Theory of Evolution exposed

[neo-x]

Notice how national geographic did the story on the basilosaurus fossil found that fit in their timeline of 33 to 37 million years, but not even a blip on their radar of the scientific find of the basilosaurus fossil found that dated from 49 million years ago. Golly jee!!!, how could those unbiased folks at national geographic miss this tiny detail lol
Could it be that maybe it completely obliterates the evolutionary whale transition chart and in fact show that there wasn't in fact any macroevolution happening at all with whales???

Bippy, with due respect, I don't see how this supports your case at all. Micro-evolution in the long run becomes Macro-evolution.

[Danieltwotwenty]

Notice how national geographic did the story on the basilosaurus fossil found that fit in their timeline of 33 to 37 million years, but not even a blip on their radar of the scientific find of the basilosaurus fossil found that dated from 49 million years ago. Golly jee!!!, how could those unbiased folks at national geographic miss this tiny detail lol
Could it be that maybe it completely obliterates the evolutionary whale transition chart and in fact show that there wasn't in fact any macroevolution happening at all with whales???

Bippy, with due respect, I don't see how this supports your case at all. Micro-evolution in the long run becomes Macro-evolution.

It is presumed that it does.

[neo-x]

Yes but it is not arbitrary, it is logical, and in this case the only logical answer there is.

[Danieltwotwenty]

Yes but it is not arbitrary, it is logical, and in this case the only logical answer there is.

No it is not abritary, and yes it is logical, but I don't believe it is the only answer, and even if it is logical and makes sense this does in no way make it true.

There are plenty of "sound scientific theorys" in the past which we now view as wrong, maybe Darwinian evolution will be one of those one day or maybe not, who knows.

I am just glad people on both sides are working on it.

[neo-x]

There are plenty of "sound scientific theorys" in the past which we now view as wrong,

for example?

[neo-x]

"There are plenty of "sound scientific theorys" in the past which we now view as wrong"

Theory may lack observation on a big scale but it has evidence. And you might be able to observe it if you manage to live for a billion years or so. For me it is like saying, just because we can not see infra-red light therefore it might be a bad theory to say that it exists. Whether you can see infra-red or not does not mean it is not true.

[Danieltwotwenty]

There are plenty of "sound scientific theorys" in the past which we now view as wrong,

for example?

Fat Earth Theory would be one example.

[neo-x]

Fat Earth Theory

FAT earth theory

***
on a serious note Dan, do you really think flat earth theory was a modern scientific theory? You know science that developed after the 1600's and so.

[Danieltwotwenty]

Fat Earth Theory

FAT earth theory

***
on a serious note Dan, do you really think flat earth theory was a modern scientific theory? You know science that developed after the 1600's and so.

As far as I know science has always existed, isn't science just the study of the natural world.

[neo-x]

As far as I know science has always existed, isn't science just the study of the natural world.

Humans had so much excelled at science in the last 400 years than the last 4000. It has to say something to you.

So other than flat earth theory, which I would not even call a scientific theory, which other theories do you think were hailed as a game-changer but were later found to be wrong?

[Byblos]

So other than flat earth theory, which I would not even call a scientific theory, which other theories do you think were hailed as a game-changer but were later found to be wrong?

I think the Big Bang theory had a huge impact on bridging the gap (actually proving there never was one) between science and theism. So I would vote for an eternal universe (that was found to be wrong).

[RickD]

There are plenty of "sound scientific theorys" in the past which we now view as wrong,

for example?

I don't know if I would call these "sound", but they were pretty well accepted:
Top 10 Most Famous Scientific Theories (That Turned out to be Wrong)

[jlay]

Take canines for example. You can pressure the genetic info into a lot of diversity but it has limits

I know this ain't going to convince you of anything but you are wrong here. You expect that a Dog will become a cat. Well that is the wrong assumption. Forget the dog, look at the genes, is it changing? If it is changing, over time lets say 300 million years, the gene might become so vastly different (depends on natural selection) that you may not think it is the dog (based on what you think a dog looks like) but some other species.

you see, how do you define limit, how you do define where and when exactly a dog no longer is a dog? Physical traits, anatomy, behavior?

The problem with saying that a dog will remain dog-like is that these naming conventions our for our own understanding, to the DNA, its nothing, its just evolving.

Evolution is about small changes, so small that it may be one gene mutation over thousands of years. Some mutations cause organisms to compete aggressively, others do not. But even recessive genes are most often retained in the DNA, the process is random of course. the point is, you have to look at the genes and see the change, not that you can get a new species of unknown origin by mating canines.

Dog to become a cat? Good golly, talk about a straw man. Not to mention intellectually insulting. Everything we see in the canine species is devolving. Going from more to less.
The real crime is setting arbirtrary (which is what scientists are doing) limits and then saying, "See, evolution!!" Question begging and circular reasoning is at the very foundation of Darwininsm. This isn't my first thread on the topic, and I've yet to see any Darwinist be able to dispute that reality.
Again, any thought on getting from invertebrate to vertebrate? Crickets chirping.
Evolutionary math is this. Guy says, "I can double your money." Sounds great. Guy takes the other's $20, goes to the bank counter and gets change in the form of a $10 and two $5 bills, puts to $10 in his own pocket, hands the guy back the two $5 and says, "you are welcome!"

[neo-x]

RickD » Tue Dec 04, 2012 7:25 pm

neo-x wrote:
There are plenty of "sound scientific theorys" in the past which we now view as wrong,


for example?

I don't know if I would call these "sound", but they were pretty well accepted:
Top 10 Most Famous Scientific Theories (That Turned out to be Wrong)

Well not sure how any of these is a good theory to begin with, which evolution actually is. 9 out of these are just theories based on speculations which had no grounds except observation without understanding.

[neo-x]

Dog to become a cat? Good golly, talk about a straw man. Not to mention intellectually insulting.

Sorry, didn't know you had such a sensitive intellectuality.

Everything we see in the canine species is devolving.

Be specific. How do you know its devolving, are you saying that certain genes are not working?

The real crime is setting arbirtrary (which is what scientists are doing) limits and then saying, "See, evolution!!"

There is nothing arbitrary, if the gene pool is changed than yes, evolution is occurring. You just don't like the answer.

This isn't my first thread on the topic, and I've yet to see any Darwinist be able to dispute that reality.

I get it you are good with words and this isn't your first debate on the issue. BTW, with this you have shown me the biggest God of the gaps one could muster. Care to elaborate how bone came into being? and why it is in some organisms and lacking in others? If you can, I'll show you how it could be done with evolution. Happy now?

Evolutionary math is this. Guy says, "I can double your money." Sounds great. Guy takes the other's $20, goes to the bank counter and gets change in the form of a $10 and two $5 bills, puts to $10 in his own pocket, hands the guy back the two $5 and says, "you are welcome!"

Precisely wrong, that is the reason you do not understand evolution, I guess. It does not work like that at all. Infact you actually prove that you do assume that evolution only means an increase in genetic code. That is certainly wrong for all cases. And to dismiss it using such a pathetic argument as changing currency is in my view quite the straw man itself.