Evolution a hoax?

[Wowbagger]

Bashing creationism or ID does not make evo theory any more valid;

This is true!

Some of the members in this thread are focusing a little too much on bashing ID. I would rather focus on building up a case for "Evo theory".

Here is a fun explanation about how "evo theory" helps a species of shrimp work around one of its own constraints (or, "design flaws"):
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/mantisshrimp_01 (Multi-page presentation).
We do not need to invoke a Designer, only some interesting quirks in the process of natural selection, and its shaping by the fitness landscape, etc.

The last slide drives home a lesson we can all learn from: We all have "baggage" left over from our evolutionary heritage. Learning more about the nature of these things helps us overcome those limitations.


See, there is no need to "bash" anything! But, we can ask questions:

Can Intelligent Design build UP a case for itself in a similar manner?

nor explain away where it does not fit the data.

Where does evo theory not fit the data? I never saw any examples of this.

 

[caniswalensis]

This is true!

Some of the members in this thread are focusing a little too much on bashing ID. I would rather focus on building up a case for "Evo theory".

Here is a fun explanation about how "evo theory" helps a species of shrimp work around one of its own constraints (or, "design flaws"):
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/mantisshrimp_01 (Multi-page presentation).
We do not need to invoke a Designer, only some interesting quirks in the process of natural selection, and its shaping by the fitness landscape, etc.

The last slide drives home a lesson we can all learn from: We all have "baggage" left over from our evolutionary heritage. Learning more about the nature of these things helps us overcome those limitations.


See, there is no need to "bash" anything! But, we can ask questions:

Can Intelligent Design build UP a case for itself in a similar manner?

Where does evo theory not fit the data? I never saw any examples of this.

Great post, Wowbagger.

 

[DC]

The converse is also true, something you guys never understand. Evo
theory is false. The evidence does not match it. Bashing creationism or ID does not make evo theory any more valid; nor explain away where it does not fit the data.

ID or Creationism is not even a hypothesis. its a fairytale. and with it does not fit the data you mean it does not fit the Bible stories?

 

[randman]

This is true!

Some of the members in this thread are focusing a little too much on bashing ID. I would rather focus on building up a case for "Evo theory".

Here is a fun explanation about how "evo theory" helps a species of shrimp work around one of its own constraints (or, "design flaws"):
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/mantisshrimp_01 (Multi-page presentation).
We do not need to invoke a Designer, only some interesting quirks in the process of natural selection, and its shaping by the fitness landscape, etc.

The last slide drives home a lesson we can all learn from: We all have "baggage" left over from our evolutionary heritage. Learning more about the nature of these things helps us overcome those limitations.


See, there is no need to "bash" anything! But, we can ask questions:

Can Intelligent Design build UP a case for itself in a similar manner?

Where does evo theory not fit the data? I never saw any examples of this.

How are shrimp adapting to their environment evidence for evo theory? It's just another example of microevolution, period, and that's all we ever see.

The fossil record certainly does not show microevolving of major new forms. Doesn't exist. We see evolution within a range. That's all.

 

[GeeMack]

How are shrimp adapting to their environment evidence for evo theory? It's just another example of microevolution, period, and that's all we ever see.

The fossil record certainly does not show microevolving of major new forms. Doesn't exist. We see evolution within a range. That's all.

What you have there is an argument from ignorance. Your lack of understanding evolution does not constitute a valid argument against it.

 

[Wowbagger]

The fossil record certainly does not show microevolving of major new forms. Doesn't exist. We see evolution within a range. That's all.

Macro-evolution is ALSO evolution within a range, just over longer periods of time and/or better opportunities for more changes to emerge.

Just take a look at the fossil record for whale evolution, for example:
http://skywalker.cochise.edu/wellerr/students/whales/whales.htm

One major form of land mammal transforming into a new major form of sea mammal, over time. All there... in the fossil record.

If you think whales were intelligently designed, then please tell us: at which point(s) did The Designer intervene?



Many species of whales are endangered. Understanding certain aspects of their physiology, through the lens of evolution could contribute to their conservation.
For example: Their hearing systems could be compromised by other noises in the ocean. Understanding the details about how their hearing was shaped by their mammalian heritage could be useful for improving the situation.

Can Intelligent Design contribute any insight into their conservation?

 

[randman]

Whale fossils are actually very good evidence against NeoDarwinism. The reason is we don't actually see the gradual transitions and yet have thousands of fossils of some whale genera.

The excuse for not seeing the transitions is fossil rarity. Take winning the lottery. That's rare. But if someone won the lottery 100,000 times, and we have no sure examples of anyone losing the lottery, you might have to reconsider the nature of the lottery.

Same with whale fossils at the family level. While it is rare for an individual member of a species to leave fossils, it is not necessarily so at the genus level and certainly not at the family level for whales, but evos cannot show family level transitioning.

You can claim otherwise. If so, let's make it easy. What was the immediate 2 precursors to Basilosaurus and the immediate 2 that followed? Can we even be sure Basilosaurus evolved into anything else at all?

Please note: I am asking for the specific species that this creature evolved from and to, or best you can do, not some wild speculation.

If you cannot do that, and you can't because it's not there, then explain why the fossils are not present when we have thousands of fossils of other whales such as basilosaurus.

 

[randman]

btw, does this look like a whale to you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whale_evolution

 

[Shalamar]

I've been following this thread, and I have to admit, it is amusing, though not for the reasons that randman thinks.

As others have said, Disproving The Theory of Evolution does not mean that creationism is automatically true. Fortunately, The Theory of Evolution has not been shown to be false, it is simply believed to by false by those who need it to be so. Those who do not understand science, and refuse to look at the evidence.

However, one thing does jump to mind here. The claim that 'evos' look at a video of a man walking on earth, and a video of man walking on the moon, and assume that a man walked to the moon. Har Har har. Evo's so stupid!

Well, except, in a strange way, randman is right. But again, not in the way he thinks. lets do this the way an 'evo' would approach it.

So we have two videos. Man walking on earth, and on the moon. How did that happen?

hypothesis: Man walked to the moon. Experiment: Walk to the moon. Since we cannot walk to the moon, the experiment fails.

New hypothesis: Man jumped to the moon: Experiment. We jump. Fail. We cannot jump high enough, or achieve escape velocity.

New hypothesis: Man flew to the moon in an airplane. Experiment. We find an airplane, and point it at the moon. We find that an airplane cannot extend beyond the atmosphere, nor can it achieve escape velocity. Hypothesis fails.

So the experiments do some more searching. We find old records. (fossils) of men stepping into a rocket, rocket blasting off, and a module landing on the moon. Man walking on the moon.

Hypothesis: Man took a rocket to the moon. Experiment. Tricky. We do not have the rockets. Does this mean that the fossils are faked? No. By studying the records, we can calculate the thrust generated. We can find information on the fuel used. We can find records on how the rockets are built. MATH! We can determine that yes, the rockets, while dangerous, would have been able to take a man to the moon, whereopon man walks there.

Creationists however would claim that this is false. The records (fossils) Are not continuous of a flight to the moon. The gaps prove it is false. Men taking a rocket to the moon MUST be a myth!

So then, based on the information we have. We know that men walk on earth, and then walked on the moon.

'Evo': We have found old, but incomplete records of men stepping into rockets, and the rockets taking off. Based on what we know of the rockets, and the physics involved, we accept that men flew to the moon in dangerous, but plausible rockets.

Creationist: Thats incomplete! The records are false! Since all we know that man walks on earth, and walked on the moon, they MUST have been placed there by an invisible all powerful being that we cannot see, hear, or interact in any way! This ancient book of stories says so, so it must be true!

So, it is not the 'evos' that have stories, and myths. It is the creationists. One one use science. And it isn't the group that trusts in an invisible magic man in the sky.

 

[Wowbagger]

Whale fossils are actually very good evidence against NeoDarwinism. The reason is we don't actually see the gradual transitions and yet have thousands of fossils of some whale genera.

The excuse for not seeing the transitions is fossil rarity. Take winning the lottery. That's rare. But if someone won the lottery 100,000 times, and we have no sure examples of anyone losing the lottery, you might have to reconsider the nature of the lottery.

Same with whale fossils at the family level. While it is rare for an individual member of a species to leave fossils, it is not necessarily so at the genus level and certainly not at the family level for whales, but evos cannot show family level transitioning.

You can claim otherwise. If so, let's make it easy. What was the immediate 2 precursors to Basilosaurus and the immediate 2 that followed? Can we even be sure Basilosaurus evolved into anything else at all?

Please note: I am asking for the specific species that this creature evolved from and to, or best you can do, not some wild speculation.

If you cannot do that, and you can't because it's not there, then explain why the fossils are not present when we have thousands of fossils of other whales such as basilosaurus.

The fossils show stages in the transformation from one form to another. We do not need to have all the 'tweens. But, the general trend of fossil forms is plain to see. We can even recreate the missing 'tweens in computer simulations, if we needed to.

If you think the whale is intelligently designed, then please tell us: At which point(s) did the Intelligent Designer intervene?

Remember:
Bashing evolutionary theory does not make Creationism or ID any more valid.

You have to build UP a case for your theory.

btw, does this look like a whale to you?

Of course not! I was demonstrating macro-evolution!

If it looked too much like a whale, you would complain that it was micro-evoluton!

 

[randman]

No, the whale fossils do not. You guys choose to ignore the details which contradict your claims and line up nice pics to gloss over those details. Also, you are back to tried and true, attempting to prove evo theory by bashing ID.

Here's an article that would be helpful if you wanted to learn about weaknesses in the evo whale narrative.

He [University of Michigan paleontologist William J. Sanders] points out that the earliest known branching of hippos was 15 to 18 million years ago in the Eocene epoch. Thus, if whales and hippos shared a common ancestor, it would have to have persisted for at least 32 million years-but there is no fossil evidence for such a creature spanning that immensity of time. 15

Remember that the Pakicetus was deemed to be an ancestor to the modern whale primarily because it had the same kind of teeth as Basilosaurus. Similarity of teeth is supposed to be the proof that Basilosaurus evolved from Pakicetus, despite the fact that Basilosaurus lived in Louisiana and Pakicetus lived in Pakistan. Geography apparently doesn’t matter much to evolutionists. All that matters is that they had the same shaped teeth, which is evidence of evolution.

Fifth Problem

Modern whales have different shaped teeth than Basilosaurus. Baleen whales don’t even have teeth at all. And that’s supposed to be proof that both kinds of modern whales evolved from Basilosaurus?
Evolutionists bend the rules any time they like. Similar teeth is evidence that they evolved from a common ancestor. Different teeth is evidence that they evolved from a common ancestor. It is a case of “Evolved if they do--evolved if they don’t.” Their argument as to whether or not similar teeth prove evolution is contradictory, which is the fifth problem.

The generally accepted order of the archaeocete species, in terms of both morphological (primitive to advanced) and stratigraphical (lower/older to higher/younger) criteria, is Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Rodhocetus, Indocetus, Protocetus, and Basilosaurus. One problem for this tidy picture is that the stratigraphical relationships of most of these fossils are uncertain.
In the standard scheme, Pakicetus inachus is dated to the late Ypresian [Ypresian is 50 to 55 million years ago], but several experts acknowledge that it may date to the early Lutetian [Lutetian is 42 to 50 MYA]. If the younger date (early Lutetian) is accepted, then Pakicetus is nearly, if not actually, contemporaneous with Rodhocetus, an early Lutetian fossil from another formation in Pakistan. Moreover, the date of Ambulocetus, which was found in the same formation as Pakicetus but 120 meters higher, would have to be adjusted upward the same amount as Pakicetus. This would make Ambulocetus younger than Rodhocetus and possibly younger than Indocetus and even Protocetus.

In the standard scheme, Protocetus is dated to the middle Lutetian, but some experts have dated it in the early Lutetian. If the older date (early Lutetian) is accepted, then Protocetus is contemporaneous with Rodhocetus and Indocetus. In that case, what is believed to have been a fully marine archaeocete was already on the scene at or near the time archaeocetes first appear in the fossil record.

…

Based on the foregoing, it is reasonable to believe, even from within an evolutionist framework, that all the early archaeocetes were essentially contemporaries. 2

http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v3i11f.htm

You can gloss over these things or appreciate accurate criticism indicative of true science. The choice is your's.

Once again, can you show us Basilosaurus's descendants? Hint: it didn't leave any.

 

[Wowbagger]

So, it is not the 'evos' that have stories, and myths. It is the creationists. One one use science. And it isn't the group that trusts in an invisible magic man in the sky.

In post #256, I already pointed out that randman's analogy let out the element of experimentation: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7354725#post7354725

But, thanks for the elaboration!

 

[randman]

wowbagger, why did evos try to say Pakicetus had webbed feet and was aquatic?

None of the features in question are any evidence of an evolutionary relationship. Even evolutionists admit that most of the theoretical relationships built on the basis of anatomical similarities between animals are completely untrustworthy. If the marsupial Tasmanian wolf and the common placental wolf had both been extinct for a long time, then it is no doubt that evolutionists would picture them in the same taxon and define them as very close relatives. However, we know that these two different animals, although strikingly similar in their anatomy, are very far from each other in the supposed evolutionary tree of life. (In fact their similarity indicates common design—not common descent.) Pakicetus, which National Geographic declared to be a ‘walking whale,’ was a unique species harboring different features in its body. In fact, Carroll, an authority on vertebrate paleontology, describes the Mesonychid family, of which Pakicetus should be a member, as “exhibiting an odd combination of characters.”[3] Such prominent evolutionists as Gould accept that ‘mosaic creatures’ of this type cannot be considered as transitional forms.

http://www.trueorigin.org/ng_whales01.asp

Have you ever actually studied the initial reasons evos said it was a whale and considered the actual data showing it's not likely ancestral at all to whales?

You and other evos need to think much more carefully about the data itself instead of always making wild overstatements. There really is no indication Pakicetus is ancestral to whales. Some small common features exist without any evolutionary relationships at all. This is common.

 

[GeeMack]

Once again, can you show us Basilosaurus's descendants? Hint: it didn't leave any.

Really! And let's take that impeccable logic the other direction. How far back can you trace your lineage? Four generations? Five or six? Maybe you know who your great-great-great grandfather was, but who was his father? Let's say you can follow your ancestry back a couple hundred years but no further. By your logic that would mean some supernatural being magically poofed your great-great-great-great granddaddy into existence back in 1743. It's magic! I win.

 

[Shalamar]

In post #256, I already pointed out that randman's analogy let out the element of experimentation: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7354725#post7354725

But, thanks for the elaboration!

Heh. I missed that. But it makes sense, since creationists do not do experiments, that must assume that 'evos' don't either.

 

[randman]

Really! And let's take that impeccable logic the other direction. How far back can you trace your lineage? Four generations? Five or six? Maybe you know who your great-great-great grandfather was, but who was his father? Let's say you can follow your ancestry back a couple hundred years but no further. By your logic that would mean some supernatural being magically poofed your great-great-great-great granddaddy into existence back in 1743. It's magic! I win.

Ok, look it up and show me it's descendants or even that the common consensus among evos is that it is ancestral (peer-review lit or quotes from it please).

What you will find is it is called an intermediate but not considered to have left descendants.

 

[Olowkow]

http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v3i11f.htm

You can gloss over these things or appreciate accurate criticism indicative of true science. The choice is your's.

I think I'll gloss over these things. Do you endorse this video "Evolution for Intellectuals", as well? The choice is yours.

http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/index.htm

It fails at all levels for me, including humor. Why do you trust information from sites like these?

 

[randman]

Heh. I missed that. But it makes sense, since creationists do not do experiments, that must assume that 'evos' don't either.

Typical lie and a smear. So the famous sedimentation experiments by the French scientist, Guy something or another, just didn't happen, as just one example?

 

[GeeMack]

Have you ever actually studied the initial reasons evos said it was a whale and considered the actual data showing it's not likely ancestral at all to whales?

You and other evos need to think much more carefully about the data itself instead of always making wild overstatements. There really is no indication Pakicetus is ancestral to whales. Some small common features exist without any evolutionary relationships at all. This is common.

That sounds suspiciously like another argument from ignorance, so it does make one wonder. Your qualifications to speak with any authority or expertise on the issue of paleontology are...?

 

[randman]

That sounds suspiciously like another argument from ignorance, so it does make one wonder. Your qualifications to speak with any authority or expertise on the issue of paleontology are...?

So as someone that actually has read and reviewed the changing claims related to this organism, I am the ignorant one. Yet you have not and simply believe some simplistic claims are the informed one.

Ookkaaaayy.