A Complete Skull from Dmanisi

[Loudmouth]

None. Dogs are wolves. Just as pelicans and doves are both birds.

Just as humans and chimps are primates. Just as humans and bears are mammals. Just as humans and trout are vertebrates. Just as humans and ameoba are eukaryotes.

 

[stevevw]

Then there would have to be intermediates in between. Animals that weren't quite a dog and weren't quite a wolf.

but that doesn't mean the wold or dog came from another separate individual species. its just variation within the dog shaped animals. now we have all sorts of shaped dogs, big small, flat faced. long snouts, short hair and long hair. all variations within the species.

 

[stevevw]

In natural selection, the environment affects the gene frequency in a population. Even so, natural selection is a mindless and blind process acting on mutations which are random, mindless and blind.
Evolution (which is mindless and blind) will never achieve anything.


evolution relies on beneficial mutations that will allow a species to change and adapt to it environment. they become more complex as time goes on. yet why were there so many good and beneficial mutations as opposed to bad mutations which didn't amount to anything.



as it is a case of blind selection with no apparent intelligence behind it and left up to chance how many bad and useless mutations did it take to finally get a beneficial one that was useful. being that mutations by their very nature are errors in the process of replication or unrepairable damage to DNA how does more improved complex and improved life stem from this. even a beneficial mutation comes from a random process how do organisms know that this is beneficial in the first place and even if they did some how because it is random how does that new beneficial mutation then become a new part of the organism to use when it was random in the first place.


as every organism is supposed to be evolving and taking into consideration that some species may not evolve much further would we be seeing some animals starting to grow new structures somewhere even down to the micro level. DNA is now used as a proof for evolution as all species can be linked through their DNA back to common ancestors. yet this still doesn't fit the evolutionary model. if you take the duck billed platypus you would think it evolved from a duck like creature or a beaver like creature as its characteristics are similar. yet its DNA points to it coming from and related to a kangaroo and koala bear.

 

[stevevw]

Evolutionary geneticists have often experimented on fruit flies and other rapidly reproducing species to induce mutational changes hoping they would lead to new and better species, but these have all failed to accomplish their goal. No truly new species has ever been produced, let alone a new "basic kind."

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." 3

No mechanism has been put forward that even begins to explain how something like the human eye could have been produced by time, chance, natural selection and mutation.

but then evolution says that it is with time that this could happen so i guess time itself can allow amazing things.

Evolutionists commonly answer the above criticism by claiming that evolution goes too slowly for us to see it happening today. They used to claim that the real evidence for evolution was in the fossil record of the past, but the fact is that the billions of known fossils do not include a single unequivocal transitional form with transitional structures in the process of evolving.


Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion . . . it followed logically that the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to the more evolved.3




Neither is there any clue as to how the one-celled organisms of the primordial world could have evolved into the vast array of complex multi-celled invertebrates of the Cambrian period. Even dogmatic evolutionist Gould admits that:

The Cambrian explosion was the most remarkable and puzzling event in the history of life.8​

Equally puzzling, however, is how some invertebrate creature in the ancient ocean, with all its "hard parts" on the outside, managed to evolve into the first vertebrate -- that is, the first fish-- with its hard parts all on the inside.


Even those who believe in rapid evolution recognize that a considerable number of generations would be required for one distinct "kind" to evolve into another more complex kind. There ought, therefore, to be a considerable number of true transitional structures preserved in the fossils -- after all, there are billions of non-transitional structures there!

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

Evolutionary geneticists have often experimented on fruit flies and other rapidly reproducing species to induce mutational changes hoping they would lead to new and better species, but these have all failed to accomplish their goal. No truly new species has ever been produced, let alone a new "basic kind."

Who are these imaginary scientists seeking new and better fruit flies?

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." 3

No mechanism has been put forward that even begins to explain how something like the human eye could have been produced by time, chance, natural selection and mutation.

Natural selection acting on variation produced by mutation is a proposed mechanism.

but then evolution says that it is with time that this could happen so i guess time itself can allow amazing things.

Evolutionists commonly answer the above criticism by claiming that evolution goes too slowly for us to see it happening today. They used to claim that the real evidence for evolution was in the fossil record of the past, but the fact is that the billions of known fossils do not include a single unequivocal transitional form with transitional structures in the process of evolving.

I don't believe you when you say things like "evolutionists claim..." "Evolutionists think..." "Evolutionists used to believe..." It all sounds made up.

Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion . . . it followed logically that the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to the more evolved.3

No such state as "more evolved" but transitional forms showing change between major groups are common.

Neither is there any clue as to how the one-celled organisms of the primordial world could have evolved into the vast array of complex multi-celled invertebrates of the Cambrian period.

Please don't project your own ignorance on to the rest of us.

Even dogmatic evolutionist Gould admits that:

The Cambrian explosion was the most remarkable and puzzling event in the history of life.8​

Equally puzzling, however, is how some invertebrate creature in the ancient ocean, with all its "hard parts" on the outside, managed to evolve into the first vertebrate -- that is, the first fish-- with its hard parts all on the inside.


Even those who believe in rapid evolution recognize that a considerable number of generations would be required for one distinct "kind" to evolve into another more complex kind. There ought, therefore, to be a considerable number of true transitional structures preserved in the fossils -- after all, there are billions of non-transitional structures there!

"Kind" is not a thing. Complexity does evolve and transitional forms between major groups are common the fossil record is consistent with genetic evidence that today's species have evolved via common descent.

 

[dad]

The Cambrian explosion was the most remarkable and puzzling
​

.

I would suggest that the Cambrian explosion included man and lions and wolves and ravens and all kinds! All the Cambrian explosion refers to is the creatures that could fossilize in that different past nature.

 

[stevevw]

Who are these imaginary scientists seeking new and better fruit flies?


Natural selection acting on variation produced by mutation is a proposed mechanism.
but isnt a mutation a blind process that result from unrepaired damage to DNA. an error in the process of replication. how can a complex eye come from a blind and random process that is basically damage to DNA.

I don't believe you when you say things like "evolutionists claim..." "Evolutionists think..." "Evolutionists used to believe..." It all sounds made up.

it was referenced. evolutionists like anyone make claims, they do think and they do change their minds about things. that is the nature of science come up with a theory test it and see if it stands up. they then have to revise their thinking and sometimes change and adjust their ideas to what new information they get. its the same with any subject.

No such state as "more evolved" but transitional forms showing change between major groups are common.
such as.




Please don't project your own ignorance on to the rest of us.

see a term of ignorance sound arrogant in the first place. it seems when it comes to this subject only those with superior knowledge are in the know. i would say i am not a scientists but i can have a general idea of things by doing some research. the thing is some tend to get upset when others have a different point of view to the point of being personal about it.
have you ever considered that others may have an opinion that differs from yours and have every right to state it. because they do they are not projecting anything onto anyone. others can take it or leave it. some will disagree but that's OK. if everyone had the same ideas and opinions then it would be boring or maybe we were all brainwashed. besides who is the rest of us i have been discussing this with others on this site and i dont seem to have any problems. i guess because they understand that not everyone will know the same, there are differing opinions, there is some debate about some of the important questions. if you think that all you know is correct and undisputed then that's your opinion. even many evolutionists and scientist admit some things are not proven and are open for debate.

"Kind" is not a thing. Complexity does evolve and transitional forms between major groups are common the fossil record is consistent with genetic evidence that today's species have evolved via common descent.

such as. examples.

genetic evidence that says we have a common ancestor can also be taken as life's blueprint for living creatures has a common structure that is in everything the same as when designing anything you dont throw the blue print out and use something completely different when it works. a leg is a leg whether its long for a giraffe or short for a hippo. it doesn't mean that leg came from bacteria.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

such as. examples.

genetic evidence that says we have a common ancestor can also be taken as life's blueprint for living creatures has a common structure that is in everything the same as when designing anything you dont throw the blue print out and use something completely different when it works. a leg is a leg whether its long for a giraffe or short for a hippo. it doesn't mean that leg came from bacteria.

The planet Venus can be taken as a UFO and bumps and hills on Mars can be taken as a face. Not all interpretations of the evidence are rational or supported.

 

[stevevw]

I would suggest that the Cambrian explosion included man and lions and wolves and ravens and all kinds! All the Cambrian explosion refers to is the creatures that could fossilize in that different past nature.

the Cambrian period was a major diversification of organisms. the rate of evolution accelerated and the diversity of life began to resemble that of today. many complex organisms appeared from seemly nowhere. some had no traceable connections to anything in the fossil records.

The Cambrian explosion has generated extensive scientific debate. The seemingly rapid appearance of fossils in the “Primordial Strata” was noted as early as the 1840s, and in 1859 Charles Darwin discussed it as one of the main objections that could be made against his theory of evolution by natural selection.

The long-running puzzlement about the appearance of the Cambrian fauna seemingly abruptly and from nowhere, centers on three key points: whether there really was a mass diversification of complex organisms over a relatively short period of time during the early Cambrian; what might have caused such rapid change; and what it would imply about the origin and evolution of animals. Interpretation is difficult due to a limited supply of evidence, based mainly on an incomplete fossil record and chemical signatures remaining in Cambrian rocks.

with evolution it needs time as how can you imagine one thing turning into another without it. so this is one period where scientists haven't fully understood or have a proper explanation for. on one hand they say you need time and hence that's why they date things to old ages to slowly evolve into something else then how does this fit in. so they are coming up with other ways for it to be explained like there was a period of time that has not showed up in the fossil records showing the preceding fossils. or by by the theory of punctuated equilibrium which developed in the early 1970s and which views evolution as long intervals of near-stasis "punctuated" by short periods of rapid change.

 

[EternalDragon]

Just as humans and chimps are primates. Just as humans and bears are mammals. Just as humans and trout are vertebrates. Just as humans and ameoba are eukaryotes.

Man made classifications does not make something related. For the record I do not consider man a primate or any member of the animal kingdom.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

Man made classifications does not make something related. For the record I do not consider man a primate or any member of the animal kingdom.

Are your eyes on the sides of your head? Do you have claws instead of nails? On what basis do you claim not to have the features of a primate?

 

[lasthero]

For the record I do not consider man a primate or any member of the animal kingdom.

You can say an apple isn't a fruit. But it's still a fruit.

 

[lasthero]

its just variation within the dog shaped animals.

'Dog shaped animals'? Is that a kind? Because not all animals that are shaped like dogs actually are dogs. Hyenas are shaped like dogs and often mistaken as such. They're more closely related to felines. The Tasmanian Tiger greatly resembled a dog, but it wasn't, and it wasn't a tiger, either.

At any rate, I didn't say dogs and wolves came from separate individual species.

 

[lasthero]

Evolution (which is mindless and blind) will never achieve anything.

Evolution isn't trying to 'achieve anything'.

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." 3

...well? Go on. Finish the quote. I can't shake the feeling that the author of this quote was building up to something. You wouldn't happen to know what THE EXACT NEXT THING HE SAYS is, would you?

 

[biggles53]

Evolution isn't trying to 'achieve anything'.



...well? Go on. Finish the quote. I can't help shake the feeling that the author of this quote was building up to something. You wouldn't happen to know what THE EXACT NEXT THING HE SAYS is, would you?

Stevew,
Lasthero has just caught you out quote mining. It is one of the more detestable characteristics of creationist debaters. If, as you say, you are not a creationist, I would strongly suggest you drop their habits...!

 

[stevevw]

Man made classifications does not make something related. For the record I do not consider man a primate or any member of the animal kingdom.

then what do you regard man as.

 

[stevevw]

Stevew,
Lasthero has just caught you out quote mining. It is one of the more detestable characteristics of creationist debaters. If, as you say, you are not a creationist, I would strongly suggest you drop their habits...!

sorry is this some sort of thing that happens in forums. i think i have been a member of this forum this months and have posted about 10 times. so i am new to forums period. the only other forum i belong to is music and i post occasionally.

caught me out sounds like the little boy caught with his hand in the cookie jar. no i will argue for evolution as well if im in the mood. as i said before i keep an open mind, most of my statements have been researched and compared and if you look at my posts the actual content i think you can see that this is my reasoning not some parroting of some religious sect. i dont belong to any religion except Christ.

anyway im a little confused what if i was i thought this was a christian site. so if they are a creationist isn't that still a version of Christianity. the saying mining to me means the stuff we do here in australia dig up ore and minerals. i wouldn't even know what they do when they are mining so you will have to explain to me what it means. i would have it a guess it is something to do with trolling as they call it. it certainly isn't that as that has something to do with adding little comments here and there and not backing it up. i respond to any comments, will think about what they say and then do some checking and research to see what it says. a lot of the time its finding out and understanding each others point of view trying to get around the misunderstandings and misinterpretations.

if you notice a lot of my comments are questions, wondering, asking. like if someone says something i may say then how come it is like this. hopefully we learn off each other. as i said if you bother to read my comments that everyone has a point of view and each person will see it their way. if you have an open mind and try and look at it fairly and squarely then that's all you can do. in fact i think creationists base their belief on proving the bible and god, creation through science. they need to do this as this is their version of belief. though it is not really belief as faith is the belief of things unseen. i can tell you right now i dont base my faith on that as it will never be satisfyingly proved one way or the by stats, facts or any physical proof. faiths a personal thing you cant make it happen by physical evidence. as Christ said to Thomas when he felt his nail holes, greater is the person who believes without seeing.

 

[stevevw]

for a minute there i didn't know whether i was on a science/ evolution site defending religion or a religious/Christian site defending evolution.

 

[stevevw]

by the way where do you come from what part of the world as sometimes cultures come into play here. believe it or not people can be influenced by there environment and cultures. what means something in one culture or country can mean something different in another.

 

[lasthero]

most of my statements have been researched

When researching, it's generally a good idea to examine both sides of an argument. It doesn't appear you've done that.

you look at my posts the actual content i think you can see that this is my reasoning not some parroting of some religious sect.

Maybe you don't mean for it to come off that way, but that's exactly what it sounds like. I get the distinct impression that you're regurgitating someone else's argument.

i wouldn't even know what they do when they are mining so you will have to explain to me what it means. i would have it a guess it is something to do with trolling as they call it. it certainly isn't that as that has something to do with adding little comments here and there and not backing it up.

The quote, about the human eye. Are you aware of where it comes from, and the full context of it? You seem like a nice enough guy - my guess is that you got it from some creationist website, one that also didn't bother to show any more than this quote and left out the context. Correct?

in fact i think creationists base their belief on proving the bible and god, creation through science.

Well, they try.