Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
gilbo12345

Where Is The Evidence For Evolutionist Assumptions?

Recommended Posts

 

Where it counts: visible, observable evidence that any organism ever transformed into a clearly different classification on at least the family level.

 

Sort of like this: EvolTheo-11.gif

 

So we find bats in the fossil record. We also find rodents in the fossil record. But NO bat/rats. The tips of the branches on the evolutionary tree are there for all to see...now where are all the countless millions of fossils that fill those gaps in between. Darwin saw the problem in his day but said he felt those gaps would be filled in the years to come; but they were not.

 

There are of course, those who say the bat did not evolve from rodents. O.K.....whatever....show us the 'whatever' animal that bats did 'evolve' from. Name it and show us those fossils in an a. b. c. d. e. f. g. development.

 

" it is basically the God of the Gaps horse pucky you are distributing."

 

You're making me wonder how long you are going to last here.

Although bats are one of the most diverse groups of mammals today, they are one of the least common groups in the fossil record. Bats have small, light skeletons that do not preserve well. Also, many live in tropical forests, where conditions are usually unfavorable for the formation of fossils. Thus we know little about the early evolution of bats, save that we can discern from DNA and immunological studies . For other groups, for example horses , the sequence is well defined. as is the evolution of tetrapod limbs and the development of birds, Hopson (1994) noted, "Of all the great transitions between major structural grades within vertebrates, the transition from basal amniotes [egg-laying tetrapods except amphibians] to basal mammals is represented by the most complete and continuous fossil record...., in 1997, Gingerich and Uhen noted that whales (cetaceans) "... have a fossil record that provides remarkably complete evidence of one of life's great evolutionary adaptive radiations: transformation of a land mammal ancestor into a diversity of descendant sea creatures."

 

Your changing the topic, keep your rope. Evolution doesn't deal with the “molecules to first life” part: abiogenesis does, and that is not my field.

 

Fred Williams spells out nothing but foolishness, his website exhibits any number of clear (and fatal) errors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bold emphasis added.

 

Sapiens, who asked for speciation, and what does it have to do with Gilbo's OP? Did you even read the OP? Or did you just see this as an opportunity to play the evolution definition shell game? In virtually the same breath you accuse creationists of dishonesty for not swallowing your attempt to pass off speciation as an answer, and then thumb your nose at the very rule that was set up to disallow that kind of dishonest shell game. Before you pursue this any further, I suggest you reread forum rule #6 (below) and this thread.

 

 

Thanks Bonedigger. I certainly wasn't asking for speciation... rather the evidence evolutionists use when they assume similarities in fossils can be caused via ancestry... How do they know that the specific similarity they are using to postulate ancestry was in fact due to ancestry?

 

 

I was responding to: "I will ask in advance that the evidence given will not be based on assuming similarities = ancestry... This is the thing you are being asked to support so to use something that is based on this assumption is committing the begging the question fallacy. In previous versions of this thread evolutionists (for some reason) feel that this is a logical answer... Sorry logical fallacies are not logical smile.png

 

Bonus points to evolutionists who can post evidence from a peer-reviewed article. Since apparently the evolutionists provide support for these assumptions despite I not seeing any hint of such, since most evolutionists do not realise they are making these assumptions."

 

I think I answered those questions completely and thoroughly.

 

As to equivocation: You are the one equivocating.

 

Evolution is evolution, large or small, micro or macro, evolution, by definition, is just the change in allele frequency over time. I leave it to you to equivocate as to what the amount of change required is, where between micro and macro the differences between the ill-defined "kind" you are so taken with lies. I have presented examples that conform to the usual lay definition of species that demonstrate the development of new species. Was that not what was asked for?

 

Nope its not what I asked for... Please go read the OP... The whole OP not a cherrypicked section...

 

 

Considering the incoming of a few new people I figured I would rehash a favourite argument of mine which demonstrates the belief of evolution to be inherently unscientific.

 

When one considers the evidence given for evolution people may think of DNA, fossils etc.. What people do not consider is the hidden assumption that is assuming similarities are indicative of ancestry.

 

So to put my case simply what is the evidence that supports assuming similarities in fossils demonstrates ancestry between them, I am choosing to focus fossils since they are used for deep time common descent.... Please note- discussions of DNA are invalid on this thread.

 

Tied into this is the convergent evolution contradiction where evolutionists assume that similarities = ancestry, yet also realise that "convergent evolution" can occur whereby similarities form which have no relationship to ancestry.. Meaning that the assumption of similarities = ancestry is debunked by the evolutionists belief in convergence... (So we already know what the answer is wink.png Just hoping some evolutionists who read this can get their heads around it).

 

http://evolutionfair...pic=5833&page=1

 

 

I will ask in advance that the evidence given will not be based on assuming similarities = ancestry... This is the thing you are being asked to support so to use something that is based on this assumption is committing the begging the question fallacy. In previous versions of this thread evolutionists (for some reason) feel that this is a logical answer... Sorry logical fallacies are not logical smile.png

 

Bonus points to evolutionists who can post evidence from a peer-reviewed article. Since apparently the evolutionists provide support for these assumptions despite I not seeing any hint of such, since most evolutionists do not realise they are making these assumptions.

 

 

 

Enjoy! biggrin.png

 

So to put my case simply what is the evidence that supports assuming similarities in fossils demonstrates ancestry between them, I am choosing to focus fossils since they are used for deep time common descent....

 

If you READ the red part... That is the question I am asking... The part you have cherry-picked was extraneous explanation on what I wanted for the explanation, since I have asked similar questions in the past and I often get circular reasoning from evolutionists, which then leads to 8+ pages of myself and others trying to explain to them that their "smart" answer is in fact false circular reasoning... I hoped to circumvent this by stating in the OP that answers which rely on what they are attempting to prove is fallacious.

 

 

Ignoring / cherrypicking the OP and then redefining the questions I ask isn't a polite or even humble entry to this forum.

 

As Bonedigger has mentioned (a few times now) you haven't responded to the OP... Please read his post #75

 

So to put my case simply what is the evidence that supports assuming similarities in fossils demonstrates ancestry between them, I am choosing to focus fossils since they are used for deep time common descent.... Please note- discussions of DNA are invalid on this thread.

 

IF you cannot answer this question then please admit such and leave this thread for those willing to answer the question. If you wish to try your hand, have at it... However keep in mind that "evidence" based on the aforementioned assumptions would lead to circular reasoning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When evolutionists observe similarities they are assuming "evolution did it" since as far as I and all others on here have heard, we haven't seen any evidence the evolutionists give to support their assumptions.

 

How do evolutionists KNOW the X similarity is due to ancestry? (meaning it evolved)

 

Where is the line drawn when similar traits are convergent? How do they know which similarities are convergent and which are not?

 

Doesn't the occurence of convergence demonstrate that evolutionists cannot assume that similarities are due to ancestry? Since if we know that convergence happens then assuming similarities are due to ancestry defies the fact that convergence happens.... Does this mean evolutionists are simply cherry-picking or arbitrarily declaring what is due to ancestry and what is convergent?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Evolution is evolution, large or small, micro or macro, evolution, by definition, is just the change in allele frequency over time.

Introducing_Ol_Mate_Oracle_He_knows_a_th

 

The ol' mate oracle has spoken! I'm sold...Evolution is evolution. You got me there. Time to pack it up, it was a good run, guys, but how can we question universal common descent after being informed that things change over time? Why didn't I ever think of that? Let's see... mutations happen... therefore people can evolve from fish over hundreds of millions of years. Of course! Self-evidently true! rolleyes.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although bats are one of the most diverse groups of mammals today, they are one of the least common groups in the fossil record. Bats have small, light skeletons that do not preserve well. Also, many live in tropical forests, where conditions are usually unfavorable for the formation of fossils. Thus we know little about the early evolution of bats, save that we can discern from DNA and immunological studies . For other groups, for example horses , the sequence is well defined. as is the evolution of tetrapod limbs and the development of birds, Hopson (1994) noted, "Of all the great transitions between major structural grades within vertebrates, the transition from basal amniotes [egg-laying tetrapods except amphibians] to basal mammals is represented by the most complete and continuous fossil record...., in 1997, Gingerich and Uhen noted that whales (cetaceans) "... have a fossil record that provides remarkably complete evidence of one of life's great evolutionary adaptive radiations: transformation of a land mammal ancestor into a diversity of descendant sea creatures."

 

Your changing the topic, keep your rope. Evolution doesn't deal with the “molecules to first life” part: abiogenesis does, and that is not my field.

 

Fred Williams spells out nothing but foolishness, his website exhibits any number of clear (and fatal) errors.

 

Quite frankly, you don't know what you're talking about. First of all the topic, "Where is the evidence for evolutionist assumptions" was never changed by me nor any of my companions on this thread.

 

You said, "Although bats are one of the most diverse groups of mammals today, they are one of the least common groups in the fossil record. "

 

I didn't ask for an opinion. I asked for observable facts. Where are they?

 

Then you said, "Bats have small, light skeletons that do not preserve well." Really? Check out the bats on AOL image page or Google 'bat fossils'.

 

batfossilpage_zps7dc48d2b.png

 

Excuses, excuses. That is a tacit admission that you do NOT have the evidence required. Hey, it's not just bats...it regards every other organism on earth and the very reason why Stephen J. Gould and Niles Eldredge deemed it necessary to challenge the common Darwinian view ('slow & gradual evolution') with the theory of punctuated equilibrium in the first place. Things haven't gotten better for the 'slow and gradual' boys since then.

 

The only thing here that is 'self evident' is that you have only an opinion that evolution has occurred and not observable evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Introducing_Ol_Mate_Oracle_He_knows_a_th

 

The ol' mate oracle has spoken! I'm sold...Evolution is evolution. You got me there. Time to pack it up, it was a good run, guys, but how can we question universal common descent after being informed that things change over time? Why didn't I ever think of that? Let's see... mutations happen... therefore people can evolve from fish over hundreds of millions of years. Of course! Self-evidently true! rolleyes.gif

 

 

The question surely is this - if we accept that "evolution, by definition, is just the change in allele frequency over time", as I assume you do, and this leads to speciation with genetic changes large enough to prevent interbreeding between the now different populations ......... why would it stop?

 

What is the barrier that prevents those 2 populations continuing to evolve until they not only can't interbreed, but they are completely different? New genus, family, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The question surely is this - if we accept that "evolution, by definition, is just the change in allele frequency over time", as I assume you do, and this leads to speciation with genetic changes large enough to prevent interbreeding between the now different populations ......... why would it stop?

 

Who said reproductive isolation will stop? I have never understood why evolutionists think "speciation" is a good argument for Evolution. How does this help you? Let's give you an advantage and say that tomorrow every population on Earth will "speciate" into a hundred reproductively isolated groups. Big deal. Nothing evolved. All you have are a bunch of new separate gene pools with a greater lack of potential genetic variation. I can just as easily argue that all of these reproductively isolated populations are tending towards degradation and extinction. (which they are) and not mystical gradual transformations into new types of creatures that you believe in.

 

This whole speciation thing is just a red herring. We get big lists like the one Sapiens posted earlier, as if it is some proof of the inevitability of universal common descent. What a joke. If I were an evolutionist I would not even waste my time with such weak equivocations. They show nothing in your favor.

 

Interestingly, Nature published an article a few months ago about how "Darwin's finches" long thought to be the epitome of reproductively isolated species diverging into new progressively evolving lineages, are now merging back together. Of course the 'un-speciation' is "Evolution", too. It's all 'Change over time' after all. lol rolleyes.gif

 

Evolutionary biology: Speciation undone - Grant 2014

Hybridization can cause two species to fuse into a single population. New observations suggest that two species of Darwin's finches are hybridizing on a Galapagos island, and that a third one has disappeared through interbreeding.

 

 

What is the barrier that prevents those 2 populations continuing to evolve until they not only can't interbreed, but they are completely different? New genus, family, etc.

 

Such a question presupposes that culled genetic accidents can produce new anatomical systems and body plans over time. I would say the 'barrier' lies somewhere between your imagination and reality.

 

And sorry, but asking someone to disprove what you imagine can happen over millions of years is not a compelling argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your changing the topic, keep your rope. Evolution doesn't deal with the “molecules to first life” part: abiogenesis does, and that is not my field.

 

Fred Williams spells out nothing but foolishness, his website exhibits any number of clear (and fatal) errors.

No, as Gilbo reiterated, the topic of this thread has never been speciation. Nice misrepresentation and red-herring answer to a question I didn't ask. That was "molecules-to-man" not "molecules to first life".

Bye bye. bananawave.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Who said reproductive isolation will stop? I have never understood why evolutionists think "speciation" is a good argument for Evolution. How does this help you? Let's give you an advantage and say that tomorrow every population on Earth will "speciate" into a hundred reproductively isolated groups. Big deal. Nothing evolved. All you have are a bunch of new separate gene pools with a greater lack of potential genetic variation. I can just as easily argue that all of these reproductively isolated populations are tending towards degradation and extinction. (which they are) and not mystical gradual transformations into new types of creatures that you believe in.

Why are your "kinds" not "tending towards degradation and extinction".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The question surely is this - if we accept that "evolution, by definition, is just the change in allele frequency over time", as I assume you do, and this leads to speciation with genetic changes large enough to prevent interbreeding between the now different populations ......... why would it stop?

 

Umm the question surely is what I asked in the OP and reiterated a few posts ago. Please read post #77 and #78

 

Here is the OP again... (Pro-tip: The red part is the question smile.png )

 

gilbo12345, on 26 Apr 2014 - 7:48 PM, said:snapback.png

Considering the incoming of a few new people I figured I would rehash a favourite argument of mine which demonstrates the belief of evolution to be inherently unscientific.

 

When one considers the evidence given for evolution people may think of DNA, fossils etc.. What people do not consider is the hidden assumption that is assuming similarities are indicative of ancestry.

 

So to put my case simply what is the evidence that supports assuming similarities in fossils demonstrates ancestry between them, I am choosing to focus fossils since they are used for deep time common descent.... Please note- discussions of DNA are invalid on this thread.

 

Tied into this is the convergent evolution contradiction where evolutionists assume that similarities = ancestry, yet also realise that "convergent evolution" can occur whereby similarities form which have no relationship to ancestry.. Meaning that the assumption of similarities = ancestry is debunked by the evolutionists belief in convergence... (So we already know what the answer is wink.png Just hoping some evolutionists who read this can get their heads around it).

 

http://evolutionfair...pic=5833&page=1

 

 

I will ask in advance that the evidence given will not be based on assuming similarities = ancestry... This is the thing you are being asked to support so to use something that is based on this assumption is committing the begging the question fallacy. In previous versions of this thread evolutionists (for some reason) feel that this is a logical answer... Sorry logical fallacies are not logical smile.png

 

Bonus points to evolutionists who can post evidence from a peer-reviewed article. Since apparently the evolutionists provide support for these assumptions despite I not seeing any hint of such, since most evolutionists do not realise they are making these assumptions.

 

 

 

Enjoy! biggrin.png

 

 

What is the barrier that prevents those 2 populations continuing to evolve until they not only can't interbreed, but they are completely different? New genus, family, etc.

 

We started discussing the observed barriers to change in the "evolution did it" thread here, (last few pages)

 

http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum//index.php?showtopic=5485&page=37

 

Post #739 onwards

 

 

Please post there and leave this thread to the question I asked in the OP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gilbo,

 

your condescending and arrogant tone is really quite unpleasant.

Thistle, from what I can see, Gilbo is simply direct and composes his posts to avoid ambiguity.

 

I've sometimes seen creationists (including myself) get accused of this even by fellow Christians.

 

I have a theory for this. I believe the form of argument required to take on the atheists, that form the bulk of our adversaries, has to be direct and pointed. Too many niceties and too much politeness, unfortunately, opens a door for misunderstanding.

 

I might be wrong but I usually interpret a response like yours as almost saying "I get what you're saying. I don't have a good rebuttal. Therefore, you're a jerk." ;)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thistle, from what I can see, Gilbo is simply direct and composes his posts to avoid ambiguity.

 

I've sometimes seen creationists (including myself) get accused of this even by fellow Christians.

 

I have a theory for this. I believe the form of argument required to take on the atheists, that form the bulk of our adversaries, has to be direct and pointed. Too many niceties and too much politeness, unfortunately, opens a door for misunderstanding.

 

I might be wrong but I usually interpret a response like yours as almost saying "I get what you're saying. I don't have a good rebuttal. Therefore, you're a jerk." wink.png

 

Thanks Adam.

 

I will admit at times I can seem to be rude or condescending, sometimes you just have to be since as you said niceties can open the door for misunderstanding... especially with a person/s who doesn't want to admit failure, as its happened in the past. Bees Knees comes to mind ;)

 

Although evolutionists can avoid this altogether if they just try and make their arguments water-tight.

 

However I must say that the above post didn't seem bad at all.

 

 

 

Gilbo,

 

your condescending and arrogant tone is really quite unpleasant.

 

Thistle you literally walked into this one.

 

I made a post previously, reiterating what I wanted for this thread and rather than addressing the questions I am asking, you had the audacity to make up whatever question you wanted and then answer that.. As per the phrase

 

The question surely is this -

 

I mean if only you had read what I wrote previously and acted accordingly then I would have no ammo to write posts with. As I said above, although evolutionists can avoid this altogether if they just try and make their arguments water-tight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I mean if only you had read what I wrote previously and acted accordingly then I would have no ammo to write posts with. As I said above, although evolutionists can avoid this altogether if they just try and make their arguments water-tight.

I'm not an evolutionist. And this is fine grade A condescension.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not an evolutionist. And this is fine grade A condescension.

Yeah, you really are. Unless you don't believe evolution is how all life got here today?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not an evolutionist. And this is fine grade A condescension.

 

I am trying to help you.... However if you don't want to listen to reason and keep walking into these things, please be my guest.

 

 

Yeah, you really are. Unless you don't believe evolution is how all life got here today?

 

Its denial FC, evolutionists don't want to admit that their beliefs are beliefs ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I am trying to help you.... However if you don't want to listen to reason and keep walking into these things, please be my guest.

 

 

 

Its denial FC, evolutionists don't want to admit that their beliefs are beliefs wink.png

Am I a gravitationalist (gravitationist?)? I accept that it exists, and the theory of gravity is the best current explanation of the phenomenon and the evidence. I'm not emotionally attached to it though, and it's not a belief of mine. I just accept the science, as a layman.

 

If that makes me a gravitationist, then perhaps I'm an evoutionist (evolutionistunsure.png ). But the very fact you use the term for one - and only one - area of science, says that the belies system isn't mine, it's yours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I a gravitationalist (gravitationist?)? I accept that it exists, and the theory of gravity is the best current explanation of the phenomenon and the evidence. I'm not emotionally attached to it though, and it's not a belief of mine. I just accept the science, as a layman.

 

If that makes me a gravitationist, then perhaps I'm an evoutionist (evolutionistunsure.png ). But the very fact you use the term for one - and only one - area of science, says that the belies system isn't mine, it's yours.

 

You (and I) are gravitationalists... However the terms are not used much since gravity is a law and thus pretty much everyone accepts it.

 

It's very very very simple...

 

I believe in creation, therefore I am a creationist.

You believe in evolution, therefore you are an evolutionist

 

Easy!

 

However I find it ironic and slightly amusing that this topic has once again shifted its focus.

 

First you tried to claim your own question was the one I asked in the OP... Now you are ignoring my previous post pointing out what I wanted for this thread, and instead engage in semantics of belief systems...

 

 

I urge you to stop ignoring my posts, READ them and act accordingly.

 

gilbo12345, on 26 Apr 2014 - 7:48 PM, said:snapback.png

Considering the incoming of a few new people I figured I would rehash a favourite argument of mine which demonstrates the belief of evolution to be inherently unscientific.

 

When one considers the evidence given for evolution people may think of DNA, fossils etc.. What people do not consider is the hidden assumption that is assuming similarities are indicative of ancestry.

 

So to put my case simply what is the evidence that supports assuming similarities in fossils demonstrates ancestry between them, I am choosing to focus fossils since they are used for deep time common descent.... Please note- discussions of DNA are invalid on this thread.

 

Tied into this is the convergent evolution contradiction where evolutionists assume that similarities = ancestry, yet also realise that "convergent evolution" can occur whereby similarities form which have no relationship to ancestry.. Meaning that the assumption of similarities = ancestry is debunked by the evolutionists belief in convergence... (So we already know what the answer is wink.png Just hoping some evolutionists who read this can get their heads around it).

 

http://evolutionfair...pic=5833&page=1

 

 

I will ask in advance that the evidence given will not be based on assuming similarities = ancestry... This is the thing you are being asked to support so to use something that is based on this assumption is committing the begging the question fallacy. In previous versions of this thread evolutionists (for some reason) feel that this is a logical answer... Sorry logical fallacies are not logical smile.png

 

Bonus points to evolutionists who can post evidence from a peer-reviewed article. Since apparently the evolutionists provide support for these assumptions despite I not seeing any hint of such, since most evolutionists do not realise they are making these assumptions.

 

 

 

Enjoy! biggrin.png

 

Can we please discuss the question I asked above, (as highlighted in red).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms