Taking the side of a Creationist here. Evolutionist claim (correct me if im wrong here) that we all started out from a single oranism and eventually over billions of years came in to human life. The question I always get asked is why is there such a large fossil gap. I think that means why if, let's say Giraffs had small necks, but evolved to larger necks, why are there no fossils for the middle stages?
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
The Fossil Gap
- Thread starter BornAgainAtheist
- Start date
David Gould
Pearl Harbor sucked. WinAce didn't.
- May 28, 2002
- 16,931
- 514
- 55
- Faith
- Atheist
- Politics
- AU-Labor
BornAgainAtheist said:
Firstly, fossilisation is rare. We know that there must have been millions of animals in Africa over the last 1000 years. We do not have millions of fossils from that period.
Secondly, we do have fossils of animals related to giraffes who did not have long necks. Cows and pigs are related to giraffes. Some have longer necks than others.
This web site may be a bit simplistic but it gives you a good idea of where giraffes fit in.
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/mammals/classification/Artiodactyls.shtml
Upvote
0
J
Jet Black
Guest
it is easy to pick a single example of a hole in the fossil record and claim that is rubbishes evolution. David has already addressed this problem by pointing out that fossilisation is a rare event. More interestingly perhaps, I have never seen a creationist explain why all the clear evolutionary lines exist as they do.
Upvote
0
lucaspa
Legend
BornAgainAtheist said:
You looked at this backwards. IF creationism is true, THEN there should be NO transitionals at all. Right?
Well, there are thousands of transitional series. That falsifies creationism.
Now,the reasons transitionals for ALL organisms haven't been found are:
1. The sediments for those transitionals where the transition occurred have to be exposed on the surface. Now, over the 3.8 billion year history of life and the entire surface of the earth, can this possibly happend for EACH and every species? NO!
2. How long have we been looking and how many people are looking and documenting transitionals? Answer: not long and very few. The first Jurassic Park movie's budget was more than has been spent on all of paleontology in the last 150 years!
3. As David pointed out, fossilization requires special conditions that are not available in all places and times. In fact, present in rare circumstances. Bats, for instance, live mostly in areas where fossilization does not occur, so the fossil record for bats is very poor.
Upvote
0
J
Jet Black
Guest
lucaspa said:
interesting point. I saw one of David Attenborough's recent programs, and the conditions that bats live in are very very harsh underfoot (lucky for the bats that they live on the ceiling). hundreds of tons of bat droppings, a smell that could knock you out at twenty paces... not to mention the flesh eating insects... not all that ideal for fossilisation really.
Upvote
0
lucaspa
Legend
Jet Black said:
And if they die outside the cave? Not much better. Most bats live in fairly arid areas where immediate covering of the body by sediment is very unlikely.
Also, bat bones are very fragile. They have to be light so the animals can fly. So as the sediment is compressed, even if the bones have fossilized they will be crushed.
Upvote
0
lucaspa
Legend
JohnR7 said:
Simple. Bats with heavier bones don't fly as well as those with lighter bones. Thus, in each generation, the bats lucky enough to have bones lighter than the other bats would be better flyers and get the most food and be able to have more offspring to pass the lighter bones to.
We have repeated this many times. Not at an 8th grade level, but a first grade level. We keep hoping that SOMETIME you will finally get it.
Upvote
0
Firscherscherling
Liberal Filthy Hairless Pig-Monkey
JohnR7 said:
Since you are always resistant I will offer an example to which you might relate. Of course, I am assuming no one has tried this before, which they probably have.
I assume that you sometimes take antibiotics. You are told to finish the bottle to ensure that you kill every single bacterium. If you take just a few antibiotics, you are contributing to natural selection and promoting the development of more resistant strains. You kill off the bugs that are least resistant to the drug, leaving those that are more resistant to reproduce and give a nastier infection that is harder to kick. repeat the pattern and continue the pattern of selection. As we all know, antibiotics must constantly be redeveloped because our abuse and incorrect use of them is generating ever more resistant strains of bacteria.
Sorry, I know this is simpistic, but I just had to try.
Upvote
0
Nice, anyone know of any good evolution debate that I can download for free or read online?
Upvote
0
JohnR7
Well-Known Member
Firscherscherling said:
There are all kinds of different bacteria out there. The strains of bacteria that are drug resistant seem to be on the increase. The strains that the drugs are effective with seem to be on the decline. So what does that have to do with evolution?
I see the same thing with plants. Depending on the weather in any given year some plants do better or worse than others. One year our marigolds did amazingly well. This year they are pretty much just sitting there and going no where in a hurry.
They are just responding to the invironment and the growing conditions that you have for any given year.
Upvote
0
Firscherscherling
Liberal Filthy Hairless Pig-Monkey
The difference is huge, actually. Since marigolds are an annual, I assume you are replanting them every year. Even if you are reseeding from the same plant line, you are only looking at a few generations.
Bacteria reproduce extremely rapidly. In a relatively short period of time you go through numerous generations and are able to observe selective results more quickly. And the bacteria aren't just doing more poorly when you take the antibiotic and doing better when you stop taking it. The sucessive generations develop a resistance to the antibiotic. That is, their physical/chemical make-up compensates, through selection.
If you werre to take the time to propogate marigolds over a long period of time and manipulate many successive generations of plants, you could, for example, develop a more drought-tolerant plant. This kind of thing is done all the time.
Bacteria reproduce extremely rapidly. In a relatively short period of time you go through numerous generations and are able to observe selective results more quickly. And the bacteria aren't just doing more poorly when you take the antibiotic and doing better when you stop taking it. The sucessive generations develop a resistance to the antibiotic. That is, their physical/chemical make-up compensates, through selection.
If you werre to take the time to propogate marigolds over a long period of time and manipulate many successive generations of plants, you could, for example, develop a more drought-tolerant plant. This kind of thing is done all the time.
Upvote
0
lucaspa
Legend
BornAgainAtheist said:
A debate between creationism vs evolution? There is no "debate". Debate implies that both sides are valid. But creationism is not valid. It has already been falsified. [Note: CREATION has not been falsified. Evolution is just as much creation as creationISM.]
Discussions about evolution and how it relates to creationism? Go to www.asa.org for some discussions. Kenneth Miller's website has articles http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/
www. ncseweb.org can also help.
Upvote
0
lucaspa
Legend
JohnR7 said:
Yes, because of the new environment of antibiotics is making new species of drug-resistant bacteria. Remember, "bacteria" is the name of a whole Kingdom made up of millions of species.
What it has to do with evolution is that you are watching evolution in action. You are watching new species evolve that have new information to get around the antibiotics or neutralize them. Different species do this different ways. Some increase the information to say "keep binding all the old molecules but no longer bind the antibiotic", some are new information in brand new enzymes that destroys the antibiotic before it can kill the bacteria, some are new information to increase production of the target of the antibiotic (so the antibiotic cannot eliminate all the target).
Not always. Do you grow azealias? Azealias used to be only warm climate plants that would not grow in, say, Minnesota. But some people grew azealias in cold climates. Most died, of course, but a very few developed the ability to survive a cold winter. After many generations, the people now have several varieties of azealia that will survive in Minnesota. Evolution by artificial selection, but evolution. A new azealia that can do what no azealia before has been able to do.
13. Butters, F. K. 1941. Hybrid Woodsias in Minnesota. Amer. Fern. J. 31:15-21.
14. Butters, F. K. and R. M. Tryon, jr. 1948. A fertile mutant of a Woodsia hybrid. American Journal of Botany. 35:138.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
