or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Darwin's idea of "Survival of the fittest" debunked...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Darwin's idea of "Survival of the fittest" debunked... - Page 11

post #401 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Why does it matter? We're not talking about what I believe or don't believe. We're discussing (or trying to anyway) whether Evolution is science as many claim. One of the fundamental questions on that subject is whether or not one of the central ideas of Evolution is falsifiable or not and, if so, how? Can you contribute something to that question?

This is not an answer. If you don't like that don't come to me demanding answers ( " as a proof of ligitimacy " ) like you did in the other thread.

Answer the question. What's your take on how we came to be? I've already explained to you in the other thread why you should answer this.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #402 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

This is not an answer. If you don't like that don't come to me demanding answers ( " as a proof of ligitimacy " ) like you did in the other thread.

Where did I demand "proof of legitimacy" from you and for what?


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Answer the question.

I don't take orders from you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I've already explained to you in the other thread why you should answer this.

But your explanation is unconvincing.

Now, did you have something to say on the falsification question or are you going to continue playing out your fetish with my beliefs?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #403 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

You still didn't show me where you explained how and why all of this is falsifiable as, in a previous post, you claimed to have done.

Bullshit.

Here it is again.

Natural evolution never leads to speciation.

The above is completely falsifiable. All you have to do to falsify it is to prove that natural evolution has led to speciation ONCE.

We can agree that the above statement is factually false, no?

Conversely, the opposite is verifiable.

Natural evolution sometimes leads to speciation.

Fact. Science. Verifiable. True.
post #404 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Bullshit.

Here it is again.

Natural evolution never leads to speciation.

The above is completely falsifiable. All you have to do to falsify it is to prove that natural evolution has led to speciation ONCE.

That's not what I was asking you about.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Conversely, the opposite is verifiable.

Natural evolution sometimes leads to speciation.

Fact. Science. Verifiable. True.

No. Not verified fact.

In fact you have the statement backwards! Speciation is Evolution. It is the central core of it. What you should be saying is "Naturally occurring mutations lead to changes/mutations which may lead to speciation." That is actually a perfectly fair statement. It's a hypothesis.

The core question is whether or not the sum total of all life as it now exists (or has existed in the past) is the result only of natural evolutionary processes (i.e., mutation and speciation and selection) and whether this claim is falsifiable or not.

Geez.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #405 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Ahhh the ever popular "evolution is the same as gravity" argument.

There's a reason it's popular. And your sarcastic dismissal was not an argument against its verity in this case.

Of course, I'm not saying that evolution is the same as gravity in all aspects. Now I'm asking you to be honest enough to read the argument I made to understand my point, kthanks?

In fact, I only used gravity as an example in the analogy. I could have chosen any naturally occurring scientific phenomenon that affects our observable world.
post #406 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

There's a reason it's popular. And your sarcastic dismissal was not an argument against its verity in this case.

It has no verity in this case. It is a completely and utterly stupid comparison and analogy. Gravity can be observed easily every single day. We have very tangible experience with it. Those statements shouldn't even be in the same sentence as speciation.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

In fact, I only used gravity as an example in the analogy. I could have chosen any naturally occurring scientific phenomenon that affects our observable world.

Yes you could have. But that's where the analogy breaks down. Speciation is not a naturally occurring readily observable phenomenon in our world.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #407 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

That's not what I was asking you about.




No. Not verified fact. In fact you have the statement all backwards! Speciation is Evolution. It is the central core of it. What you should be saying is "Naturally occurring mutations lead to change which may lead to speciation."

The core question is whether or not the sum total of all life as it now exists (or has existed in the past) is the result only of natural evolutionary processes (i.e., mutation and speciation and selection) and whether this claim is falsifiable or not.

Geez.

This argument is over. I will not make one more single post here with someone who clearly has no concept of the most basic logic.

This is logic:

Natural evolution never leads to speciation. (We both agree that this is false.)

is the logical opposite of:

Natural evolution sometimes leads to speciation.

Full stop. If one of those is false, the other is true. Basic logic. Not even logic 101, which I scored a total score of 99% in my first year at college (I have my transcript and can prove it to you).

You have an agenda. A proof has been made. You have chosen selective ignorance. We are done.
post #408 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

This argument is over. I will not make one more single post here with someone who clearly has no concept of the most basic logic.

This is logic:

Natural evolution never leads to speciation. (We both agree that this is false.)

We do? You don't seem to believe that statement is false at all. Yes it is a falsifiable statement. Although the more precise statement "Changes and mutations from natural causes never leads to speciation" would be preferred.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

is the logical opposite of:

Natural evolution sometimes leads to speciation.

This, however, is not a falsifiable statement.

Yes those two statements are logical opposites.

Again, the more precise statement: "Changes and mutations from natural causes may lead to speciation" is preferred.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Full stop. If one of those is false, the other is true.

Correct.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

You have an agenda.

Stop trying to read my mind and, instead, just read my words.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

A proof has been made.

Or not.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #409 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

It has no verity in this case. It is a completely and utterly stupid comparison and analogy. Gravity can be observed easily every single day. We have very tangible experience with it. Those statements shouldn't even be in the same sentence as speciation.

Yes you could have. But that's where the analogy breaks down. Speciation is not a naturally occurring readily observable phenomenon in our world.

I thought we had already agreed that these are all examples of naturally occurring speciation. I was mistaken. You chose selective ignorance in this case as well.
post #410 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

I thought we had already agreed that these are all examples of naturally occurring speciation. I was mistaken. You chose selective ignorance in this case as well.

When did I agree to that?! Good God! You are mistaken. Where did I agree to that?! Show me. I haven't even gotten the time to read and address the content of that link yet and you claim I already agree with it?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #411 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Where did I demand "proof of legitimacy" from you and for what?




I don't take orders from you.



But your explanation is unconvincing.

Now, did you have something to say on the falsification question or are you going to continue playing out your fetish with my beliefs?

Quote:
Where did I demand "proof of legitimacy" from you and for what?

Ok it was this :
Quote:
Why don't you tell us. NOTE: This is a litmus test of your honesty.


Not the same but what ever.

Quote:
I don't take orders from you.

I shouldn't have bothered to answer your question.

Are you afraid your answering my question might put you on one side or another with your conservative buddies?

You post a lot and ask people a lot of questions but reveal little of your true core believes on anything ( much like not liking the Republicans or Democrats but not really having an answer or viable person to vote for to these issues yourself ). You engage in conversation but not really and not in the same way you ask of others. It really doesn't matter what the subject is.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #412 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Are you afraid your anwering my question might put you on one side or another with your conservative buddies?

Nope. I'm only concerned about derailing a thread about Evolution into a thread about my opinions. I'm trying very hard to stick to factual statements and descriptions of things and avoiding opinions. Despite the fact that at least two posters accuse me of "having an agenda" (perhaps as a means to escape discussing the facts) I have persisted in trying to arrive at solid, clear, precise and factual statements about Evolution, what it is, what it isn't (some posters claim that Evolution isn't what I think it is) because there seems to be some disparity and disagreement over what it is and what it encompasses.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

You post a lot and ask people a lot of questions but reveal little of your true core believes on anything ( much like not liking the Republicans or Democrats but not really having an answer or viable person to vote for to these issues yourself ). You engage in conversation but not really and not in the same way you ask of others. It really doesn't matter what the subject is.

If you don't like how I do things, ignore me and don't talk to me. No one is forcing you.

P.S. I actually have revealed a fair amount of what I think and believe about various things in my body of posts. But you wish to continue down the path of making this discussion about my beliefs and opinions when I am trying to keep in on factual and logical grounds, avoiding the opinions and feelings and beliefs by discussing what is and what isn't. If you don't wish to engage in that sort of conversation, that's fine. But that's what I'm trying to do.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #413 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Nope. I'm only concerned about derailing a thread about Evolution into a thread about my opinions. I'm trying very hard to stick to factual statements and descriptions of things and avoiding opinions. Despite the fact that at least two posters accuse me of "having an agenda" (perhaps as a means to escape discussing the facts) I have persisted in trying to arrive at solid, clear, precise and factual statements about Evolution, what it is, what it isn't (some posters claim that Evolution isn't what I think it is) because there seems to be some disparity and disagreement over what it is and what it encompasses.




If you don't like how I do things, ignore me and don't talk to me. No one is forcing you.

P.S. I actually have revealed a fair amount of what I think and believe about various things in my body of posts. But you wish to continue down the path of making this discussion about my beliefs and opinions when I am trying to keep in on factual and logical grounds, avoiding the opinions and feelings and beliefs by discussing what is and what isn't. If you don't wish to engage in that sort of conversation, that's fine. But that's what I'm trying to do.

Right! I'm asking a question about evolution in a thread about evolution and you don't like it so you claim I'm derailing the thread!

I'm just trying to get out of you what you believe. Knmowing one's opinion on the subject matter their discussing always helps. But you only want a one way conversation on your terms. That's not really a conversation it's a monologue. Well like I've said no longer will I answer question from you when I don't feel like it. You've already set the standard for that.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #414 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Right!

Right.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #415 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Right.

If only you were.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #416 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

If only you were.

Now your claiming to know my intentions?


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I'm just trying to get out of you what you believe. Knmowing one's opinion on the subject matter their discussing always helps.

Why? How? It's not really relevant.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

But you only want a one way conversation on your terms. That's not really a conversation it's a monologue.

It wasn't a monologue at all. It was a Q&A between me and tonton, et al. You're free to engage in it if you like. But the discussion was about Evolution, not about my beliefs and opinions.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Well like I've said no longer will I answer question from you when I don't feel like it.

Good for you! Be your own man. Don't let anyone else dictate what you do or don't do.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #417 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Now your claiming to know my intentions?




Why? How? It's not really relevant.




It wasn't a monologue at all. It was a Q&A between me and tonton, et al. You're free to engage in it if you like. But the discussion was about Evolution, not about my beliefs and opinions.




Good for you! Be your own man. Don't let anyone else dictate what you do or don't do.

Whatever.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #418 of 450
Quick recap. Jimmac asked MJ1970 a question about his thoughts on the subject of evolution.

In a thread started so that people should able to discuss their thoughts on evolution.

And MJ1970 said that that "wasn't relevant."

So Jimmac goes "Eh?"

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Knowing one's opinion on the subject matter they're discussing always helps. I'm just trying to get out of you what you believe.

and MJ1970 replied:

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Why? How? It's not really relevant.

So... MJ1970, may I ask, politely, what the fuck are you doing here? You're defending a controversial opinion. Your attacks on the scientific bases of evolutionary theory are eccentric. It does you no credit to pretend disinterest. It's cowardly and it's deeply annoying.
post #419 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

Quick recap. Jimmac asked MJ1970 a question about his thoughts on the subject of evolution.

Yes.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

In a thread started so that people should able to discuss their thoughts on evolution.

Correct. And I'm not doing anything to prevent anyone from discussing their own thoughts, beliefs or opinions.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

And MJ1970 said that that "wasn't relevant."

So Jimmac goes "Eh?"

Correct. My opinion is immaterial to the discussion I've been trying to have with some of the posters which is about the definition of Evolution and its scientific-ness.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

So... MJ1970, may I ask, politely, what the fuck* are you doing here?

Trying to have with some of the posters which is about the definition of Evolution and its scientific-ness in reasonably objective terms.

*People who are being polite, typically aren't using profanity (in the same sentence.)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

You're defending a controversial opinion.

Am I?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

Your attacks on the scientific bases of evolutionary theory are eccentric.

Thanks for telling me your opinion about my posts.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

It does you no credit to pretend disinterest.

I'm not pretending disinterest at all. I'm very interested. But I'm interested in discussing this subject in a reasonably objective manner, clearing away the fog that opinions, feelings, beliefs, etc. create and how they tend to cloud things.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

It's cowardly and it's deeply annoying.

Thanks for telling me your opinion and feeling about what you think I'm doing.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #420 of 450
With all the huffing and puffing you're doing trying to avoid the question, you could have just answered it by now and saved a ton of time for everyone. Are you embarrassed over your point of view?

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #421 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

With all the huffing and puffing you're doing trying to avoid the question, you could have just answered it by now and saved a ton of time for everyone.

I'm not doing any huffing and puffing at all. If anything there's one poster (and now, maybe 3) that seem overly concerned with my opinion and beliefs.


Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Are you embarrassed over your point of view?

Not at all.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #422 of 450
BR, he doesn't have any opinions.

He's only arguing that the fruits of the last century-and-a-half of research into archaeology, genetics, physics, anatomy, botany, biology, the mechanics of systems and anthropology have led every single university and 99% of the scientists on the face of the earth to an incorrect conclusion.

But no, he doesn't have an 'opinion.'
post #423 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

BR, he doesn't have any opinions.

He's only arguing that the fruits of the last century-and-a-half of research into archaeology, genetics, physics, anatomy, botany, biology, the mechanics of systems and anthropology have led every single university and 99% of the scientists on the face of the earth to an incorrect conclusion.

But no, he doesn't have an 'opinion.'

Mumbo, you're so cute when you're being sarcastic.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #424 of 450
No, that actually is what you're saying. I'm not being sarcastic.

You really are saying that the last century-and-a-half of research into archaeology, genetics, physics, anatomy, botany, biology, systems theory and anthropology has led every single university and 99% of the scientists on the face of the earth to an incorrect conclusion.

That's what you're saying.

Either you're right, and every teacher of archaeology, genetics, physics, anatomy, botany, biology, systems theory and anthropology in the world is wrong, or... evolution theory is good science.

Just be brave enough to admit you're arguing what you're arguing. If you feel absurd arguing that, then maybe you're beginning to realise, just a bit. Maybe some light's creeping in.
post #425 of 450
Hey MJ!

Have a nice day!

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #426 of 450
I agree. Anyone who looks at the years of valid measurement and scientific confirmation of naturally invoked speciation, including those mentioned in the link I posted above, and dismisses them as "pseudo-science" simply because they don't fit in with their fundie religious beliefs that not only did God create some things, but that He created ALL things, has no intention of looking at science objectively.
post #427 of 450
I don't get why this is even worthy of discussion - I'm sure some people believe the earth is flat or the sun goes round the earth but we wouldn't discuss their 'evidence'.

What we should be discussing is why people feel a need to deny established scientific theories and facts here in the 21st century.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #428 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

...
What we should be discussing is why people feel a need to deny established scientific theories and facts here in the 21st century.

Because it gets them a tax break! (and, apparently, a warm fuzzy feeling)
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
post #429 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot View Post

Because it gets them a tax break! (and, apparently, a warm fuzzy feeling)

I still don't get it though - how can the US - possibly the most technologically advanced nation there has ever been - also, despite having the most developed thinkers and scientists on the planet, also be the nation where refusal to accept the very facts and science they develop is also the most rampant?
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #430 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

I still don't get it though - how can the US - possibly the most technologically advanced nation there has ever been - also, despite having the most developed thinkers and scientists on the planet, also be the nation where refusal to accept the very facts and science they develop is also the most rampant?

easy.
Republicans have been fighting against education all the way. The under educated are their base, the rich can get richer faster if people are clueless.
Listen to their current platform:
Colleges are "re education camps".
Obama speaking to school kids is indoctrination.
All Muslims are Hitlers.
Against student loan expansion. Against health coverage for students up to 26 years of age.
the list is long and telling.
.
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
post #431 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

easy.
Republicans have been fighting against education all the way. The under educated are their base, the rich can get richer faster if people are clueless.
Listen to their current platform:
Colleges are "re education camps".
Obama speaking to school kids is indoctrination.
All Muslims are Hitlers.
Against student loan expansion. Against health coverage for students up to 26 years of age.
the list is long and telling.
.

Yes and they weren't always like that but it's what they've become. Pretty much the head of the nail and a good post.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #432 of 450
Since this subject seems to be coming up again in different threads, I thought I'd continue the discussion here.

The following excerpts are from a pamphlet on the Creation written by Dr. Harold G. Coffin.

The time has come for a fresh look at the evidence Charles Darwin used to support his evolutionary theory, along with the great mass of new scientific information. Those who have the courage to penetrate through the haze of assumptions which surrounds the question of the origin of life will discover that science presents substantial evidence that creation best explains the origin of life. Four considerations lead to this conclusion.

1. Life is unique.
2. Complex animals appeared suddenly.
3. Change in the past has been limited.
4. Change in the present is limited.

Anyone interested in truth must seriously consider these points. The challenge they present to the theory of evolution has led many intelligent and honest men of science now living to reevaluate their beliefs about the origin of life. (Coffin, Creation: The Evidence from Science, p. [1].)

Life Is Unique

Scientist Homer Jacobson reports in American Scientist, January, 1955, From the probability standpoint, the ordering of the present environment into a single amino acid molecule would be utterly improbable in all the time and space available for the origin of terrestrial life.

How much organic soup, the material some point to as the source of the first spark of life, would be needed for the chance production of a simple protein? Jacobson answers this question also: Only the very simplest of these proteins (salmine) could possibly arise, even if the earth were blanketed with a thickness of half a mile of amino acids for a billion years! And by no stretch of the imagination does it seem as though the present environment could give even one molecule of amino acid, let alone be able to order by accident this molecule into a protoplasmic array of self-reproducing, metabolizing parts fitting into an organism. [Homer Jacobson, Information, Reproduction and the Origin of Life, American Scientist, Jan. 1955, p. 125.]

Another scientist, impressed with the odds against the chance formation of proteins, has expressed his opinion as follows: The chance that these five elements [carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, sulfur] may come together to form the molecule, the quantity of matter that must be continually shaken up, and the length of time necessary to finish the task, can all be calculated. A Swiss mathematician, Charles Eugene Guye, has made the computation and finds that the odds against such an occurrence are 10160 to 1, or only one chance in 10160; that is, 10 multiplied by itself 160 times, a number far too large
to be expressed in words. The amount of matter to be shaken together to produce a single molecule of protein would be millions of times greater than that in the whole universe. For it to occur on the earth alone would require many, almost endless billions (10243) of years. [Frank Allen, The Origin of the Worldby Chance or Design? in John Clover Monsma, ed., The Evidence of God in an Expanding Universe, p. 23.] (Coffin, Creation, pp. [34].)

Complex Animals Appeared Suddenly

In 1910, Charles Walcott, while riding horseback across the Canadian Rockies, stumbled onto a most interesting find of sea fossils. This site has provided the most complete collection of Cambrian fossils known. Walcott found soft-bodied animals preserved in the very fine-grained mud. Many different worms, shrimp, and crablike creatures left impressions in the now hardened shale. The impressions include even some of the internal parts such as intestines and stomachs. The creatures are covered with bristles, spines, and appendages, including marvelous detail of the structures so characteristic of worms and
crustaceans.

By examining the visible hard parts of these fossils it is possible to learn much about these animals. Their eyes and feelers indicate that they had a good nervous system. Their gills show that they extracted oxygen from the water. For oxygen to have moved around their bodies they must have had blood systems.

Some of these animals grew by molting, like a grasshopper. This is a complicated process that biologists are still trying to understand. They had very intricate mouthparts to strain special kinds of foods out of the water. There was nothing simple or primitive about these creatures. They would compare well with any modern worms or crabs. Yet they are found in the oldest rocks that contain any significant number of fossils. Where are their ancestors? ...

What you have read so far is not new. This problem has been known at least since the time of Charles Darwin. If progressive evolution from simple to complex is correct, the ancestors to these full-blown living creatures in the Cambrian should be found;
but they have not been found. . . .

On the basis of the facts alone, on the basis of what is actually found in the earth, the theory of a sudden creative act in which the major forms of life were established fits
best. (Coffin, Creation, pp. [56].)

Basic Kinds of Animals Have Not Changed

Scientists who study fossils have discovered another interesting piece of information. Not only did complicated animals appear suddenly in the lower Cambrian rocks, but the basic forms of animals have not changed much since then. . . . To put it more plainly, this is the problem of the missing links. It is not a case of one missing link. It is not even a case
of many missing links. Evolutionists are confronted with the problem of whole sections of the chain of life missing....

G. G. Simpson, quite aware of this problem also, says, It is a feature of the known fossil record that most taxa appear abruptly. They are not, as a rule, led up to by a sequence of almost imperceptible changing forerunners such as Darwin believed should be usual in evolution. [The Evolution of Life, p. 149.]

Thus we see that not only is the sudden appearance of complete and intricate animals a problem for evolution, but the absence of change from one major type into another is equally serious. Again we can say that this is no new problem. Soon after collectors started accumulating fossils, it became obvious that fossils belong in the same major categories as do modern animals and plants. A number of scientists have commented in recent years about the lack of change and the absence of connecting links for specific kinds of animals....

Every high school student has seen pictures, perhaps in his own biology textbook, of a scantily clad and hairy Neanderthal man with low-slung neck, stooped shoulder, bowed legs, and bestial appearance. Such pictures grew out of the original description of Neanderthal man given by the Frenchman Boule in 19111913. [Marcellin Boule, Fossil Men.] The picture has passed unchanged from book to book, year to year, for nearly sixty years. But Boule based his description originally upon one skeleton whose bones have recently been shown to be badly deformed by a severe case of arthritis.

William Straus and A. J. E. Cave, the two scientists who discovered this situation, declared, There is thus no valid reason for the assumption that the posture of Neanderthal man of the fourth glacial period differed significantly from that of present-day men. . . . Notwithstanding, if he could be reincarnated and placed in a New York subwayprovided that he were bathed, shaved, and dressed in modern clothingit is doubtful whether he would attract any more attention than some of its other denizens. [William L. Straus, Jr., and A. J. E. Cave, Pathology and the Posture of Neanderthal Man, Quarterly Review of Biology, Dec. 1957, pp. 35859.] That was written some years ago. Neanderthal man might attract less attention today if he were not shaved! (Coffin, Creation, pp. [6, 10].)

Change in the Present Is Limited

On a television panel celebrating the centennial of Charles Darwins book Origin of Species, Sir Julian Huxley began his comments by saying, The first point to make about Darwins theory is that it is no longer a theory, but a fact. No serious scientist would deny the fact that evolution has occurred, just as he would not deny the fact that the earth goes around the sun. [Sol Tax and Charles Callender, eds., Issues in Evolution, p. 41.] This is a confusing statement that tells only part of the truth. First, the word evolution must be defined.

The word itself merely means change, and on the basis of this definition, evolution is a fact. However, most people understand evolution to mean progressive change in time from simplicity to complexity, from primitive to advanced. This definition of evolution is not based on fact. The study of inheritance has revealed principles and facts that can prove evolutionif we understand the word evolution to mean change. But the obvious minor changes occurring to living things today give no basis for concluding that limitless change has happened in the past....

Yes, new species of plants and animals are forming today. The almost endless intergradations of animals and plants in the world, the fantastic degeneration among parasites, and the adaptations of offense and defense, lead to the inevitable conclusion that change has occurred. However, the problem of major changes from one fundamental kind to another is still a most pressing unanswered question facing the evolutionist. Modern animals and plants can change, but the amount of change is limited. The laboratories of science have been unable to demonstrate change from one major kind to another, neither has such change happened in the past history of the earth if we take the fossil record at face value. (Coffin, Creation, pp. [13, 15].)

Conclusion

Constant exposure to one theory of origins, and only one, has convinced many that no alternative exists and that evolution must be the full and complete answer. How unfortunate that most of the millions who pass through the educational process have little opportunity to weigh the evidences on both sides!

Examinations of the fossils, stony records of the past, tell us that complicated living things suddenly (without warning, so to speak) began to exist on the earth. Furthermore, time has not modified them enough to change their basic relationships to each other. Modern living organisms tell us that change is a feature of life and time, but they also tell us that there are limits beyond which they do not pass naturally and beyond which man has been unable to force them. In consideration of past or present living things, man must never forget that he is dealing with life, a profoundly unique force which he has not been able to create and which he is trying desperately to understand.

Here are the facts; here are the evidences; here, then, are the sound reasons for believing life originated through a creative act. It is time that each individual has the opportunity to know the facts and to make an intelligent choice. (Coffin, Creation, p. [15].)

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #433 of 450
That article would be more interesting if it presented one single conclusion that was based on scientific fact. There are a lot of theories. No facts.

There's nothing at all that would lead one to the conclusion that the observation that most animal forms have not changed is a sign of creation, rather than it being due to the natural tendencies of DNA. There's nothing at all to lead one to the conclusion that sudden appearance of certain life forms isn't attributable to a sudden and drastic mutation.

There's absolutely no reason behind any calculation of the "odds" of life developing the way it did. It could have developed a billion other ways, at any other time, and we'd be having this same discussion. There is an infinite chance that something would develop over an infinite amount of time.

In fact, the whole basis of this essay shows a complete ignorance of the concept of time. Of course observable change in the present is limited. It's an infinitessinal amount of time in the history of evolution.

The article is an attempt to support a presumed theory. It is not in any way a scientific explanation of any questions we have about life.
post #434 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carl Sagan

It is all a matter of time scale. An event that would be unthinkable in a hundred years may be inevitable in a hundred million.

You're right, Tonton. I think this notion is what is causing creationists so much trouble.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #435 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

You're right, Tonton. I think this notion is what is causing creationists so much trouble.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carl Sagan
It is all a matter of time scale. An event that would be unthinkable in a hundred years may be inevitable in a hundred million.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

That article would be more interesting if it presented one single conclusion that was based on scientific fact. There are a lot of theories. No facts.

There's absolutely no reason behind any calculation of the "odds" of life developing the way it did. It could have developed a billion other ways, at any other time, and we'd be having this same discussion. There is an infinite chance that something would develop over an infinite amount of time.

This will help to debunk the the calculation of odds myth that creationist use to show that there must be intelligent design.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TyHaFDYgalA

I left this thread some time ago since it was going nowhere since the premise of the thread was debunked.

jg's posting of Dr. Harold G. Coffin is full of misinformation that beyond the scope of thread. But to answer some of the misinformation:

Complex animals and plants just didn't just appear overnight as creationist would like you to believe. Although the fossil record is not complete, what has been shown is that the evolution of the more complex forms took longer than 6,000 years--more like million of years---human years [please don't get me into the argument that God years are longer--no sun?]

Dr. Harold G. Coffin
Quote:
"This problem has been known at least since the time of Charles Darwin. If progressive evolution from simple to complex is correct, the ancestors to these full-blown living creatures in the Cambrian should be found; but they have not been found. . . ."

WRONG--The Cambrian sediments predate chordates [see def] and other higher forms of life. One of the reasons why you don't find trilobites in later formations is something called extinction and evolution. There is good documentation in the fossil record to reflect mass extinctions that have occurred several times in earth's history--what cause these mass extinctions are not fully known. One of the mass extinctions occurred at the end of the Permian--end of trilobites. Not all forms of life became extinct, those that survived evolved to fill the vacant niches---which partially agrees with the premise of the thread that "n this new scientific analysis, they come to the conclusion that new living space is the most important thing triggering evolution and not competition."

Dr. Harold G. Coffin
Quote:
Scientists who study fossils have discovered another interesting piece of information. Not only did complicated animals appear suddenly in the lower Cambrian rocks, but the basic forms of animals have not changed much since then. . . . To put it more plainly, this is the problem of the missing links. It is not a case of one missing link. It is not even a case of many missing links. Evolutionists are confronted with the problem of whole sections of the chain of life missing....

Wrong again. First there are no whales, sharks or chordates (critters with a nerve chord) found in Cambrian sediments. You find more advanced forms of life in later sediments. The fossil record, although not complete, does show a progression of higher forms of live evolving over time.

The is good evidence in the fossil record that the rapid evolution of insects was at the same time flowering plants evolved.

Quote:
Insect evolution is characterized by rapid adaptation with selective pressures exerted by environment. Rapid adaptation is furthered by their high fecundity. It appears the rapid radiation's, and to this day the appearance of new species result in insects filling all available environmental niches. Insect evolution is clodely related to the evolution of flowering plants.

http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Evolutio..._evolution.htm

---although this is a short history in terms of the span of life on earth --- 55 million years or so.

http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolut...eEvolution.htm

Dr. Harold G. Coffin
Quote:
" [T]he problem of major changes from one fundamental kind to another is still a most pressing unanswered question facing the evolutionist. Modern animals and plants can change, but the amount of change is limited. The laboratories of science have been unable to demonstrate change from one major kind to another, neither has such change happened in the past history of the earth if we take the fossil record at face value.

This is kind of like Jurassic Park where you take the DNA of a T. rex extracted from a mosquito and end up with one rampaging through the streets of downtown San Diego--just ain't going to happen with present technology. You are not going to take a fish out of the water and expect it to develop lungs and limbs. You can't compress hundred of thousand of years or millions of years into our lifetime.

The closest we have come to view rapid evolution is in dog breeds. Most of the popular dog breeds were developed in the last 200 years and are well documented. I could go on, but its late and I need my sleep--but will post web-sites that challenge the creationist hypotheses below.

BYE BYE
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #436 of 450
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #437 of 450

It's an admirable effort but I don't think those who want to believe against the evidence have the attention/desire/capacity to view the first few seconds of the first one even...

Personally I don't think there is any point presenting facts or evidence - no offence, I respect those who do - because if that worked there would be no problem by now would there?

I am more interested in why these people want to believe as they do..... I think we are in the area of psychotherapy here....
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #438 of 450
One area where people in general but especially scientists and those that closely relate with them, have shown ignorance and disregard is personal experience. Way too often those that have experiences of a spiritual nature are ridiculed etc. Perhaps that's happening less now, due in part to more complex understandings of the brain etc, but it seems to me, and has been true on a personal level, that until we experience something ourselves we are very quick to dismiss it because it seems absurd.
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #439 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

One area where people in general but especially scientists and those that closely relate with them, have shown ignorance and disregard is personal experience. Way too often those that have experiences of a spiritual nature are ridiculed etc. Perhaps that's happening less now, due in part to more complex understandings of the brain etc, but it seems to me, and has been true on a personal level, that until we experience something ourselves we are very quick to dismiss it because it seems absurd.

As you say, I don't think that's strictly true since the 1950s now.... the advent of Quantum Mechanics and the New Physics pretty much redefined the hidebound view of the universe.

In other areas of science there are limited minds for sure but they are starting to look like a marginalised minority.

In any event, scientists can be as irrational as anyone else. There's quite a few atheist celebrities who are text-book examples of irrational behaviour. But then maybe they let right-wing politics replace the usual traditional blinkers.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #440 of 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

It's an admirable effort but I don't think those who want to believe against the evidence have the attention/desire/capacity to view the first few seconds of the first one even....

You can always hope to make a change.

Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

Personally I don't think there is any point presenting facts or evidence - no offence, I respect those who do - because if that worked there would be no problem by now would there?.

Needed some counterpoints against the fallacies in Dr. Harold G. Coffin's article posted by jg. People actually believe this stuff--but there's some hope that you can convince those who have questions about these hypotheses [these are not scientific theories--more like creationist dogma] proposed by people like Dr. Harold G. Coffin.

Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

I am more interested in why these people want to believe as they do..... I think we are in the area of psychotherapy here....

Hope that you have a lot of free time--you're going to need it and you will probably never find the answer.
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Darwin's idea of "Survival of the fittest" debunked...