|
atheistblossom (October 7, 2008 at 8:49 am)
No, you name a single fossil that contradicts Darwin.
Stop lying.
514stop (October 6, 2008 at 4:49 pm)
All of those are controversial. Over 200 million fossils and you declare 5 controversial ones. Darwin thought there would be a plethora of uncontroversial fossils that would vindicate his theory. Had he lived to see the "evidence" of the fossil record he would have recanted his entire theory.Instead of personal attacks, which by the way anyone reading these posts would agree are unfair, just show me one quote from a Darwinist who is thrilled with and vindicated by the the fossil record.
atheistblossom (October 6, 2008 at 1:55 pm)
You obviously haven't watched the Ken Miller video that Paucceri suggested to you. 'Transition' species galore. You are undeserving of evidence of 'transition' species, as you see it. You don't deserve a specific rebuttal to a 'controversy' that you have invented out of thin are. But there it is anyway, five fossils showing the transition between a land mammal and a whale.
You are uneducable and your willful ignorance is the very essence of the creationist. You are beyond help.
514stop (October 6, 2008 at 1:14 pm)
I will respond to non randomness of natural selection in a bit. By the way you speak an atavistic form of evolutionese. Perhaps you should brush up on the language.
514stop (October 6, 2008 at 1:10 pm)
I posted this (below) again because this is where the controversy exists. Darwin knew that the fossil record that existed in his day did not support his theory. He hoped and believed that discoveries would show many transitional forms to vindicate him. The Cambrian explosion in which hundreds of millions of fossils appeared, is a blow to Darwin's beliefs in this regard. There are no non controversial transitional forms. Please show me one quote that states that the fossils. vindicate Darwin.
514stop (October 6, 2008 at 1:02 pm)
Again to be kind atheistblossom, the controversy in evolution is not over the fact that different species of birds or dogs or cats exist or that there can be change within these different species or even that all dogs had a common ancestor; the controversy is that from a common simple life form all life in all it's complexity and diversity, developed by purposeless, random mutations through natural selection. Uncontroversial transitional life forms are non-existent and have never been observed
atheistblossom (October 6, 2008 at 9:03 am)
You say that the existence of consciousness and the fossil record does not support our understanding of evolution.
If this is the case can you;
1) Name a single fossil that contradicts evolution, ie, an anachronistic fossil.
2) Name a single creature that is conscious of anything other than what our understanding of evolution would anticipate it being conscious of.
Either all life forms are 'transitional' or none are, so how can there be any scientific controversy? You're talking Creationese.
atheistblossom (October 5, 2008 at 4:10 pm)
Well, you said species, you've changed the goal posts. Do you mean Genus? Family? You can't expect the common ancestors of very different organisms to be living, so you won't have examples like the herring gull.
But as there is no controversy for you that all dogs had a common ancestor, then equally there shouldn't be a problem for you that all apes, yes humans too, had a common ancestor.
Another tired creationist assertion: Natural Selection is random - it isn't.
514stop (October 5, 2008 at 3:33 pm)
Again to be kind atheistblossom, the controversy in evolution is not over the fact that different species of birds or dogs or cats exist or that there can be change within these different species or even that all dogs had a common ancestor; the controversy is that from a common simple life form all life in all it's complexity and diversity, developed by purposeless, random mutations through natural selection. Uncontroversial transitional life forms are non-existent and have never been observed
atheistblossom (October 5, 2008 at 1:54 pm)
Hahahha, oh dear, you are terribly funny.
Dear stop, if you think changing the definition of species is being kind to me I'm at a loss.
Well, nevertheless, let us remind ourselves of the definition of species:
"A groups of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding."
I'm afraid if you want to see things like fish turning into birds and sticks into snakes and water into wine there is only one place for you. |
