You said: "Every species that is alive today represents the end of a long evolutionary process." And the evidence to back that up?In your last post, you wrote:This leads me to ask why is the "inferior" ape family still in existence but not a single one of the presumed intermediate forms, especially since they are supposed to be more advanced in evolution? I was responding to this point of yours, not offering up evidence for evolution. You basically made a claim that "The theory of evolution predicts x, and we don't find x to be the case, so evolution must be false." But your claims are specious. Evolution doesn't claim that apes are inferior, or a lower form, so your entire argument is based on a misunderstanding of the theory. In the face of this, you changed the subject without batting an eyelash.You made a ridiculous claim about the theory of evolution, completely without basis in actual science, and now you claim that evolution has to live up to your fake expectations. It's like saying that evolution has to predict the existence of flying purple cows, and since there aren't any flying purple cows, you say that proves that evolution didn't happen. The problem is not with the theory, it's with your sophomoric understanding of what the theory is supposed to say.Read Dawkins. Read Origin of the Species. Read the intro to ev bio on talkorigins. Not because you have to believe these things. Because when you make fake claims about the predictions of evolution without knowing anything about the actual science, you really don't help your credibility.According to the magazine Science Digest, "all the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin!"It's both convenient and typical that you didn't (a) provide the full quote in the context of the rest of the article, or (b) supply the name and date of the article. It keeps people from checking your sources. In this case, your quote is from an article written by Lyall Watson back in 1982. I am unable to find the full text of the article online, but given the fact that Watson (http://www.lyallwatson.com) is currently a practicing evolutionary biologist, I'm guessing that his full article wasn't that much of a blow to the science.Regardless of whether it was true in 1982, it isn't true now. Even creationists have disavowed the accuracy of that quote.http://www.bio.net//hypermail/MOLECULAR-EVOLUTION/mol-evol.199505/0160.html"I was surprised to find that instead of enough fossils barely to fit into a coffin, as one evolutionist once stated [in 1982], there were over 4,000 hominid fossils as of 1976. Over 200 specimens have been classified as Neandertal and about one hundred as Home erectus. More of these fossils have been found since 1976." (M.J. Oard [creationist], in his review of the book, "Bones of Contention -- A Creationist Assessment of Human Fossils", in the Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 30, March 1994, p.222) It is a tribute to the fundamental dishonesty of creationists that they keep reciting these discredited lines and out of context quotes.And for more fun with evidence:"29 Evidences for Macroevolution"http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/"Observed Instances of Speciation"http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html"Some More Observed Speciation Events"http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html"Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ"http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.htmlIt must be a really big coffin, eh?Speaking of the challenge to "the principles of evolution, as laid down by Darwin and others," The New York Times summed up the situation by stating: "The field is in an uproar." A well-informed scientist writes: "We admit there are gaping holes in the evidence for evolution. . . . Yes, evolution is only a theory. Believing in evolution, then, is an act of faith." A scientist who has actually examined what little evidence there is admitted that it takes faith to believe in evolution. Makes one wonder.Oh boy, more out of context quotes. No date or author on the New York Times, and the quote doesn't even say WHAT field is in an uproar. The article may well be sports coverage ("The field is in an uproar as Dan Marino crosses the 20 yard line...") or it may be saying "The field is in an uproar over the new transitional fossil that has been found." Which well informed scientist wrote about the gaping holes? Why was he so confused about the word "theory" that he thought it meant that it's faith based? Is the theory of gravity an act of faith? Is the "scientist" named Henry Morris, perhaps? Providing a bunch of quotes without sources or background is not much more convincing than quoting yourself.Those magazine pictures of ape-men that are used to uphold the evolution theory are nothing more than figments of the imagination, drawn on the basis of a few small fragments of a skull or a jawbone. For example, on page 1 of The New York Times of August 16, 1985, [notice again -- the article is pulled from 15 years ago because there's so little recent material that supports your case] there appeared an "artist's reconstruction of Amphipithecus, earliest known higher primate . . . from which humans evolved," showing its hairy head and hands. From what was this reconstructed? Says the accompanying article: "The rear portion of a lower jaw together with the frontal jaw fragment found half a century before." But can the complete head, hair and all, really be reconstructed on the basis of two such fragments? The article quoted an anthropologist at Harvard University as calling these fossils a "pool of light in acres of darkness."Right, and who uncovered this piece of tabloid science? Was it creationists performing experiments? Or was it scientists, performing the normal activity of science correcting itself? Here, i'll give you a hint.http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_nebraska.htmlThe reality was that this "artist's conception" was picked up by the media as an exciting discovery even though it was never widely accepted in scientific circles.How about the skull of Piltdown man. For 40 years it was in the spotlight but was exposed in 1953 as an assemblage of bone fragments, some animal and some human, fraudulently stuck together as a hoax.And again, the intentional hoax was ultimately discovered and exposed by practicing scientists, proving once again that they are pretty good at what they do.Kazim, I used alot of quotes because according to you I don't have any idea of what I'm talking about.You don't. You know how to repeat discredited arguments from the Creation Research Institute -- I'll admit that. Your sources would impress me more if you could attribute them properly and find full quotes rather than out of context snippets.I thought maybe the sources I provided would have some sort of idea, or is it only you that has all the answers? If you do, please tell me where to find the missing links? Such as which ones in particular?
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar. Earnings Estimates, Analyst Ra