• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Fossil 'disproves' evolution...?

{Disjointed Creationist conflation of Creationist myths}

But what about the Piltdown HOAX that they created from just a tooth and a jawbone that was found a quarter mile from each other and it turned out to just be a normal orangutan with rickets, but still was cited in 500 dissertations for PhDs and is taught in textbooks to this day as evidence of evolution?

{/Disjointed Creationist conflation of Creationist myths}




(10 points for anyone who can parse out all the Creationist myths I cited.)
 
Paulhoff said:
Millions and millions and millions of fossils prove evolution. Hey, wait a minute, just looky here, here is one fossil that doesn’t, see I told you the bible was right, no evolution.

Paul

:) :) :)

give me a break
Click to expand...


In fact, it would be correct.
Just a single fossil that incontrovertibly disprove evolution would be enough to reject the theory, regardless of the amount of evidence that support it (or rather, failed to disprove it) before.

That it has yet to happen is quite a tribute to the robustness of the theory.
 
Simon39759 said:
In fact, it would be correct.
Just a single fossil that incontrovertibly disprove evolution would be enough to reject the theory, regardless of the amount of evidence that support it (or rather, failed to disprove it) before.

That it has yet to happen is quite a tribute to the robustness of the theory.
Click to expand...

Ack! Don't say that or you'll have to face the wrath of members who ignore that last sentence!
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=135514&page=10
 
Simon39759 said:
In fact, it would be correct.
Just a single fossil that incontrovertibly disprove evolution would be enough to reject the theory, regardless of the amount of evidence that support it (or rather, failed to disprove it) before.

That it has yet to happen is quite a tribute to the robustness of the theory.
Click to expand...
But said fossil was not found with human footsteps in it. One would question said fossil that would now disprove evolution, and has to real nature of that fossil, is it fake, is it being read correctly, has it been dated correct. I would question a fossil that would upset the know fact that evolution happens. We have a theory on how evolution works, evolution still happens without the theory has does gravity without a theory. Has I have said earlier, fossil do not show everything, for one they don’t show changes in DNA.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
This is probably past its time, but just so you know--niches are not physical things. They're not a latitude and longitude, they're an environment type.
 
A quick question-
Has anyone told the fundies that there are hundreds of octopus species, each one adapted to a particular set of environmental conditions/ecologic niches?

Seems a major flaw in their argument.

And also something to be taken in to account regarding the discussion on their environmental range...
 
Silly Green Monkey said:
This is probably past its time, but just so you know--niches are not physical things. They're not a latitude and longitude, they're an environment type.
Click to expand...

An organism's niche is the way it "makes a living." The environment type is better described as its habitat.

For example, the house mouse can occupy three different niches within one heathland habitat.
 
Everytime I read a creationist argument, my faith in humanity dims. I slap my forehead and think "how stupid can a person be?"
 
Temporal Renegade said:
....
Speaking as a non-Bible scholar, I'd always thought it odd, that the Bible never mentioned dinosaurs...
Click to expand...
Or the germ theory, or the fact the Moon reflects light rather than emits light, or the true relationships of the galaxy objects, or consistent facts, or that Leprosy is not very contagious, or the fact the world was populated outside of the area the Bible writers were aware of ......... and so on and so on.....


Temporal Renegade said:
....then it hit me: it doesn't, because the people who wrote the Bible, didn't know about them. If they did, well, they'd be all over it.....
Click to expand...
Bingo! There's no special knowledge in the Bible which one can point to and demonstrate any authors of any Biblical text were receiving massages from any gods.
 
MG1962 said:
And that frustrates the willey out of me. Fossil hunting is actually very easy. It must be if even I can do it. Any shale formation or flakey sedimentary rock, even coal will produce something that you find with your own eyes and scrape out of the rock with your own hands
Click to expand...
I have a Hadrosaur tooth and some toe bones I found at a garage sale. :D Got 'em identified at the Burke Museum which has an annual artifact ID day.
 
Last edited:
HansMustermann said:
Actually, while the general body plan stayed the same, there is evidence that some genes changed as late as the last couple thousand years. E.g., that's about the brain alone:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7974

Now I doubt that anyone can tell yet exactly what those changes actually do, but _something_ changed up there in the brain fairly recently.
Click to expand...

Researchers are constantly getting their name in print by finding such "evidence" of genetic change when none of them have ever been able to point to any of these findings as having anything to do with the growth of the human cultural heritage. In other words, in so far as gthe course of the human race, they are irrelevant. No one should claim that the trillobites, for example, never exhibited ANY genetic change in the millions if not billions of years they existed! The change they find is always too little to be of any importance in "the grand scheme of things."
 
Last edited:
skeptigirl said:
I have a Hadrosaur tooth and some toe bones I found at a garage sale. :D Got 'em identified at the Burke Museum which has an annual artifact ID day.
Click to expand...

I hope you realise I am now offically jealous. Though I did find Moasuar vetebrea by tripping over it. Unfortunately it seemed it was still attached to the rest of the animal, so I did not get to keep it :(
 
Nogbad said:
It is true that the world has changed in 92 million years but some deep sea environments are heavily cushioned from the more significant swings and roundabouts. It is not an absolute but there are niches where change is much slower simply because there is no imperative to change. Random mutations may occur and may be beneficial or they may not. However, the process of natural selection will be less dramatic in those areas that are most stable. The Octopus has changed but much more slowly than some creatures.
Click to expand...

Also, random mutations will occur less often for creatures already adapted to the deep sea because less cosmic radiation can reach them to cause mutations.

-- Roger
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom