Science Disproves Evolution

[Delta9 UK]

For a realistic treatment of Archaeopteryx go to:
- On the Alleged Dinosaurian Ancestry of Birds -

Are you remotely serious?

Archaeopteryx (spp) died out, it was an evolutionary dead-end and it wasn't the ancestor to modern birds - sheesh. It was however a great example of a Transitional form having both features.

Linking to yet another creationist website proves nothing. That's like quoting the Bible as evidence ffs.

[Delta9 UK]

As your previous post was a REALLY long copy-paste I won't bother refuting each point one by one as it would mean I would have to spend more time using my brain than you did creating some blue text.

Instead I will post a nice link to a page which explains why your previous post was full of lies and disinformation instead - which is more pleasing to our dear readers.

Often Creationists use mis-quotes and outright lies to try and suggest that the theory of evolution is in doubt within the scientific community. This is simply not true and most creationist are well out of their depth (no flood pun intended).

Anyway here is the link which proves your copy-paste was a sham:
Evolution hasn't been observed

Ah screw it, let's make it 2 links:
Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution

If you don't understand the theory in the first place you can't expect a reasonable debate.

[Pahu78]

As your previous post was a REALLY long copy-paste I won't bother refuting each point one by one as it would mean I would have to spend more time using my brain than you did creating some blue text.

Instead I will post a nice link to a page which explains why your previous post was full of lies and disinformation instead - which is more pleasing to our dear readers.

Often Creationists use mis-quotes and outright lies to try and suggest that the theory of evolution is in doubt within the scientific community. This is simply not true and most creationist are well out of their depth (no flood pun intended).

Anyway here is the link which proves your copy-paste was a sham:
Evolution hasn't been observed

Ah screw it, let's make it 2 links:
Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution

If you don't understand the theory in the first place you can't expect a reasonable debate.

You will find the article you suggested: "Five Major Evolutionist Misconceptions about Evolution" by Mark Isaak, is thoroughly refuted in this article:

- Five Major Evolutionist Misconceptions about Evolution -

[Pahu78]

[align=center]
Fossil Gaps 5a
[/align]

â??This regular absence of transitional forms is not confined to mammals, but is an almost universal phenomenon, as has long been noted by paleontologists. It is true of almost all orders of all classes of animals, both vertebrate and invertebrate. A fortiori, it is also true of the classes, themselves, and of the major animal phyla, and it is apparently also true of analogous categories of plants.â?� George Gaylord Simpson, Tempo and Mode in Evolution (New York: Columbia University Press, 1944), p. 107.

â??...the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution. In other words, there are not enough intermediates. There are very few cases where one can find a gradual transition from one species to another and very few cases where one can look at a part of the fossil record and actually see that organisms were improving in the sense of becoming better adapted.â?� Ibid., p. 23.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 23. Fossil Gaps

[Pahu78]

[align=center]
Fossil Gaps 4a
[/align]

â??But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places. When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply arenâ??t there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they donâ??t exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isnâ??t, or might be, transitional between this group or that.â?� Hitching, p. 19.

â??There is no more conclusive refutation of Darwinism than that furnished by palaeontology. Simple probability indicates that fossil hoards can only be test samples. Each sample, then, should represent a different stage of evolution, and there ought to be merely â??transitionalâ?? types, no definition and no species. Instead of this we find perfectly stable and unaltered forms persevering through long ages, forms that have not developed themselves on the fitness principle, but appear suddenly and at once in their definitive shape; that do not thereafter evolve towards better adaptation, but become rarer and finally disappear, while quite different forms crop up again. What unfolds itself, in ever-increasing richness of form, is the great classes and kinds of living beings which exist aboriginally and exist still, without transition types, in the grouping of today.â?� Oswald Spengler, The Decline of the West, Vol. 2 (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1966), p. 32.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 23. Fossil Gaps

[5thHorseMan]

a puddle of water fits so well in a hole, it swears the hole must have been created for exactly this purpose.

[ArgoSG]

I think the single most amusing ignorance that creations share in common can be found when they attempt to discuss transitional fossils. Are you a creationist and reading? Perhaps I can shed some light on this misunderstanding.. erhm.. well... you see...



EVERY... FOSSIL... WE FIND..... IS... ESSENTIALLY... TRANSITIONAL....

Yes, you read correctly. You see, they all transition from one species to another. Every new species shortens the gap between one species transitioning to another. I hope that cleared things up! Keep in mind it's possible to still believe in your Santa Claus for Adults. However, a deep critical probing will probably lead you to at the very least, not claim the wisest of our books was written in the 1st century by desert tribes.

[5thHorseMan]

and naturally of course creationists don't consider why there are gaps in the fossil record. They just see the gap and claim that such a gap shows invalidity in the entire study of evolution.

There are gaps because one, we haven't dug up every spot of land looking for fossils but are instead looking for them only where others have already been found, two not every animal that dies becomes a fossil, in fact the vast majority of these animals would be eaten and eventually decompose without leaving a trace. But creationists never take into account either of these factors when spouting the bullshit.

[5thHorseMan]

also some scientists theorize that evolution does not in fact occur in finely graduated steps, but unevenly across a a span of time. That a species will evolve more quickly under adverse conditions, increased resourse competition, resoourse scarcity, or increased or decreased predation. This means you might have a period thats very long with only minimal change occuring, and a short period with monumental change happening.

[denialisback]

Compatible Senders and Receivers

Only intelligence creates codes, programs, and information (CP&I). Each involves senders and receivers. Senders and receivers can be people, animals, plants, organs, cells, or certain molecules. (The DNA molecule is a prolific sender.) The CP&I in a message must be understandable and beneficial to both sender and receiver; otherwise, the effort expended in transmitting and receiving messages (written, chemical, electrical, magnetic, visual, and auditory) will be wasted.

Consider the astronomical number of links (message channels) that exist between potential senders and receivers: from the cellular level to complete organisms, from bananas to bacteria to babies, and across all of time since life began. All must have compatible understandings (CP&I) and equipment (matter and energy).

yes, its called cellular automata

Compatible Senders and Receivers Designing compatibilities of this magnitude requires one or more superintelligences. Furthermore, these superintelligence(s) must completely understand how matter and energy behave over time.

no, cellular automata starts from a simple rule n^2+1, creates a fractal pattern that is simple at first, but creates diffraction and eventually becomes very complex generations of code.. Wolfram believes the universe actually works like this. It would be described as overunity by modern scientists, put in one simple rule and the output is an advanced intelligent universe.. I not sure if superintelligence is required in a fractal evolutionary cellular automata model, what do you think??


Peace,
denial