Where Do Complex Organisms Come From?

[SteveB28]

Yes I said proven. Those that claim science doesn't have to prove or doesn't prove anything are grasping at a vacuous argument in order to explain why they can't prove anything but still claim a fact.

And those that claim that science deals with conclusive proofs understand nothing about the process....!



.

 

[rjs330]

Your first link does not work and your second one is to a bogus source.

Try again.

We'll try and find the first one. It works for me so don't know why it doesn't work for you. Take a look at all the references in the second one. There's plenty out there if you want to look. Dating is not accurate.

 

[AV1611VET]

The fossil record is one line of evidence in evolutionary theory.

So is the genetic record.

So is the morphological record.

So is the geological record.

So is the geographical distribution record.

So is the nested hierarchical record.

So is the embryological record.

There were atheists and unbelievers around long before these records were ever made; so I have to believe that these records have nothing to do with the idea that God doesn't exist.

 

[Speedwell]

We'll try and find the first one. It works for me so don't know why it doesn't work for you. Take a look at all the references in the second one. There's plenty out there if you want to look. Dating is not accurate.

What's off-putting about sites like that is the implication that the various problems which complicate radiometric dating are unknown to or willfully ignored by "evolutionists."

 

[Subduction Zone]

We'll try and find the first one. It works for me so don't know why it doesn't work for you. Take a look at all the references in the second one. There's plenty out there if you want to look. Dating is not accurate.

Your claim, you need to provide valid links. You could quote from it and if you have a point I will aknowledge it. You do realize that the New York Times is not a very good source for scientific claims, don't you?

And the second one is a bogus source. It does not matter who a person links if he is willing to lie. Again, try making your own claims backed up by valid sources.

 

[Astrophile]

For example, are birds and dinosaurs related?

Currently, the relationship between dinosaurs, Archaeopteryx, and modern birds is still under debate. (Wikipedia)

There is no debate, the fossil record contains no clear transitional record, of any relationship between birds and dinosaurs. The scientific methodology, requires objective evidence, not unclear and controversial fossil evidence.

I repeat, the fossil record is the only record of life on this planet.
Any speculative connecting of the dots is invalid and is a waste of everyone's time.

So what were the ancestors of birds? Palaeontologists don't find fossil birds in Early Jurassic, Triassic or Palaeozoic rocks, but, if you are acquainted with the facts of life, you must understand that Cretaceous and later birds had Jurassic, Triassic and Palaeozoic ancestors. Complex living things don't come into existence out of nothing or by spontaneous generation; they are produced by their parents.

Since there are no fossil birds in Triassic or Palaeozoic rocks, birds must be descended from animals that were not birds.

Would you say that because you haven't got a complete fossil record of your ancestors back to the time of Aristotle (384-322 BC) it follows that you didn't have any ancestors of that time, and that 'any speculative connecting of the dots' between the present day and Aristotle 'is invalid and is a waste of everyone's time'?

By the way, do you accept that all modern birds have a common ancestor and that they are directly descended from the very different birds of the Cretaceous period?

 

[HitchSlap]

You're not paying attention. There are all kinds of problems with the dating of fossils.

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/05/31/us/errors-are-feared

It's another one of those assumptive arguments that evolutionists love

The Carbon 14 Myth

As I said, you are ignorant of radioisotope dating.

My advice; stay away from dubious creationist sites that peddle stupidity.

 

[USincognito]

Yes I said proven. Those that claim science doesn't have to prove or doesn't prove anything are grasping at a vacuous argument in order to explain why they can't prove anything but still claim a fact.

I've posted this at least once in a thread you were participating in. Please actually read it this time.
---------------------------------
No such thing as scientific proof.
Common misconceptions about science I: “Scientific proof”
One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.” Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof.

Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.

Dr. Jay Wile, Creationist
Science Can’t Prove Anything – Proslogion
After all, science has proven all sorts of things, hasn’t it?

Of course it hasn’t. In fact, it is impossible for science to prove anything, because science is based on experiments and observations, both of which can be flawed. Often, those flaws don’t become apparent to the scientific community for quite some time. Flawed experiments and observations, of course, lead to flawed conclusions, so even the most secure scientific statements have never been proven. There might be gobs and gobs of evidence for them, but they have not been proven.

Dr. Douglas Theobald, not a Creationist
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Scientific "Proof", scientific evidence, and the scientific method
What is meant by scientific evidence and scientific proof? In truth, science can never establish 'truth' or 'fact' in the sense that a scientific statement can be made that is formally beyond question. All scientific statements and concepts are open to re-evaluation as new data is acquired and novel technologies emerge. Proof, then, is solely the realm of logic and mathematics (and whiskey). That said, we often hear 'proof' mentioned in a scientific context, and there is a sense in which it denotes "strongly supported by scientific means". Even though one may hear 'proof' used like this, it is a careless and inaccurate handling of the term. Consequently, except in reference to mathematics, this is the last time you will read the terms 'proof' or 'prove' in this article.

 

[AV1611VET]

Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof.

Then what is C3H8O?

 

[USincognito]

You're not paying attention. There are all kinds of problems with the dating of fossils.

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/05/31/us/errors-are-feared

As I said, you are ignorant of radioisotope dating.

My advice; stay away from dubious creationist sites that peddle stupidity.

Your first link does not work and your second one is to a bogus source.

Try again.

This is the article he was trying to link to. It doesn't say what he thinks it does and it's a popular press article by a journalist, not an actual scientific source.
ERRORS ARE FEARED IN CARBON DATING

 

[AV1611VET]

It doesn't say what he thinks it does and it's a popular press article by a journalist, not an actual scientific source.

They at odds with each other all the time, are they?

 

[Astrophile]

This is the article he was trying to link to. It doesn't say what he thinks it does and it's a popular press article by a journalist, not an actual scientific source.
ERRORS ARE FEARED IN CARBON DATING

Notice the date of the article, 31 May 1990. I suppose that scientists working in the field have already taken these results on board.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is the article he was trying to link to. It doesn't say what he thinks it does and it's a popular press article by a journalist, not an actual scientific source.
ERRORS ARE FEARED IN CARBON DATING

Thank you. Ironically the errors in C14 dating were found using another method of radiometric dating. Though you are aware of the following this next comment is aimed more at the creationists. C14 in many ways is the least reliable method of dating objects that are relatively open to the surrounding environment. The problem is that the biosphere is extremely rich in carbon and items that are to be dated can be contaminated by either new carbon or old carbon. Either one will give a false date. Crystals within rocks are rather difficult to contaminate and tend to show obvious signs of contamination. That is why you can generally trust radiometric dates of rocks, though there are ways of doing that wrong too.

 

[Subduction Zone]

They at odds with each other all the time, are they?

No.

 

[klutedavid]

Hello Astrophile.

You have evolutionary theory, a factual theory, one that is beyond any reasonable doubt.

You asked the following question.

So what were the ancestors of birds?

This is what the debate I quoted earlier is all about, Astrophile. The ancestry of birds is unclear in the fossil record.

Palaeontologists don't find fossil birds in Early Jurassic, Triassic or Palaeozoic rocks, but, if you are acquainted with the facts of life, you must understand that Cretaceous and later birds had Jurassic, Triassic and Palaeozoic ancestors.

A lack of evidence of birds in the epochs you mentioned, does not necessarily mean, that birds did not exist in earlier epochs.

Complex living things don't come into existence out of nothing or by spontaneous generation; they are produced by their parents.

You believe in random events, hence, anything is possible, any inherent complexity is irrelevant. No need for any previous events to occur, an event can just happen. No causation is required, unpredictable events just happen all the time, astrophile.

Since there are no fossil birds in Triassic or Palaeozoic rocks, birds must be descended from animals that were not birds.

This is what you have been taught, birds must have evolved from an earlier land or sea species. We have no observations available to establish any bird lineage, that should be the end of the matter.

Would you say that because you haven't got a complete fossil record of your ancestors back to the time of Aristotle (384-322 BC) it follows that you didn't have any ancestors of that time, and that 'any speculative connecting of the dots' between the present day and Aristotle 'is invalid and is a waste of everyone's time'?

This is not really related to our discussion.

By the way, do you accept that all modern birds have a common ancestor and that they are directly descended from the very different birds of the Cretaceous period?

I have no interest in trying to unravel the mysteries of the universe. Too much information from the deeper past is missing,
and I dislike making assumptions.

 

[USincognito]

No.

Why does that person keep quoting me?

 

[AV1611VET]

Why does that person keep quoting me?

Because if he misquoted you, you'd have bug fits.

 

[Speedwell]

You believe in random events, hence, anything is possible, any inherent complexity is irrelevant. No need for any previous events to occur, an event can just happen. No causation is required, unpredictable events just happen all the time, astrophile.

The only random that applies here is the random distribution (think "bell curve") of variation in the population. It's not clear what you're talking about, but it certainly isn't the theory of evolution.

 

[SteveB28]

A lack of evidence of birds in the epochs you mentioned, does not necessarily mean, that birds did not exist in earlier epochs.

But it is ONE of the pieces of evidence which support the dinosaur-to-bird transition.

ONE of the pieces.



.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The only random that applies here is the random distribution (think "bell curve") of variation in the population. It's not clear what you're talking about, but it certainly isn't the theory of evolution.

This is a point that needs to be made more often. Since evolution is a series of events using natural selection. a nonrandom process, from a statistical curve, a nonrandom object, it is a rather gross mistake to call evolution random.