/ doodle bugs becomes anything different than a doodle bug, anything at all, email me with your findings, and I will immediately throw away my creationist ways and become an evolutionist.

Straw man, learn it... love it... avoid it.

In the entire history of dog breeding, no a single large-scale morphological change has taken place. Could it be because, it is impossible, maybe?

Do you know what the (admittedly loose) definition of species is? If so, can a Great Dane male mate with a female Chihuahua? Can a male bulldog mate with a female Berzoi?

Now, unlike your straw man 30-50 years, we might need to wait a few millenia before Great Dane's and Chihuahua's are genetically, as well as morphologically compatible to be considered seperate species, but they're well on their way to that being the case.

Of course, since you harp on and on about the fossils, I guess you're not interested in the genetic evidence...

[Gollum]

Then don't you think some sort of transitional fossil would have been found by now?

I do indeed think that and, after a brief search, my expectations have been realized. Have a look at this.

The expectation that a transitional fossil is going to be some improbable creature like a fish with fully developed legs for example, fails to recognize that evolutionary change from one generation to the next is always micro-evolution. Further, each evolutionary change is tested in the crucible of natural selection and will survive only if it confers benefit (or at least does not create disadvantage).

You won't find a creature with scales, gills and fins giving birth to something with feathers, lungs and legs. If you did find such a thing, that would be a death blow to evolutionary theory.

[USIncognito]

I dont see the point of this post USIncognito. These aren't even transitional fossils. They're just monkey skulls. Creationists agree that some organisms are similar. That is because only one Creator made everything. I could throw a bunch of fish skeletons at you and make you tell me which one was a pink river salmon and which one was a dolphin. The fact that humans and monkeys are similar proves nothing about evolution.

First off, please call me US.

I really wish I'd posted my prediction that you'd waffle rather than answer what is a very simple question. I'm running about 97% on knowing that creationists can't or won't respond to what is a very simple question.

You should be embarassed for yourself by dismissing the fossil series. At the very least you could have invoked Zeno's paradox and demanded even more transitional skulls. And you're wrong, none of the skulls are "monkey" skulls. A is a modern Chimpanzee, which is an ape, not a monkey. B and C are Australipithicine skulls meaning they are defined as apes. D through N are all Homo skulls, meaning they are all human, especially N, which is a modern Homo sapiens sapiens.

That you could possibly dismiss a modern human skull as a "monkey" tells me you're horribly ignorant, or so wedded to your YEC position that you're unwilling to honestly look at the evidence. I've told you the taxonomic classifications of the skull, but I will allow you a chance at redemption, and ask again for you to deliniate between ape and human at some point in the series and justify why.

Can you answer one simple question?

[USIncognito]

Then don't you think some sort of transitional fossil would have been found by now? I understand where you're coming from... but I honestly have a hard time believing that with the billions of dollars and the extensive amount of time spent looking for these fossils that would prove evolution to be true, that there are any. We've found dinosaurs, mammoths, sabertooth tigers, etc. but evolutionists haven't found any transitional fossils what-so-ever. I understand what you're saying about the timescales being so long that a human can't even begin to comprehend...but where's the evidence? You would think that these creatures would leave some trace of them behind. They have yet to be found.

I'm sorry, but LIAR! I just provided on page four an example of transitional fossils in the ape/human lineage, and yet you just ignored them completely. At least, though he was wrong, and didn't answer the question I asked, axeplayer owned up to the skull series actually existing.

We have amazing examples of transitional fossil series in whales, dinosaurs to birds, apes to humans, reptiles to mammals, etc. etc. To dismiss them is folly, but to deny their very existance is just a lie.

[Ilurk]

Axeplayer,

I'd like to continue our discussion of the Krishtalka & Stucky study and the fossil evidence for evolution, but, I'm embarressed to say, I can't find the study anywhere on the web. You said you found it and read it. Could you give me the link? Thanks.

[USIncognito]

"game" is to "season" as "microevolution" is to "macroevolution." A season is just a whole lotta games. Macroevolution is just a whole lot of microevolution.

You have it all wrong happyhumanist. The relationship of macroevolution to microevolution would be like this: You play a whole lot of baseball games, and suddenly you have a football game. Thats what macroevolution is. It suddenly produces a new species(sport) from a different species(sport), and it's impossible.

Straw man. Learn it. Love it. Avoid it.

Happyhumanist's analogy is great. Small evolutionary events, like single games in a sport, eventually lead to large evolutionary change more analogous to an entire sport season. His analogy isn't about the change per se, but about the aggregate of the changes.

[axeplayer]

Axeplayer,

I'd like to continue our discussion of the Krishtalka & Stucky study and the fossil evidence for evolution, but, I'm embarressed to say, I can't find the study anywhere on the web. You said you found it and read it. Could you give me the link? Thanks.

I just read the summary that you posted earlier Ilurk.

[Ilurk]

You read the summary? Eh? And the conclusion you came to was this:

…the K&S didn't have a transitional fossil. In the summary, it simply states that they did analysis on the fossils they found (which were not transitional) and decided that they had species to species transition. Another example of typical Evo speculation.

Now here is what the introduction to the summary said:

Krishtalka & Stucky (1985) documented smooth transitions in the common early Eocene artiodactyl genus Diacodexis. The fossil record for these animals is very good (literally hundreds of new specimens have been found in Colorado and Wyoming since the 1970's). Analysis of these specimens found gradual species-species transitions for every step of the following lineage, including the origination of three different familes: Diacodexis secans-primus is the first artiodactyl species known. Immediately a new group of animals split off that gave rise to the Wasatchia and Bunophorus genera.

In other words, a pair of well recognized, well trained, professional paleontologists, Ph. Ds and professors both, experts in artiodactyl anatomy (You can look up their credentials on the web. I did.), studied a very good fossil record with hundreds of artiodactyl fossils and found a series of fossils (transitionals) that directly linked a founding species (Diacodexis secans-primus) in a step by step process of descent with modification to numerous other species and three distinct families (think species, genera, family, i.e., major morphological change).

And you, with your expertise in paleontology and artiodactyl anatomy, dismiss the findings without even reading the study as “Another example of typical Evo speculation.” Excuse me Axeplayer, but you don’t have a leg to stand on here. To make the claim that Krishtalka & Stucky have found no transitionals you have to study the specific evidence that they presented and either criticize the evidence or present evidence that supports your position and contradicts theirs. You’ve done neither.

As I said before, I could not find the study directly available on the Web, but I did find a website at which you can buy a copy of the study. The link is:

http://www.paleopubs.com/nov03.htm

The study is listed as:

• 7730. Krishtalka, L. and Stucky, R. K. Revision of the Wind River Faunas, Early Eocene of Central Wyoming. Part 7. Revision of Diacodexis. Carnegie Museum of Natural History, 1985, Annals, 54 (14) : 413-486, 13 figures. Stapled in very good condition. $19.00

And you can see the price. Get a copy of the study, read it carefully, then come back to us here and explain in detail where Krishtalka & Stucky went wrong and why the transitional series they documented is incorrect.

If you don’t want to go down that road, I’ll give you another route to take. Pick up a copy of Fossil Horses by Bruce McFadden. It may be available in your local library or the library of a nearby university. McFadden’s book documents the evolution of the horse in a pretty thorough, yet reasonably accessible manner. Read the book and then explain us in detail where McFadden went wrong and why the myriad species, genera, and families of horses he describes are not the result of evolution. The ball is in your court.