• ** There has been a recent site upgrade. Please clear your browser cache to avoid issues. **
  • New forum feature - post voting and best solution

    Check out this thread for the details: https://www.access-programmers.co.uk/forums/threads/new-forum-feature-post-voting-and-best-answer.314134/

    This new feature looks great to me! :)

  • We now have 3 forum themes

    Go for the default (light) theme, Shades of Grey or Shades of Blue. I just added the Blue one.

    The thread about it is here: https://www.access-programmers.co.uk/forums/threads/new-forum-theme-shades-of-blue.314136/

Genesis Account v. Macroevolution Myth (1 Viewer)

Alter2Ego

Registered User.
Local time
Today, 13:33
Joined
Feb 12, 2015
Messages
22
No it doesn't show that creatures "jump" from one form to another. It show that we have an incomplete fossil record. A "rapid" change would sill involve many thousands of generations even though this would be a blink of an eye in geological scales.

Galaxiom:

By your own admission, what we have is a fossil record in which there is nothing but gaps or missing links ("an incomplete fossil record" as you put it). The result? We end up with creatures jumping from Creature A to Creature D with nothing in between (Creature B and Creature C). There are no transitional fossils to show how Creature A ended up as Creature D.

Gould and Eldridge tried to talk their way around the fossils evidence by dreaming up Punctuated Equilibrium, which says there is no need for transitional fossils. [FONT=&quot]Everybody reading this thread knows that if everything alive today were the result of evolution, the fossil evidence would be inundated with examples of animals changing to other species. Instead, as another pro-evolution paleontologist admitted: [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
"There is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways it has become almost unmanageably rich, and discovery is out-pacing integration... The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps." (George, T. Neville, "Fossils in Evolutionary Perspective," Science Progress, vol. 48 January 1960, pp. 1-3.)
[/FONT]

So if, as you claim, a "rapid change would sill involve many thousands of generations," how is it that there is not so much as a single transitional fossil from among the "many thousands of generations" that shows the creatures evolving into something else?

Inquiring minds want to know.


Alter2Ego



[FONT=&quot]________________
[/FONT]"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." (Psalms 83:18)
 

Galaxiom

Super Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Tomorrow, 07:33
Joined
Jan 20, 2009
Messages
12,078
Instead, as another pro-evolution paleontologist admitted:

"There is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways it has become almost unmanageably rich, and discovery is out-pacing integration... The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps." (George, T. Neville, "Fossils in Evolutionary Perspective," Science Progress, vol. 48 January 1960, pp. 1-3.)​
You seize upon the part you bolded in red but ignore the rest.

"There is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways it has become almost unmanageably rich, and discovery is out-pacing integration..."

Yes the fossil record is composed mainly of gaps but there a a large number of fossils that do show transitional forms between major groups of organisms.

So if, as you claim, a "rapid change would sill involve many thousands of generations," how is it that there is not so much as a single transitional fossil from among the "many thousands of generations" that shows the creatures evolving into something else?

Because fossilisation is rare, many of those that do occur are destroyed by tectonic activity and only a very small proportion end up in places where they are accessible to be found.
 

ConnorGiles

Strange Traveller
Local time
Today, 21:33
Joined
Aug 12, 2014
Messages
1,068
Galaxiom, I Don't see how you haven't grasped that this is like getting blood from a stone.

He will never answer the points you put forward he can't answer. Many people including myself have proclaimed to him that he does not have a shred of evidence for his creation myth but the book he closely clutches and even that could be made up.
 

Frothingslosh

Premier Pale Stale Ale
Local time
Today, 16:33
Joined
Oct 17, 2012
Messages
3,260
I get the impression that religious discussions are to Galaxiom like political discussions are to me. :D
 

Libre

been around a little
Local time
Today, 13:33
Joined
May 3, 2007
Messages
660
Not that I can add to the well written rebuttals of Galaxion, Frothingslosh, and others, but what the hell, I'm home sick and feel like chiming in here.


QUESTION #1. Just like Charles Darwin, the modern-day evolution scientific community asserts that every single animal that has ever existed came from one common ancestor aka came from a single organism (macroevolution). If that is the case, why is there no evidence in support of it in the fossils record?
This is a straw man argument if I ever heard one.
I don't know that the "scientific community" asserts any such thing.
So, all I have to do is say that there are those in the scientific community that DON'T assert that EVERY SINGLE animal that has EVER existed came from ONE COMMON ancestor - as a rebuttal? Suppose the conditions for life to exist became prevalent over a wide area, over a period of time, and life sprang up in multiple places, not just one organism in one place at one instant?

QUESTION #2.The premise of biological/organic evolution is the "survival of the fittest," that older versions of a creature disappear whenever a more advanced version evolves. The claim by evolutionists is that humans evolved from apes. In that case, why is it that apes continue to exist along with humans?
This has really been answered very convincingly by Galaxion, but what I see here is yet another straw man. "Older versions of a creature disappear", "humans evolved from apes" are both weak arguments that you yourself, Alter2Ego are trying to mount only to try to disprove. In the first place, natural selection asserts that those creatures that can adapt better UNDER A SPECIFIC SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES will thrive and TEND to displace less adapted creatures. They could both coexist for long periods - the process takes a lot of time. In other places, under different circumstances, other adaptations might be more advantageous so other creatures would thrive. Adaptations in the arctic would be quite different from those at the equator.
Then the statement "The claim by evolutionists is that humans evolved from apes" - does anybody still assert this - after the "Scopes Monkey Trial" in 1925? You persist in asserting statements (supposedly) made by Darwin, Pasteur, and other pioneers. Don't you think anything has been learned in genetics and evolution since these sciences were first founded? What if our entire knowledge of physics were restricted to what was discovered by Galileo and Newton? Darwin was merely the first to publish his thoughts and observations - there have been numerous refinements and improvements in the theory since then.
QUESTION #3. How did the supposed common ancestor come to life by itself (abiogenesis) so that evolution could then proceed?

I don't know, you don't know, and in fact nobody knows. What is almost comically funny, is that you discount the fossil record because nobody can draw a straight line from the original life forms that were generated in the oceans billions of years ago, to modern Homo sapiens today, with fossilized remains. It's like saying you need proof that there are integers from - infinity to + infinity and the only way to demonstrate that is to provide an example of every single one. Since that can't be done (regardless of the obvious truth of the assertion) you aren't satisfied. So rather than looking at the vast available evidence (not to mention the logic of the proposition), you reject it all wholesale and instead claim that mighty Jehova (aka "magic") created it all from nothing - for which there is ZERO evidence - which has been stated numerous times in this thread but I've yet to see you deal with that objection.
 

Frothingslosh

Premier Pale Stale Ale
Local time
Today, 16:33
Joined
Oct 17, 2012
Messages
3,260
No matter how many they find they will never find enough for those that think evolution is junk science and that creationism answers all the questions.

All too true, I'm afraid.

I have to admit, trying to discuss with people like A2E and Blade, along with their ilk on other websites, is slowly but surely moving me from agnostic toward atheist rather than the direction they expect their arguments to sway me toward.
 

Libre

been around a little
Local time
Today, 13:33
Joined
May 3, 2007
Messages
660
Oh, I moved to the atheist position long ago. It's just such an ugly word, I don't know. And there are some things that, no matter how obvious, finally admitting that they're true is hard when there is so much sentiment against - in our upbringing, in literature, in the arts. God is all over the place. I think that I read in the US, atheists account for only 10% of the pop. Imagine that. I think a gay candidate for public office would have a far better chance of being elected than a self-proclaimed atheist. Hard to imagine - not that a gay shouldn't be elected.
 

Frothingslosh

Premier Pale Stale Ale
Local time
Today, 16:33
Joined
Oct 17, 2012
Messages
3,260
Oh, I moved to the atheist position long ago. It's just such an ugly word, I don't know. And there are some things that, no matter how obvious, finally admitting that they're true is hard when there is so much sentiment against - in our upbringing, in literature, in the arts. God is all over the place. I think that I read in the US, atheists account for only 10% of the pop. Imagine that. I think a gay candidate for public office would have a far better chance of being elected than a self-proclaimed atheist. Hard to imagine - not that a gay shouldn't be elected.

There are quite a few openly gay members to have been part of the US Congress, although the number is small enough that they can all be listed in a Wikipedia article. My several seconds of research indicates that there have been precisely *SIX* known atheist members of Congress (and a few more at the state level). It's a known fact that, despite the unconstitutionality of a religious test for public office (not that Virginia cares), it is quite literally impossible for an atheist to be elected president at the current time. JFK really had to work to overcome being CATHOLIC, for crying out loud, and that's still Christian.

I'd imagine that in the current political climate, the chance of a Muslim being elected president any time soon is effectively nil, too.

Me, I'm waiting for the first to be either a Satanist or a Pastafarian.
 

ConnorGiles

Strange Traveller
Local time
Today, 21:33
Joined
Aug 12, 2014
Messages
1,068
Me, I'm waiting for the first to be either a Satanist or a Pastafarian.

I'd be okay with a pastafarian! Satanist on the other hand, well depends :cool:.

Have you ever read the eleven commandments of satanism? They actually don't seem too bad :D - (Before someone says it, I'm not a Satanist! Just a Atheist who finds amusement in religion :p)
 

Alter2Ego

Registered User.
Local time
Today, 13:33
Joined
Feb 12, 2015
Messages
22
QUESTION #1. Just like Charles Darwin, the modern-day evolution scientific community asserts that every single animal that has ever existed came from one common ancestor aka came from a single organism (macroevolution). If that is the case, why is there no evidence in support of it in the fossils record?


This is a straw man argument if I ever heard one.
I don't know that the "scientific community" asserts any such thing.
So, all I have to do is say that there are those in the scientific community that DON'T assert that EVERY SINGLE animal that has EVER existed came from ONE COMMON ancestor - as a rebuttal? Suppose the conditions for life to exist became prevalent over a wide area, over a period of time, and life sprang up in multiple places, not just one organism in one place at one instant?

Libre:

You claim that I am presenting a straw man argument, but at the same time, you admit "you don't know" that the scientific community asserts that every single creature that has ever walked this earth came from a single common ancestor (bolded in red).

You then turn around and decide to argue both ends of the totem pole by telling me there are those in the scientific community that do not make the assertion (bolded in blue). The OFFICIAL position taken by the majority in the scientific community is noted below.


DARWIN'S THEORY IN 1859: (Origin of Species, p. 484)
"Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some ONE primordial form, into which life was first breathed."


Here we are in 2015, with pro-evolution scientists making the same unsubstantiated claim that every biologic being that ever walked on earth evolved from a single common ancestor.


EVOLUTION THEORY IN 2015:
"
Scientific theory
The commonly accepted scientific theory about how life has changed since it originated has three major aspects.

1. The common descent of all organisms from (more or less) a single ancestor.

2. The origin of novel traits in a lineage

3. The mechanisms that cause some traits to persist while others perish"

http://knowledgerush.com/encyclopedia/Evolution/



Did you notice that the above encyclopedia source says "A SINGLE ANCESTOR"? Now, run that by me again where you made the claim: "I don't know that the "scientific community" asserts any such thing." And do not forget that bit about me presenting a strawman argument when I correctly presented the official scientific position.

Alter2Ego



________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." ~ Psalms 83:18
 

Alter2Ego

Registered User.
Local time
Today, 13:33
Joined
Feb 12, 2015
Messages
22
QUESTION #2. The premise of biological/organic evolution is the "survival of the fittest," that older versions of a creature disappear whenever a more advanced version evolves. The claim by evolutionists is that humans evolved from apes. In that case, why is it that apes continue to exist along with humans?
This has really been answered very convincingly by Galaxion, but what I see here is yet another straw man. "Older versions of a creature disappear", "humans evolved from apes" are both weak arguments that you yourself, Alter2Ego are trying to mount only to try to disprove. In the first place, natural selection asserts that those creatures that can adapt better UNDER A SPECIFIC SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES will thrive and TEND to displace less adapted creatures. They could both coexist for long periods - the process takes a lot of time. In other places, under different circumstances, other adaptations might be more advantageous so other creatures would thrive. Adaptations in the arctic would be quite different from those at the equator.

Libre:

It might have convinced you. But it certainly did not give a logical explanation for why apes are still here, after they were replaced by their supposed updated versions aka human beings.



In the first place, natural selection asserts that those creatures that can adapt better UNDER A SPECIFIC SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES will thrive and TEND to displace less adapted creatures. They could both coexist for long periods - the process takes a lot of time. In other places, under different circumstances, other adaptations might be more advantageous so other creatures would thrive. Adaptations in the arctic would be quite different from those at the equator.

You are making things up as you go. You are attempting to talk your way around the problem of apes co-existing with humans by telling me your version of natural selection. You are in good company. [FONT=&quot]Niles[/FONT][FONT=&quot] Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould[/FONT] tried to talk their way around the fossils evidence when they dreamed up punctuated equilibrium (when they realized that the fossils record does not show any evidence of creatures evolving).

Truth be told, natural selection never states that older and newer versions of the same creature would "both coexist for long periods"--as you claim. The theory simply states that the updated version would reproduce more successfully and would "
transmit and perpetuate their essential genotypic qualities" (in other words, they would continue to exhibit the same essential physical characteristics).

Natural selection

Definition
noun
A process in nature in which organisms possessing certain genotypic characteristics that make them better adjusted to an environment tend to survive, reproduce, increase in number or frequency and therefore, are able to transmit and perpetuate their essential genotypic qualities to succeeding generations.

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Natural_selection


Obviously, if natural selection causes a creature to be more likely to survive, reproduce, and increase in number and "transmit and perpetuate their essential genotypic qualities," the OPPOSITE would be expected of those that are the older version that failed to be "naturally" selected. Yet, apes continue to reproduce for generation after generation and continue to survive. They transmit and perpetuate the same "essential genotypic qualities" so that they continue to look exactly like apes and never like humans. Not only that, the fact that they are unable to interbreed with humans is further evidence that apes and humans are entirely different "species". In fact, their decrease in number is as a direct result of humans slaughtering them and taking over their habitat.


So my question remains: Why are the apes still here?


Exactly when do you intend to provide this forum with an explanation for that large discrepancy?


I will deal with more of your fallacious claims at another time.


Alter2Ego



________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." ~ Psalms 83:18
 
Last edited:

Galaxiom

Super Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Tomorrow, 07:33
Joined
Jan 20, 2009
Messages
12,078
POINTS FOR DISCUSSION:
QUESTION #1. Just like Charles Darwin, the modern-day evolution scientific community asserts that every single animal that has ever existed came from one common ancestor aka came from a single organism (macroevolution). If that is the case, why is there no evidence in support of it in the fossils record?

Because for the vast majority of the generations (for the first almost 4 billion years) they were single cellular organisms which don't normally fossilise.

This was followed by multicellular organisms with soft bodies which rarely fossilise.

By the way. Not just the animals but the plants and microorganisms too. All descended from a single ancestor.
 

Galaxiom

Super Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Tomorrow, 07:33
Joined
Jan 20, 2009
Messages
12,078
So my question remains: Why are the apes still here?

Humans did not descend from modern apes.

Both modern apes and humans descended from a common ancestral species that existed many millions of years ago. The last common ancestor for humans and chimpanzees (our closest living relative) was about seven million years ago.

Those species have indeed died out just as you expected.

However, although it usually happens, Evolution does not require the ancestral species to die out. Often the new species will have adapted to take advantage of a slightly different ecological niche and might not directly compete with the ancestral species.

Moreover, where the new species is derived through separation via a geographical barrier, they don't compete at all.
 

Frothingslosh

Premier Pale Stale Ale
Local time
Today, 16:33
Joined
Oct 17, 2012
Messages
3,260
You know, what's so funny about this discussion is that the questions A2E keeps hammering on have been so thoroughly answered for so long that they no longer even appear on the "15 Questions for Evolutionists" list.
 

Libre

been around a little
Local time
Today, 13:33
Joined
May 3, 2007
Messages
660
A2E-
You're very adept at copying and pasting things that you cherry pick off the net, but less adept at evaluating what these quotes actually mean. You continue to site statements made in the 1800's but fail to use your own sense of reason to understand these statements.
For example:
DARWIN'S THEORY IN 1859: (Origin of Species, p. 484)
"Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some ONE primordial form, into which life was first breathed."
Does it occur to you, A2E, that ONE primordial FORM does not imply one single ORGANISM - as you state? Nor does ONE ANCESTOR mean a single individual.

And when I say that "I don't know that the scientific community asserts any such thing", that is to say that merely because you assert something you haven't proved it, so I don't know it.


You can copy and paste quotes and statements but without understanding what you are asserting, it is difficult or pointless to debate with you.

The theory of evolution does NOT STATE that natural selection will cause the instantaneous and total extinction of a life form and a total and instantaneous replacement by the "improved version". Find me a quote where Darwin said so.
Example: it is widely known that Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon coexisted for long periods and might have interbred - have you ever heard that? Doesn't that destroy your argument that the coexistence of modern apes and humans disproves natural selection?
So these are straw man arguments that you mount, only to disprove. That's quite easy to do.
Here:
Creationism asserts that God created man in his own image, yet everybody looks different from one another. If creationism were true, then everybody would look exactly like God, and exactly like one another. Since they don't, creationism is disproved.
 
Last edited:

KenHigg

Registered User
Local time
Today, 16:33
Joined
Jun 9, 2004
Messages
13,309
Re: Genesis Account v. Macroevolution Myth

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I can't help but answer his ignorance. (Guilty pleasure)

We have gained physical evidence of evolution through fossilisation and so forth , and don't give me that "God planted those to test our faith". You try and call evolution a myth.

Where is your "Actual" evidence of your mythical god?

Without referring to the book
Hum... Why would one supply evidence to support faith? Isn't that some sort of contradiction?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom