Evolution vs. Creation

[Watcher74]

By TONO

The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution that acomplishes a major morphologic transition and therefore offers no evidence that this gradualist model can be valid.

Datewise, Austlopithecus ramidus is tantalizingly close to the supposed age of the common ancestor(Between Chimps and A. Afarensis). Fragments of seventeen individuals were found lying on fossilized volcanic ash (tuff) that is dated at 4.4 million years. Furthermore, ramidus has precisely the combination of characters that paleontologists were hoping to find and indeed expecting: more apelike than A. afarensis, less apish than a chimp, but with qualities of both.

The teeth reveal an animal that really does seem to be halfway between an ape and the later, more humanlike afarensis. The canines are still prominent, but compared to a chimp's they appear low and blunt.

*From The Time Before History By Colin Tudge(yes, I do own all these books I'm quoting from. )*

Booya. So say again that we have not found a transitional animal in the fossil record. We found seventeen of the suckers at one go.

 

[TONO]

I will say it again all arguments based on DNA are circular,you say we are gentically similar to apes becuase of evolution. I say we are similar because we perform similar functions,thus requiring similar structures. None of these arguments can be proven true. Just take the information as you see it and make your own views. The 2-4 percent gentic differences between man and ape is so vast that it could fill 4 dozen large books.

So what your saying Watcher is somehow these transitions have taken place without slow proggresive change, they have some how happened suddenly. You mean "punctuated equilibria" these ideas were first brought up by Stephen J. Gould and Niles Eldredge in the early 70's. so you are suggesting that new species have formed over thousands not millions of years? This is reffered to as the "lucky monster theory." These guys explain it as evolution massively speeds up and punctuates normal tranqiulity. But it happens so quickly that these hypothetical transitions are not preserved in the fossil record. To me this theory seems a little far fetched and a little convenient to evolutionists. It is essentially telling us we wil never find any transitional evidence of fossils.

Ernest Mayr comments on these transitional species

"The occurance of genetic monstrousaties by mutation...is well substaitiated, but they are such evident freaks that these monsters can only be designated as "hopeless." They are so utterly unbalanced that they would not have the slightest chance of escaping elimination through selection. Giving a thrush the wing of a falcon does not make it fly better. Indeed, having all the other equipment of a thrush, it would probably hardly to be able to fly at all... To believe that such a drastic mutation would produce viable new type, capable of occupying a new adaptive zone, is equivilent to believing in miracles."

Micheal denton writes

" such major discotinuties simply could not, unless we are to believe in miracles, have been crossed in geology shotrt periods of time through one or two transitional species occupying restricted geographical areas. surely, such transitions must have involved long lineages including many collateral lines of hundreds probably thousands of transitional species. To suggest that the hundreds, thousands, or possibly even millions of transitional species which must have existed in the interval between vastly dissimilar types were all unseccessful occupying isolated areas and having very small population numbers is verging on incredible."

does these things in fact suggest that evoluion is untenable? Swedish botanist and geneticist D. Nils Heribert-Nilsson, afetr spending forty years trying to find evidence for the theory of evolution, considered the task immposible. You can read his 1,200 page magnum opus "Synthetic Speciation"
but it might take you more than a weekend. He writes that the theory "ought to be entirely abandoned." and that " a close inspection discovers an empiracal immpossibility to be inherent in the idea of evolution." Instead he offered a secular creationism as an alternative hypothesis.


As I stated in my previous post all apes in the genus australopithecines such as A. afarensis(southern apes) are not related to homo.

"Non human apes are the species such as australopithecines . This has been verified by the study of the nerve connecting the ear canal to the tounge."

 

[Watcher74]

I'm not talking about their relationship to Homo Sapiens.

these hypothetical transitions are not preserved in the fossil record

I just told you about 17 of them that are transitional and are preserved.

Why are you ignoring every fact I show to you?

 

[Watcher74]

And if DNA is useless, then why is it used to determine the identity of a person based on their relatives DNA?

Why is it used to determine if someone commited a crime?

The courts accept the science of DNA and often sentence people to death based on it.

But you say it's circular logic? What does that mean?

I feel like an astronomer arguing that the Earth goes around the Sun and not the opposite.

 

[TONO]

I honestly do not know how to answer that question but I know it can be answered here geeze I'm only 18 I can't have read everything yet!


I will comment on DNA latter this reference explains your (monkey) transitions.
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module...sources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution

 

[Watcher74]

You want me to read proof against evolution from a "Christ-Focused Creation Ministry"?

Don't you think they might be a little biased?

 

[TONO]

delete

 

[TONO]

no its down the page it gives evidence againts the Tugdes finding down the page from good sources which will be found on the bottom of the page if you want to read further.

 

[RTR]

None is so blind as he who will not see.

Evolution does not require "belief", only understanding. I do not have "faith" in science, I understand science. I distrust and reject anything requiring me to have faith or belief and to suspend understanding and knowledge.

Those who reject science should perhaps try to live without its benefits.

 

[Watcher74]

The entire history of evolution from the evolution of life from non-life to the evolution of vertebrates from invertebrates to the evolution of man from the ape is strikingly devoid of intermediates: the links are all missing in the fossil record

This is wrong.

The precise events giving rise to the RNA world remain unclear. . . .

Translation: "There is no known way by which life could have arisen naturalistically."

Whoa!!!! That's a pretty far stretch of the imagination to make that translation.

It is a simple ineluctable truth that virtually all members of a biota remain basically stable, with minor fluctuations, throughout their durations. . . .

I looked up this quote and it's taken out of context.

This is hardly surprising, however, considering the many physiological resemblances between people and chimpanzees. Why shouldn't they have similar DNA structures in comparison, say, to the DNA differences between men and spiders?

Fuzzy logic. The Octopus has an eye that is remarkably the same as human eyes. But it's DNA is completely different. Just because things look the same or have the same function does not mean that they will have similar DNA.

Nevertheless, evolutionists, having largely become disenchanted with the fossil record as a witness for evolution because of the ubiquitous gaps where there should be transitions

This is plainly false.

Evolutionists claim that evolution is a scientific fact, but they almost always lose scientific debates with creationist scientists.

Did they come to this conclusion because they never change their minds about creationism? I'd like them to point to a specific public debate against known experts before they make such a bold statement.