[lobrobster]

Evidence for evolution is overwhelmingly missing is what you should say. If man really evolve from an ape, then where are all those half man/half ape fossils which should be abundant in the earth's soil layers? They don't exist.

But they DO exist Sassy. Ever hear of Homo Erectus, or Homo neanderthalensis?

Furthermore, if we evolved from a lower species, then why is it that the apes didn't evolve in the evolutionary process?

I feel bad, because you are only showing your ignorance of the evolutionary process. We didn't evolve from apes! We simply shared a common ancestor with them. Apes evolved from this same common ancestor just as we have. We shouldn't expect to see a half-ape/half-man like animal. Please try and learn a little about evolution before making a fool of yourself with questions like this.

Evolutionists even admit to the lack of fossil evidence to prove the their THEORY...

Not a single one of them does! What they DO admit is the truth. There are distinct gaps in the fossil record, most notably the 'Cambrian explosion'. During this time complicated organisms appeared to have arrived on the scene in an unexplained burst of evolution. More than one would expect. There are several 'guesses' for how this might be accounted for. One is called 'Punctuated Equilibrium' which leads us to Gould...

You do yourself no favors by quoting Stephen Gould who was himself (if I'm not mistaken), an atheist. If I'm wrong about that, whatever else he was, he most certainly was NOT a theist who believed in a Creator! Gould very much accepted the Theory of Evolution! There are disagreements over something called, 'punctuated equilibrium' that continue to this day. This is NOT a denial of evolution! There's a reason that just about every respectable biologist (indeed, just about every respected scientist), alive today FULLY accepts evolution.

So show me fossil evidence for evolution and I will believe in it.

The evidence is positively overwhelming and undeniable Sassy. You just need to put away all that creationist propaganda for a sec, and start reading from credible sources.

I know of a scienitist who has been is offering $250K to anyone who can prove evolution beyond a shodow of a doubt. Its been 6 years and no one has been able to do so. So if you think you have 100% evidence for evolution, I will be happy to give you the site where you can submit the proof.

I doubt this person is an accredited scientist. No scientist would be so ignorant of how science works. You don't ever prove things in science! You can only make predictions. So far, not a single prediction that The Theory of Evolution makes has been falsified. If anything, its predictions right down to molecular biology have been shown to be more accurate than Darwin himself could have imagined!

The age of the earth is unknowable. If YOU believe it is billions of years old it is by faith because carbon dating uses a number of unvarifiable assuptions as a premise making it subject to inaccuracy.

Seriously... I'm not sure why, but I kind of like you from your posts. You seem like a nice person who is very sincere. But you should stop talking about this stuff, because you are making an incredible fool of yourself. We don't just use carbon dating, but many, many, different methods. All these methods use different clocks, each independently calibrated to an entirely different set of principles. And ALL OF THEM point to the earth being around 4 BILLION years old! Again, you are reading from creationist propaganda. Stick with things you know about before making asinine assertions like this.

If you say evolution is fact like gravity prove it to me beyond a shodow of a doubt. I want 100% evidence to qualify evolution as a fact. Otherwise your claims are nothing but declarations of faith.

You'll have a long wait, because once again, nothing is ever 'proven' in science. You simply don't understand science and I can only suggest again that you read up a little about these subjects from credible sources. Good luck to you!

[michealb]

I've got an idea...how about everyone stop trying to "win" this argument. It's been going on for centuries. I'm pretty sure a series of bits on a server somewhere isn't going to end it.

Can we get back to the original post?

I think that is part of the problem. For some reason some theists out there have gotten in their head that evolution and the big bangs goal is to disprove god. When really all that is going to happen is 100 years from now the churches will say it supported evolution and the big bang theories all along and we will look at people that didn't understand evolution the same way we look at people who thought the earth was flat. I personally have no delusions of grandeur that one day the whole world is going to wake up and see that there never was a god.

[sassyT]

Sassy there are tons of transitional fossils, click the link below for a brief summary. Go to your local natural history museum if you want to see them yourself.

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ

Here is a link explaining what a transitional fossil is so we don't have to rehash a similar what is a scientific theory argument except for tranitional fossil.
Transitional fossil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please don't use that tired old argument. Say God put transitional fossils in the relevent order of the rocks to test our faith if you want.

I can find bones in my back yard a create a story around it an claim it is a transitional of a fish to an elephant but that does not mean anyone should take me seriously. For example the so called famous transitional fossil Archaeopteryx which has the same skeletal structure as birds we see today.
Each of the “reptilian characteristics” in Archaeopteryx is either found to exist in true birds, or is absent in many reptiles. For example, one of the characteristics of Archaeopteryx that make it reptilian are hooks on its wings. Today, both the young Hoatzin bird and the young Ostrich have a hook on their wings similar to that of Archaeopteryx.
Furthermore feathers develop from a different part of the bird’s embryo than scales do from a reptile’s embryo. Therefore, a person who supports the theory of evolution would have to show how one could have replaced the other in an evolutionary manner—without violating the rules of biology. That is, the feathers were not an evolutionary modification of scales, but rather had to appear all on their own. This would be like seeing a human baby born with feathers or scales.

The problem with "transitional fossils" is that they do not distinguish between the evolution and creation models. The Archeopteryx does nothing to distinguish between the two models because it could just as well be just another created species.
The only way one can jump to the conclution that Archeopteryx is a transition between a reptile and a bird, is if you ASSUME evolution is true. It does nothing to prove that one group is related by descent to the other. To do that requires a series of fossils that show the development of a new adaptation.

So that just one example of the assumptions and preconceptions made by evolutionist when presenting these "transitional fossils". Unfortunately I don't have faith in those assumptions.

[progunr]

QUOTE [quote=SassyT] For you to have found this question it means you were snooping around the religious forum. So don't come on a religious forum and accuse people of forcing their beliefs on you. If you have no interest in hearing what Christians/thiest believe then don't come on a religious forum. It seems only logical to me.

Seriously, your attitude is destroying any credibility that you might have here.

Such accusations are childish and immature.

No one has to "snoop" to find any question here, they all show up at the same time on the main answer board.

If you would just stick to your topic, and lay off the personal attacks, your position will be much more credible.

[lobrobster]

I think that is part of the problem. For some reason some theists out there have gotten in their head that evolution and the big bangs goal is to disprove god. When really all that is going to happen is 100 years from now the churchs will say it supported evolution and the big bang theories all along and we will look at people that didn't understand evolution the same way we look at people who thought the earth was flat. I personally have no delusions of grandeur that one day the whole world is going to wake up and see that there never was a god.

Hmm. What happened to the agree/disagree button? I 100% agree with you.

Evolution and science have nothing to say about gods or religion. It is only a factor because some religious people feel threatened as science continues to hammer out answers to questions, which were once only answerable by religion.

[templelane]

So you do admit there are transitional-appearing fossils?

Each of the “reptilian characteristics” in Archaeopteryx is either found to exist in true birds, or is absent in many reptiles.

A few (but not all)reptilian characteristics not found in birds but found in Archaeopteryx
No bill, all birds have bills, reptiles do not
Neck attaches to skull from the rear like with theropod dinosaurs and not from below like in birds
Long bony tail that has vertebrate to the tip like reptiles they are not fused like birds.
It has teeth which no birds have.
It's metacarples are not fused like in birds but the wrist hand joint is flexible, as with the metatarsals being free and not fused, this is typical of reptiles.
I could go on those were just the easiest ones to describe.

The hooks on the wings you can have for bird like if you want although it is common to get ancestral throwbacks- like people with six fingers.

Your other points were good, it is easy to make the evidence fit the what you want it to. Thankfully transitional fossils (as convincing as they are) are not the only evidence for evolution.

The only way one can jump to the conclution that Archeopteryx is a transition between a reptile and a bird, is if you ASSUME evolution is true. it does nothing to prove that one group is related by descent to the other.

Except molecular biology, genomics and profiling.

To feathers and developmental biology...

Furthermore feathers develop from a different part of the bird’s embryo than scales do from a reptile’s embryo.

What exactly do you mean by 'a different part' a different part of the dermis or the body or something else? Can I see a peer reviewed scientific source please?

In development, both feathers and scales are formed by interactions between the epithelium and mesenchyme. Classic experiments showed that feather/scale location and size are defined by the mesenchyme, whereas the orientation is defined by the epithelium

A multi-level complexity model of scale/feather morphogenesis is presented that is consistent with the developmental stages observed in embryonic chicken skin and in the different protofeathers/feather precursors recently found in fossils. As we learn more about how molecular cascades contribute to various morphogenetic processes and how developmental pathways interact to build novel and more complex forms , we can begin to appreciate how the pressure of adaptation may act on the mechanics of signaling and development during evolution.

Evo-Devo of feathers and scales: building complex epithelial appendages : Commentary
Current Opinion in Genetics & Development, Volume 10, Issue 4, 1 August 2000, Pages 449-456
Cheng-Ming Chuong, Rajas Chodankar, Randall B Widelitz and Ting-Xin Jiang

It is a very interesting paper which goes into details of the biochemistry involved in the differentiation of scales to feathers and experiments inducing scales to form feathers in chicken epidermis.

[sassyT]

[QUOTE=lobrobster]But they DO exist Sassy. Ever hear of Homo Erectus, or Homo neanderthalensis?




Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (Neandertal man) - . It is now admitted that the supposedly stooped posture was due to disease and that Neandertal is just simply a man with rickets and arthritis, not the much desired "ape man

Ramapithecus - once widely regarded as the ancestor of humans, it has now been realized that it is merely an extinct type of orangutan (an ape).

Eoanthropus (Piltdown man) - a hoax FRAUD, based on a human skull cap and an orangutan's jaw. It was widely publicized as the missing link for 40 years.

Hesperopithecus (Nebraska man) - based on a single tooth of a type of pig now only living in Paraguay.

Pithecanthropus (Java man) - It is no longer considered to be on the line from apes to humans. It is very ape-like. Was based on sketchy evidence of a femur, skull cap and three teeth found within a wide area over a one year period. It turns out the bones were found in an area of human remains, and now the femur is considered human and the skull cap from a large ape

Sinanthropus (Peking man) was once presented as an ape-man but has now been reclassified as Homo erectus

Homo erectus -the brain size is within the range of people today and studies of the middle ear have shown that Homo erectus is human. Remains have been found in the same strata and in proximity to ordinary Homo sapiens, suggesting that they lived together.


I can go on but I won't because I think you get the picture. All these so called "transitional ape men" are very questionable. Sorry not Fact.

[michealb]

Thanks Progunr but I've been jabbin him a bit too so it's okay. I actually like it when they resort to that argument.


But sassyT your information is out of date look up what scutes are in relation to bird feathers and reptiles.
The Archaeopteryx doesn't disprove evolution though, in fact it adds to it's evidence because scienctists assumed they would find one sooner or later. I'm just asking for one fossil that disproves evolution all it would take would be for human tool marks on the bones of a T-rex or a bunny in the same fossil layer as the t-rex. It would only take one fossil for evolution to be completely disproven. Only one. Where is it that one fossil?

[0rphan]

This was quite a straight forward question... or so I thought until I've just read the answers back.

Each and everyone of you trying to score points from the other... none of you believing that you are wrong and rightly so,your faith in what ever you believe to be true is all powerful... whether it be the.. descended from ape story or the scientific story, evolution and all of that, then of coarse top of the list my own personal favourite, winner by a country mile... THE GOOD GUY UPSTAIRS.

You can all argue until the cows come home, you'll never prove it one way or another cause that's how it's meant to be, why bother to pull each other apart why not just accept are differences and move on.

As I've said before there can only be one creator,various religious followings just call him something different.

I'll leave you now to pick the bones out of this post as I'm sure you will... and your entitled

[lobrobster]

Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (Neandertal man) - . It is now admitted that the supposedly stooped posture was due to disease and that Neandertal is just simply a man with rickets and arthritis, not the much desired "ape man

Oh my! I don't know what else to say, or how to help. I can only suggest again that you read from credible sources.

What about DNA... Do you believe in THAT? Or is DNA just another phony story made up by scientists to deceive us?

[sassyT]

[QUOTE]

I feel bad, because you are only showing your ignorance of the evolutionary process. We didn't evolve from apes! We simply shared a common ancestor with them. Apes evolved from this same common ancestor just as we have

.

Aww don't feel bad, you don't need to because I probaby know more than you. If an ape and a human share a common ancestor that means the ancestor must have had ape like charactoristics, hence we evolved from an ape like ancestor. So I suppose the apes just forgot to evolve with the rest of us.

We shouldn't expect to see a half-ape/half-man like animal. Please try and learn a little about evolution before making a fool of yourself with questions like this.

I think you have just desplayed more foolishness with this statement. We should definitely expect a transitional form of an ape becoming a man if evolution holds true.

Not a single one of them does!

What are you talking about? I just quoted 4 eminent scientists admitting the lack of fosil evidence.

What they DO admit is the truth. There are distinct gaps in the fossil record most notably the 'Cambrian explosion'. During this time complicated organisms appeared to have arrived on the scene in an unexplained burst of evolution. More than one would expect. There are several 'guesses' for how this might be accounted for. One is called 'Punctuated Equilibrium' which leads us to Gould

And yet you claim evolution is fact.

You do yourself no favors by quoting Stephen Gould who was himself (if I'm not mistaken), an atheist. If I'm wrong about that, whatever else he was, he most certainly was NOT a theist who believed in a Creator! Gould very much accepted the Theory of Evolution! There are disagreements over something called, 'punctuated equilibrium' that continue to this day.

.. lol well duh! That is what I was trying to prove. That even Evolutionists themselves (Gould) have admitted to the lacking fossil evidence.

There's a reason that just about every respectable biologist (indeed, just about every respected scientist), alive today FULLY accepts evolution

Yes evolution is generally accepted but that does not make it fact. It was generally accepted at one point that the earth was flat. So..
There are so many biologists (soon I will be one of them) who don't buy into evolution, at least not the ones who don't have an agenda to further propagate the non scienitific claims of Darwin. Darwin was not even a scientist.. lol He was a trained minister who decided to find an alternative to God and thus many athiestic scientists have held fast to the theory to aviod the alternative.

The evidence is positively overwhelming and undeniable Sassy. You just need to put away all that creationist propaganda for a sec, and start reading from credible sources.

You need to stop relying on evolution propaganda yourself and just use your brain and you will see what a joke it is. Undeniable.. Gravity is undenaible, evolution is every deniable.
According to evolution I share a common ancestor with a fruit fly.. lol it takes way more faith to believe that. Even my five year old niece would laugh at that.

I doubt this person is an accredited scientist. No scientist would be so ignorant of how science works. You don't ever prove things in science! You can only make predictions. So far, not a single prediction that The Theory of Evolution makes has been falsified. If anything, its predictions right down to molecular biology have been shown to be more accurate than Darwin himself could have imagined!

Gravity is proven fact. You can prove gravity beyond a shadow of a doubt so it is a FACT. The fact that I am sitting on my chair right now is proof of gravity, I can not deny it.
Evolution is not a proven fact. I just wish you would be reasonable and rational enough to admitt and accept this.

Seriously... I'm not sure why, but I kind of like you from your posts. You seem like a nice person who is very sincere. But you should stop talking about this stuff, because you are making an incredible fool of yourself. We don't just use carbon dating, but many, many, different methods. All these methods use different clocks, each independently calibrated to an entirely different set of principles. And ALL OF THEM point to the earth being around 4 BILLION years old! Again, you are reading from creationist propaganda. Stick with things you know about before making asinine assertions like this.

Quote form encyclopedia Age of the Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Modern geologists consider the age of the Earth to be around 4.54 billion years (4.54×109 years).[1] This age has been determined by radiometric age dating of meteorite material[2] and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples.

Le
Of course convieniently the same people who want to sell the 4billions year old planet create other models of dating that suit their argument. At one point scientists claimed the earth was 70 million years old until they realised that evolution needed far more years to make it even nearly plausible. How convenient.
It would be nice for you to just admitt that you possess an incredible amount of faith in the premises and asssuptions used in science. The assuptions used are unverifiable so why should I believe them? Why should I believe the earth is 4 billion years old? It is not a fact.

You'll have a long wait, because once again, nothing is ever 'proven' in science. You simply don't understand science and I can only suggest again that you read up a little about these subjects from credible sources. Good luck to you!

I don't know what kind of science you've studied then.:cool:

[Capuchin]

So i suppose the apes just forgot to evolve with the rest of us.

Ahahahaha? Really? And you claim to have studied biology... sheeeeesh.

Apes that we see today are just as "well evolved" as humans are. So are all the fish and the insects and the microbes. Apes we see today are just as distant from that shared ancestor as we are. Just a different set of evolutionary pressures were put on them, so they evolved differently.

[lobrobster]

If an ape and a human share a common ancestor that means the ancestor must have had ape like charactoristics,.

I'm not your biology teacher, but I'd give you an 'F' for this statement. Do you see what's wrong with it? It contains a glaring error! I'm not going to keep giving you answers, since you obviously don't trust what I've got to say anyway. But you should try to figure it out if you want to have any chance of actually becoming a biologist.

So I suppose the apes just forgot to evolve with the rest of us.

Another 'F'!

We should definitely expect a transitional form of an ape becoming a man if evolution holds true.

I don't think you appreciate just how lucky we are to have any fossils at all. And for the last time... Ape DID NOT BECOME MAN!! It's not my job to educate you, Sassy. If you're truly studying to become a biologist, hopefully you'll understand evolution one day and look back at how silly your views about it once were.

[sassyT]

Ahahahaha? Really? And you claim to have studied biology... sheeeeesh.

Apes that we see today are just as "well evolved" as humans are. So are all the fish and the insects and the microbes. Apes we see today are just as distant from that shared ancestor as we are. Just a different set of evolutionary pressures were put on them, so they evolved differently.

So the myth goes...

[NeedKarma]

so the myth goes...

Apparently you believe there exists a vast conspiracy involving millions of scientists from different countries and races over centuries of time. Interesting take on the matter.

[sassyT]

I'm not your biology teacher, but I'd give you an 'F' for this statement. Do you see what's wrong with it? It contains a glaring error! I'm not going to keep giving you answers, since you obviously don't trust what I've got to say anyway. But you should try to figure it out if you want to have any chance of actually becoming a biologist. Another 'F'!! I don't think you appreciate just how lucky we are to have any fossils at all. And for the last time... Ape DID NOT BECOME MAN!!! It's not my job to educate you, Sassy. If you're truly studying to become a biologist, hopefully you'll understand evolution one day and look back at how silly your views about it once were.

Really.. That first guy looks like an ape to me.

[Capuchin]

mmm.. really .... That first guy looks like an ape to me.

Oh noes, popularised science is not totally accurate, whatever shall we do?

[retsoksirhc]

Oh noes, popularised science is not totally accurate, whatever shall we do?

What are you talking about? ALL of popular science is COMPLETELY accurate, ALL the time.
That's why string theory is still in it's original form, and explains how the universe works at a quantum level.

[michealb]

So if evolution is a myth what are the alternatives? If you think it's creationism where is the evidence? Where is the one fossil that supports creationism over evolution? How can a perfect all knowning being design an imperfect world? Even if it was humans that messed it up, if he designed us he should have known we were going to mess it up and designed us so that we wouldn't mess it up.

[sassyT]

The bottom line is I respect all people's faith. But please don't make such claims that evolution is scientific fact when there is hardly any solid evidence for it. The scientific problems and inconsistancies of this theory are so overwhelmly obvious that it is facing collapse on all fronts. The only thing holding the tattered theory together is the powerful desire of millions of people to hold on to the notion of evolution, regardless of its scientific weakness, because the alternative is unthinkable to its practitioners.
There is a clear agenda here, evident from some of the quotes we have heard from evolutionists.

Professor LT More University of Cincinati said " Our Faith in the doctrine of evolution depends upon our reluctance to accept the antagonistic doctrine of special creation."

"Evolution is a theory universally accepted, not because it can be proved to be true, but because the only alternative, 'special creation,' is clearly impossible." said by D.M.S. Watson, Professor of Zoology, London University