Science Disproves Evolution

[Craig4]

I believe the quote is:

"Seeing, contrary to popular wisdom, isn't believing. It's where belief stops, because it isn't needed any more."
- Terry Pratchett, Pyramids

I'd have thought Douglas Adams. Anyway hat tip to Terry Pratchett.

 

[Dancing David]

Tiktaalik^WP (pronounced /tɪkˈtɑːlɨk/) is a genus of extinct sarcopterygian (lobe-finned) fish from the late Devonian period. Did you read the site you quoted?

Yes I did, but as noted above it is a 'fish' as a general descriptive term, not as a family/genus term. There are also circumstances where a whale is also a fish.

I do not think that it would be classified as a fish, in the sense that it is not similar to the clades that are currently classified as 'fish', now it would be called a fish because it has a vertebrae, skull, and lobes, and most likely scales. But it would be categorized as its own group.


This is also true of whatever humans and chimps descended from, it is not a humachimp or a chimpuman, it is a separate species that later diverged into the two separate species.
However what I am stating is stated many times and I won’t belabor the point.

 

[Belz...]

Yes. There is a great deal of variety among dogs.

That is an interesting example for you to use. In many cases, one could consider certain breeds of dogs to be entirely different species, satisfying the requirements of "macro" evolution.

Dogs did not come from fish.

How can you tell ? This is a serious question.

 

[Belz...]

The evidence is what the evidence is. Men state. If God Created, a plurality of men's votes will not override.

Was that meant to convince us, or you ?

No, I believe some scientists concerning some things and not concerning others.

How do you distinguish those you believe from those you don't believe ?

You can't expose me, I'm naked.

154, this is a forum dedicated to education. If you're not here to learn ot educate, then you must be here to preach. If so, then you must know that your preaching will not work, and I suggest you go somewhere where your rhetoric will be more warmly received. Otherwise, perhaps you'd like to adopt another attitude, drop the rhetoric nonsense and the insults, and actually make arguments.

 

[Dinwar]

I do not think that it would be classified as a fish, in the sense that it is not similar to the clades that are currently classified as 'fish', now it would be called a fish because it has a vertebrae, skull, and lobes, and most likely scales. But it would be categorized as its own group.

This is the problem with using the word "fish" in discussing evolution--the term has no meaning, other than "vertebrate that's not a mammal that has fins and lives in the water". Because we're not discussing a real taxonomic group, it's simply impossible to pin down the definition of the group.

Better to say that Canus lupus and Salvelinus namaycush share a common ancestor, but it would look like neither a wolf nor a trout (though it probably looked a lot MORE like a trout than like a wolf). Dawkins' hairpin turn analogy is also quite applicable here.

 

[sphenisc]

This is the problem with using the word "fish" in discussing evolution--the term has no meaning, other than "vertebrate that's not a mammal that has fins and lives in the water". Because we're not discussing a real taxonomic group, it's simply impossible to pin down the definition of the group.

It's relatively simple to define paraphyletic groups by the addition and subtraction of true clades. For example, fish = Vertebrata - Tetrapoda

Of course agreeing a definition of a monophyletic group isn't always easy. But given that, paraphyletic groups pose no greater problem in principle.

 

[Craig4]

So there you have it, Pahu. And while you will surely be tempted to ignore this post - or only take a few parts of it that you think you can respond to and ignore the rest - I'm not going to let you. Every time you post another of your C&P posts, I will repeat these facts. I will not allow you to run away from Brown's lies. I will tell you the truth again and again until I see you doing the thing that Brown could never, ever do: The moral, decent, honest thing.

I've often noticed the moral certainty has a corrosive effect on moral fiber.

 

[Belz...]

Again, "religion" = "system of belief." So what?

Belief is not based on evidence.

 

[Belz...]

"Wisdom begins with the reverential awe of God."

Which amounts to reverential awe of yourself, since he supposedly created you in his perfect image, right ?

 

[Pahu]

Since evolution does not deal directly with abiogenesis, I fail to see how a supernatural origin for life would invalidate evolution. So if some deity poofed the first microbe into existence, how would that disprove evolution?

You are right. What does invalidate evolution is the lack of physical evidence. Instead, the evidence proves creation. For example, according to evolution, the fossil record should show a progression of life forms from the simplest to the most complex. It doesn't. Instead life forms appear suddenly and perfectly adapted to their environment with no connection to any former life forms.

 

[Nonpareil]

What does invalidate evolution is the lack of physical evidence.

There is an abundance of physical evidence for evolution.

Instead, the evidence proves creation.

Present one example.

For example, according to evolution, the fossil record should show a progression of life forms from the simplest to the most complex. It doesn't. Instead life forms appear suddenly and perfectly adapted to their environment with no connection to any former life forms.

 

[Marduk]

You are right. What does invalidate evolution is the lack of physical evidence. Instead, the evidence proves creation. For example, according to evolution, the fossil record should show a progression of life forms from the simplest to the most complex. It doesn't. Instead life forms appear suddenly and perfectly adapted to their environment with no connection to any former life forms.

uhuh

 

[Jack by the hedge]

life forms appear suddenly and perfectly adapted to their environment with no connection to any former life forms.

"Suddenly" in geological terms is far from sudden. "Perfectly adapted" is relative - adaptation is a compromise between competing pressures. "No connection" is so subjective and nebulous I'd be delighted to see you try to justify it.

So perhaps the kindest assessment is that the above is true for very small values of "true".

 

[laca]

You are right. What does invalidate evolution is the lack of physical evidence.

Liar. You have been shown that there are heaps of evidence.

Instead, the evidence proves creation. For example, according to evolution, the fossil record should show a progression of life forms from the simplest to the most complex. It doesn't.

Liar. You have been shown that it does.

Instead life forms appear suddenly and perfectly adapted to their environment with no connection to any former life forms.

Liar. Life forms do no such thing.

Oh, before I forget: you are also a big fat liar for not retracting the obvious lies you quoted after being shown that they are lies and being asked repeatedly to retract.

So, Pahu, tell us please... Why should anyone be interested in anything you have to say after you have been conclusively shown to be a big fat LIAR?

 

[joobz]

You are right. What does invalidate evolution is the lack of physical evidence. Instead, the evidence proves creation. For example, according to evolution, the fossil record should show a progression of life forms from the simplest to the most complex. It doesn't. Instead life forms appear suddenly and perfectly adapted to their environment with no connection to any former life forms.

You keep ignoring Human chromosome 2.

This is how science works.

 

[Mister Agenda]

You are right. What does invalidate evolution is the lack of physical evidence. Instead, the evidence proves creation. For example, according to evolution, the fossil record should show a progression of life forms from the simplest to the most complex. It doesn't. Instead life forms appear suddenly and perfectly adapted to their environment with no connection to any former life forms.

If I granted your last sentence, the order is still simplest to most complex. Why do you suppose that is?

Oh, and welcome back!

 

[I Am The Scum]

You are right. What does invalidate evolution is the lack of physical evidence. Instead, the evidence proves creation. For example, according to evolution, the fossil record should show a progression of life forms from the simplest to the most complex. It doesn't. Instead life forms appear suddenly and perfectly adapted to their environment with no connection to any former life forms.

Out of all the species that have ever existed on this planet, 99% of them are now extinct. Evolution explains this, as the old species dies out in favor of the new, more survivable offspring.

If evolution is false, and it is the case that life forms "appear suddenly and perfectly adapted to their environment," then why have so many gone extinct?

 

[TimCallahan]

It's relatively simple to define paraphyletic groups by the addition and subtraction of true clades. For example, fish = Vertebrata - Tetrapoda
Of course agreeing a definition of a monophyletic group isn't always easy. But given that, paraphyletic groups pose no greater problem in principle.

Regarding the hilited area, where did you get the idea that fish were classed as part of tetrapoda (meaning "four footed")? Here's the correct classification:

PHYLUM: Chordata
SUBPHYLUM: Vertebrata
SUPERCLASSES: Pisces (fish) and Tetrapoda (four-legged vertebrates)
CLASSES of PISCES:
Agnatha ("jawless"): extinct early fish, modern lampreys and hagfishes
Chondraichthys (fish with skeletons manly of cartilage): sharks, skates and rays
Placodermi: Extinct armored fish
Osteichthys: bony fish

CLASSES OF TETRAPODA:
Amphibia
Reptilia
Aves
Mammalia

Of course, one of the problems of the classification system is that there's no way to fit transitional fossils into it effectively; hence Tiktaalik is placed among the lobe-finned fish. Likewise, the Ictidosaurs, which lie on the cusp between synapsid reptiles and mammals, are, rather arbitrarily classed as reptiles because certain bones in their jaws hadn't yet migrated to form the mammalian bones of the middle ear.

If creationism is true, there shouldn't be any of these transitional forms. Yet, we have the following:

Pikeia - transitional between non-vertebrates and vertebrates.

Tiktaalik - transitional between lobe-finned fish and amphibians.

Westlothiana - transitional between amphibians and reptiles.

Archaeopteryx - transitional between reptiles and birds.

The Ictidosaurs - transitional between reptiles and mammals.

I'm not sure whether this thread belongs on this forum, rather than one on science, except that creationism is religious dogma attempting to invalidate the science of evolution.

 

[Dancing David]

You are right. What does invalidate evolution is the lack of physical evidence. Instead, the evidence proves creation. For example, according to evolution, the fossil record should show a progression of life forms from the simplest to the most complex. It doesn't. Instead life forms appear suddenly and perfectly adapted to their environment with no connection to any former life forms.

And at which point is presevation of fossils a continuous process? And life forms appear in less than optimum environments all the time.

Give an example of critter that appears suddenly and is perfectly adapted.

 

[sphenisc]

Regarding the hilited area, where did you get the idea that fish were classed as part of tetrapoda (meaning "four footed")? ...

I didn't. The "-" symbol is used to indicate set subtraction, i.e the Vertebrata clade excluding those species which are also members of the Tetrapoda clade.