The Fossil Record Proves Speciation, Not Evolution of Lifeforms Observed

[DogmaHunter]

I can't believe you actually believe what you just wrote.

How you managed to get a teaching license in any field is a complete mystery to me.

It becomes less mysterious if you assume that no such license was ever given.

 

[stevevw]

The fact that some creatures use to have a feature like teeth or others have lost their eyesight does not necessarily mean that slow and gradual Darwinian evolution morphed these features in the first place. What I find interesting is that most of these examples are about the sudden loss of a complete feature just like we have seen in the fossil records the sudden gain of a complete feature. We do not see the gradual loss of hens teeth but the complete loss of all teeth. If this is the case for producing the features in the first place then this supports design rather than evolution as the sudden appearence of a complete feature is totally against evolution.

Evolution is about small incremnetal steps as it is not capable of producing complete features all at once. In fact there is doubt Darwinian evolution can produce even small functional changes that require the loss of one function replaced by a new function in proteins let only a complete step towards an entire feature. For me this just supports that the genetic info for these features is already existing and has always been there and it is just a case of them being switch on or off. This fits the observations such as the fossil records where we see the sudden appearence of detailed creatures and features that appear from nowhere.

 

[tas8831]

I can't believe you actually believe what you just wrote.

How you managed to get a teaching license in any field is a complete mystery to me.

Private Christian schools are not very picky.

 

[tas8831]

What I find interesting is that most of these examples are about the sudden loss of a complete feature just like we have seen in the fossil records the sudden gain of a complete feature. We do not see the gradual loss of hens teeth but the complete loss of all teeth.

I'm not sure what you expect. Is it your position that for a feature to be lost, it must just get smaller and smaller over generations and then not be there at some point? The genetics being THAT scenario would be far more fantastic than a mutation that 'turns off' the process of producing teeth.

If this is the case for producing the features in the first place then this supports design rather than evolution as the sudden appearence of a complete feature is totally against evolution.

What "complete feature" are you talking about?

Evolution is about small incremnetal steps as it is not capable of producing complete features all at once.

Again, what do you consider a "complete feature"?

Why do you think losing a feature would have to be done incrementally?

In fact there is doubt Darwinian evolution can produce even small functional changes that require the loss of one function replaced by a new function in proteins let only a complete step towards an entire feature.

Documentation please.

For me this just supports that the genetic info for these features is already existing and has always been there and it is just a case of them being switch on or off.

What is the mechanism that would allow these genes to 'be there' for so long, just waiting to be needed, avoid mutating out of functionality?

This fits the observations such as the fossil records where we see the sudden appearence of detailed creatures and features that appear from nowhere.

Or it could be that fossilization is not a guaranteed occurrence, something like that?

 

[tas8831]

And couldn't this indicate the inability of these life forms to escape from rising flood water.

Entire groups of animals, not one being able to move to higher ground, all dying at roughly the same time? No pterodactyls able to fly a bit to perch on a tree next to a sinful human and get fossilized along with modern human fossils?
Yeah... Sounds plausible...

 

[tas8831]

here is a transitional form:

but it doesnt prove any evolution even if those vehicles were self replicate or were made from organic components like a living thing.

(image from The Difference Between Personal and Commercial Auto Insurance)

No, what you have there are different models of vehicles. One did not give birth to the other.

I fail to understand what you hope to accomplish with this continual antic.

 

[Larniavc]

No, what you have there are different models of vehicles. One did not give birth to the other.

Don’t be to sure. They might be magical animal-cars.

 

[tas8831]

Speciation in Reverse

Darwin's finches have become a textbook example in evolutionary biology, speciating as they adapted to different environments in their spread through the Galapagos islands. In the past two decades, the opposite has been happening on Floreana island in the south of the archipelago, according to a paper published in the journal American Naturalist. The opposite of speciation, however, isn't necessarily extinction — at least, not in the familiar sense of a species dying out. Another way for speciation to roll backwards is through hybridization, a process that raises many more (and more interesting) questions than 'straightforward' extinction. (nature.com)

And?

 

[tas8831]

Humans are apes.

Really really wishing something doesnt make it true.

I disagree.

So... You think really wishing something makes it true?

 

[tas8831]

I cannot accept that mankind evolved from a monkey, I will never agree.

A regular Ken Ham.

Do you think being proud of your closed-mindedness is a good thing?

 

[tas8831]

I cannot see how that transition can take place.

I cannot see how that transition from dust of the ground to Adam can take place.

Descending from the trees is sheer suicide for any monkey.

Tell that to lemurs... (while not technically monkeys, primates nonetheless).

Mandrills do pretty well not being in trees. So do geladas. Even little sooty mangabeys spend most of their time on the ground.

So it is probably best not to make broad proclamations when it is trivially easy to show that you are wrong.

 

[Jimmy D]

Mandrills do pretty well not being in trees. So do geladas. Even little sooty mangabeys spend most of their time on the ground.

Not a tree in sight, they're doomed!

 

[tas8831]

Because you do not lose a genetic trait!

Um.... Sure you can.

 

[tas8831]

The genetic variations in the DNA, the differences between man and chimpanzees runs into the millions.

So do the differences between individual humans.

The similarities run in the billions.

Do you understand how genes work?

Why do people believe that man lived in the trees, whose idea was that?

Seems to have been yours. A strawman.

 

[tas8831]

So any "debate" with you on the topic, is an exercise in futily and a waste of time.

Very true, but it is another opportunity to debunk silly creationist claims...

 

[VirOptimus]

Don’t be to sure. They might be magical animal-cars.

Maybe they are made from living rocks?

 

[tas8831]

Is inactive DNA a lost trait or is inactive DNA a dormant trait?

Most of the time it is just inactive DNA.

 

[PsychoSarah]

The existence of the book [has a 30-page chapter]. Notice it is NOT: [makes the 30-page existed, or the other way around]. This chapter can also appear in any other book when it sees fit.

Use another example:

Computer codes a --> does job A
Computer codes b --> does job B
Computer codes (ab) --> does job C.
Job C does not have to have any relationship with job A or job B.

-_- what are you talking about? Job C is a product of the combination of the exact same coding from a and b put together (not exactly analogous to what happened in the all female lizard species, since they are half and half, not doubling up, but whatever). No one would think that the coding of job C was entirely independent of the coding for jobs A and B, because the similarity breaks the boundaries of coincidence.

To argue that we can't genetically determine basic lineage is to act as if paternity tests are entirely inaccurate. Is it possible for the results of a paternity test to be incorrect? Sure, but they are so accurate that viewing the results as if they are probably wrong is foolish.

 

[MoneyGuy]

Oh I'm dying to see some examples of a rock reproducing or being fed. Please keep it PG13 though, I don't wanna be caught looking at lewd rock sex.

Yeah, we don't want any pics showing rock-style sex.

 

[bhsmte]

Some athletes can run a marathon, most men cannot run a marathon.

No one is running around the plains of Africa five thousand years ago.

Many humans could run a marathon, if they trained for it.