are there Anti-Darwinism theories


by Turkish
Tags: antidarwinism, theories
paralith
paralith is offline
#19
Jun17-07, 12:52 AM
P: 23
Quote Quote by scott_alexsk View Post
The same classes have simply existed from the beginning and have changed as times changed.
Uh huh. So at the beginning of all life on earth, just *pop* we had complex mutlicellular organisms? The mammals, the insects, the fish...this is starting to sound like a creationist argument to me. Which is completely non-scientific and not even worth addressing.
Moridin
Moridin is offline
#20
Jun17-07, 09:48 AM
P: 858
The NAS defines a scientific theory as a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024&page=2

Here are some evidence for macroevolution and observed speciation.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
Observed Instances of Speciation
Some More Observed Speciation Events
moose
moose is offline
#21
Jun17-07, 10:31 PM
moose's Avatar
P: 555
Quote Quote by russ_watters View Post
Evolution is not a phenomena that is reasonable to demand must be demonstrated in a lab. Kinda like all of astronomy...
Oh, what a great example! Stellar evolution, for example, has never been observed. It takes too long!
scott_alexsk
scott_alexsk is offline
#22
Jun18-07, 12:50 PM
P: 353
Mr. Watters,

You would have a point if it were not for two things. One is this: there is an absence of transition species in the fossil record. The Cambrian explosion is very troubling in that in an 'instant' (around 25 mil) all major phyla just 'appeared' in the fossil record, without any visible transitions. Also with the appearance of future species, throughout their existence they either remained relatively unchanged since their appearance, or they went extinct.

One example of this is the coelacanth. This creature is believed to have been the transition species for water to land animals. However it has changed insignificantly since its appearance in the fossil record before the dinosaurs. Evolutionary biologists hoped this creature would provide significant evidence for their proposed path since living samples with organs and such could be had, but really it was just a fish with thick fins and nothing more.

The second point is that there are experiments which can be done and have been done concerning macroevolution. Bacteria and viruses are the fastest changing organisms on earth. It was from ancient bacteria that all multicellular life formed ‘suddenly’. Why is it not that these rapidly changing and evolving creatures cannot be forced down a particular path and make a fungus or something even more basic. After observing bacteria colonies renown zoologist and evolutionist Pierre-Paul Grasse' concluded,

"What is the use of their unceasing mutations if they do not change? In sum the mutations of bacteria and viruses are merely hereditary fluctuations around a median position, a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect."

PS. Don’t try to use mudskippers as an argument, because real macroevolutionists won’t even consider them as candidates because of their inadequate bone structures which are even more unsuitable than the coelacanth and its relatives, which have never been observed to walk on land, for developed land locomotion later on down the evolutionary road.

-scott
paralith
paralith is offline
#23
Jun18-07, 01:14 PM
P: 23
Now it's time for one of my pet peeves: complaining about the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record. You have to understand the fossil record - it is incomplete. The likelihood of any individual animal dying in such a way and place that its skeleton becomes preserved as a fossil, and the likelihood of that fossil not being destroyed some time after its formation, and the likelihood of that fossil then being unearthed in a time and place as to be discovered by humans - is, in sum, very small. Over billions of years of life, what may seem like a lot of fossils to us is but a small sample size of all life that ever existed on this planet. Some transitional forms of animals may have existed for a relatively short period of time, in an area not very favorable for the formation and preservation of fossils, so there may be no fossils of these creatures. That doesn't mean they didn't exist simply because we can't lay our grubby little paws on their bones. We only have separated bits and pieces of the tree of life - pieces which give us data we can extrapolate from. But if you decide to take these pieces at face value only, it does seem to look like all we have are isolated forms and not transitions between. But that is an uneducated assumption.

Also, I don't understand why the coelacanth being a "fish with thick fins" necessarily negates it being the descendant (probably one line that didn't change much from the original ancestor, while another line did) of a transitional form between fish and terrestrial animals. What else would we expect? It begins with thicker, fleshy fins that the fish can use to "walk" over the ocean floor. This walking becomes advantageous, giving the fish a way to move in shallow pools, then it becomes advantageous to be amphibious - etc.
scott_alexsk
scott_alexsk is offline
#24
Jun18-07, 01:43 PM
P: 353
That is a weak arguement. Transition forms should not take up a small fraction of the fossil record, it should be huge according to Darwin himself. You cannot simply write off their absence because, "Well I guess those fossils were not preserved." This is not science; you can go anywhere with such a conclusion, and make anything out of nothing. It is pure meaningless speculation. This is why actual evolutionary biologists base their conclusions off of fossils they can see.

I would appreciate it if you could show me one intermediate from the cambrian explosion, one example of a creature that served as an intermediate between brewing pools of bacteria and shelled creatures.

-scott
Evo
Evo is offline
#25
Jun18-07, 02:46 PM
Mentor
Evo's Avatar
P: 25,961
This has become an absolute nonsense creationist "if I can't see it in the fossil record, it doesn't exist" sham argument.

Well, I can't see god, therefore it doesn't exist.

New fossils are being found all of the time which are shedding new light on evolution. And we can SEE them.

This is going nowhere.
russ_watters
russ_watters is online now
#26
Jun18-07, 02:50 PM
Mentor
P: 22,008
I guess it all depends on what you consider a "transitional form". Typically they get defined by anti-evolution types to be just narrow enough to not include anything already found. It would seem reasonable to me to say, for example, that there are at least 3 "transitional forms" on this human evolution tree - and one "missing link": http://images.google.com/imgres?imgu...&ct=image&cd=3


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas running on anti-evo, anti-stemcell '08 Prez. campain Current Events 30
Darwinism not testable General Discussion 8
Hobbes social darwinism Social Sciences 1
Neural Darwinism Medical Sciences 2
Informational Darwinism General Discussion 0