Top 3 Evidences for Evolution?

[abelcainsbrother]

Punctuated equilibrium proved the fossil record does not show transition fossils but big gaps in the fossil record.

This here is the problem right there. How do you define a transitional fossil ACB? Are you, for example, expecting to find a fossil of a cat with no legs, then one, then 2, 3 & 4? This is a serious question but in all of the interactions with you, you keep making the same assertion over and over with regards to the fossil record and yet not once have you articulated what, to you, ought the fossil record look like for it to account for evolution. This is the time to do so.

What I mean by transitional fossils are in between one species as it evolves into another species.It is the same thing Darwin meant by transitional fossils.It is not just making up stuff that does not pertain to evolution out of a lack of understanding of evolution. There should've been transitional fossils in between species as they evolved into other species.

You keep asserting that and what I'm asking you to do is to actually define what this so-called transitional form looks like.

But actually it is evolutionists who make glib assertions that fins evolved into legs and then wings. Oh really? How did that happen? How does that work? How does DNA do that?

Take Tiktaalik for example if you read wikipedia it acquired fins/legs with basic wrist bones and simple fingers,showing that they were weight bearing,but probably not used for walking.The bones of the fore fins show large muscle facets.suggesting that the fin was both muscular and had the ability to flex like a wrist joint.

How did those several connected and coordinated finger and wrist bones,with their ability to flex,along with muscles and tendons,ligaments,cartilage,nerves and skin covering arise from fins by accidental DNA copying errors,or cleverly coordinated mutations?

The theory of evolution actually has an answer for that, natural selection, mutation and adaptation. In the absence of another competing theory, or unless and until it is falsified, we must affirm it (or at a minimum not deny it).

And if they did where are the zillions of unfit and uncoordinated forms with malformed parts?

The fossilization process is not precise nor is even common. It is a rare occurrence which gives a brief glimpse of what life (not transitional but actual life) was like. By lining up the different fossils from different eras we are able to compare and contrast, thereby surmise the differences, and more importantly, the similarities.

How did the various tendons take shape and attach themselves to the bones,and at just the right position?

I have no clue and neither do you. But evolution gives us a plausible method.

Wikipedia continues : Tiktaalik had front fins featuring arm-like skeletal structures more akin to a crocodile...It had rows of sharp teeth of a predator fish,and its neck was able to move independently of its body,which is not possible in other fish. This makes Tiktaalik the earliest known fish to have a neck.This would give the creature more freedom in hunting prey either on land or in the shallows.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik

Please explain how the accumulation of random DNA copying errors created the specialized array of teeth of a predator fish,upper and lower,and aligned them and attached them to the jaws,and also formed the neck ,and why in this lone survivor?

Once again evolution actually has a plausible answer, natural selection, mutation and adaptation. As to the exact biological pathways, I haven't the slightest idea.

Notice here the infantile attempt to try to justify these miraculous developments by suggesting that they would give the creature more freedom to hunt prey - a typical Darwinian argument that explains absolutely nothing at all. Most fit? Then where are the zillions of un-fit transitional forms,both ancestors and descendants?

This shows a complete lack of understanding of the fossilization process or even what a "transitional" form is. You really ought to step away from such terminology because it is painting you in a very uneducated picture. I mean that sincerely. You are attacking a strawman when you ask where the "transitional" fossils are. The fact is that not only all fossils are transitional, but all fossils are also fully formed. That's not a contradiction ACB, And you're not gonna get a linear fossil record for every single transition, that's just not how the process works in nature. It is a very rare process and we're lucky we have what we have.

I do agree fossilization is rare.But my point stands about no transitional fossils which Darwin insisted would be found. I think the reason why you think I don't know what a transitional fossils is,is because you evolutionists have forgot what Darwin said and insisted if his theory was true in "The origin of species". I guess it is easy to just go by what today's scientists claim and teach are transitional fossils but Darwin was wrong,this means like he said we have grounds to reject his theory. I know science didn't but they should have. There were supposed to be layers of strata that were full of transitional fossils ifevolution were true and Darwin was wrong.

And I don't understand your thinking when you imply evolution is here and until it is falsified and/or replaced by a better theory we should just accept it.I expect better from science.

[Byblos]

I do agree fossilization is rare.But my point stands about no transitional fossils which Darwin insisted would be found. I think the reason why you think I don't know what a transitional fossils is,is because you evolutionists have forgot what Darwin said and insisted if his theory was true in "The origin of species". I guess it is easy to just go by what today's scientists claim and teach are transitional fossils but Darwin was wrong,this means like he said we have grounds to reject his theory. I know science didn't but they should have. There were supposed to be layers of strata that were full of transitional fossils ifevolution were true and Darwin was wrong.

I don't know to what extent Darwin said about what was supposed to be found in the strata layers but even if we were to grant that Darwin was wrong about his prediction on the fossil record, that doesn't invalidate the theory of evolution in any way, it just means Darwin was wrong about that particular point.

And I don't understand your thinking when you imply evolution is here and until it is falsified and/or replaced by a better theory we should just accept it.I expect better from science.

No, that is precisely how science works. A hypothesis is formed about a particular set of data (through observation or experimentation) and then the hypothesis is repeatedly tested. Either it is confirmed, or ratified, or completely falsified. Darwin's evolution has been ratified many times but to-date evolution has not been shown to be false.

I do want to ask you a question though, I'm assuming your position is largely due to the fact that you see the gap theory of a former world as a better explanation of the evidence than evolution. Doesn't the fact that we have supposedly different (unlinked) life forms in the different layers invalidate the one-time past world that perished and a new one being created? I mean for the gap theory to make any sense at all, each layer would constitute a different gap, and therefore, a different past world that was destroyed and a new one created. Shouldn't you then be advocating for multiple gap theories? I think that would fit much better than a one-time gap.

[abelcainsbrother]

I do agree fossilization is rare.But my point stands about no transitional fossils which Darwin insisted would be found. I think the reason why you think I don't know what a transitional fossils is,is because you evolutionists have forgot what Darwin said and insisted if his theory was true in "The origin of species". I guess it is easy to just go by what today's scientists claim and teach are transitional fossils but Darwin was wrong,this means like he said we have grounds to reject his theory. I know science didn't but they should have. There were supposed to be layers of strata that were full of transitional fossils ifevolution were true and Darwin was wrong.

I don't know to what extent Darwin said about what was supposed to be found in the strata layers but even if we were to grant that Darwin was wrong about his prediction on the fossil record, that doesn't invalidate the theory of evolution in any way, it just means Darwin was wrong about that particular point.

And I don't understand your thinking when you imply evolution is here and until it is falsified and/or replaced by a better theory we should just accept it.I expect better from science.

No, that is precisely how science works. A hypothesis is formed about a particular set of data (through observation or experimentation) and then the hypothesis is repeatedly tested. Either it is confirmed, or ratified, or completely falsified. Darwin's evolution has been ratified many times but to-date evolution has not been shown to be false.

I do want to ask you a question though, I'm assuming your position is largely due to the fact that you see the gap theory of a former world as a better explanation of the evidence than evolution. Doesn't the fact that we have supposedly different (unlinked) life forms in the different layers invalidate the one-time past world that perished and a new one being created? I mean for the gap theory to make any sense at all, each layer would constitute a different gap, and therefore, a different past world that was destroyed and a new one created. Shouldn't you then be advocating for multiple gap theories? I think that would fit much better than a one-time gap.

First I want to say that I am not trying to be disrespectful to anybody who accepts evolution. I'm just giving reasons why I reject evolution,so I hope nobody takes it personal. In this thread it is about evolution and so that is what I'm discussing.I'm dealing with evolution on its own terms while not bringing the gap theory into it. I can do it both ways. I can simply explain why I reject evolution,which is what I'm doing or I can bring gap creationism into it. I could but it was not my intention to turn this thread into another gap theory thread,which is why I have not brought it up.

But I must say that now that I know what I know about evolution I do think it is a much more believable and simple theory that can compete with evolution about what the evidence in the earth is telling us. I had problems with evolution before I knew about the gap theory but now that I know what I do I definitely think it is a much better theory than evolution is. However,I lean more on what the bible says than what science says.

[Byblos]

First I want to say that I am not trying to be disrespectful to anybody who accepts evolution. I'm just giving reasons why I reject evolution,so I hope nobody takes it personal. In this thread it is about evolution and so that is what I'm discussing.I'm dealing with evolution on its own terms while not bringing the gap theory into it. I can do it both ways. I can simply explain why I reject evolution,which is what I'm doing or I can bring gap creationism into it. I could but it was not my intention to turn this thread into another gap theory thread,which is why I have not brought it up.

But I must say that now that I know what I know about evolution I do think it is a much more believable and simple theory that can compete with evolution about what the evidence in the earth is telling us. I had problems with evolution before I knew about the gap theory but now that I know what I do I definitely think it is a much better theory than evolution is. However,I lean more on what the bible says than what science says.

Thank you ACB, I as well respect and agree with your decision to not discuss the gap theory in this thread. I might create a new thread if I see that I have the time to address the point I made. Otherwise I'm fine where everything stands.

[hughfarey]

No it is you that never gives evidence like I do and have.

Bless you, abelcainsbrother but you're really in free fall now. I have mentioned ammonites, diatoms, trilobites and Tiktaalik in some detail. I have brought in Pikaia and Archaeopteryx, and earlier on we discussed Pakicetus and its relatives. This is evidence.

You just deny it [deny what?] claim I don't know about evolution [that's painfully obvious] and you just preach evolution is true. [No, I present evidence to support it] Then you say I'm just making up things,which I am not doing. [Your alleged quote from Carl Woese was wholly made up] Then you ignore that Darwin acknowledged the lack of transitional fossils but insisted they would be found. [No; if you had read my previous comments you would have read that I specifically mentioned that Darwin devoted an entire chapter of On the Origin Of Species to that very problem.] and many of them althroughout the strata and yet you totally overlook that Punctuated Equilibrium was proposed because of large gaps in the fossil record. [No. Punctuated Equilibrium was proposed because of the continuity of the fossil record, which showed rapid transition rather than gradualism.] You ignore that Darwin's prediction that there should be all kinds of transitional fossils that show transition between one species to another,but you ignore that Darwin was wrong. [I did not ignore Darwin's prediction, and he was not wrong.] There are not as many transitional fossils today Darwin said should be found if his theory was true. But now you claim they were eaten up by predators as an excuse. [No. Animals which did not live to reproduce were obviously not transitional; they were the end of their line.] This prediction from Darwin was wrong,so evolutionists cover it up with PE and by saying the fossils were found in the layer of strata they were supposed to be found claiming it was a prediction,then you make up excuses why there are not many transitional fossils like Darwin said would be found if his theory was true. But they carried on with evolution when it should have been rejected based on Darwin's prediction of finding all kinds of transitional fossils confirming evolution.which were not found.[What little of this which is not meaningless is untrue.]

There is not hundreds of transitional fossil either. [Yes, there are. Have a look at Donald Prothero's "Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters"] None of them show transition from one kind of species to another. [Yes they do.] There were supposed to be fossils found that shows clear evolution based on transitional fossils,which the fossil evidence does not show.[Yes it does] It was not supposed to be just one transitional fossil between,but many showing clear transition from one species to another.They are all fully formed life forms like I have been saying,but yes evolutionists have grouped them together to make them look like transitional fossils but they are not. None show clear transition from one kind of species to another,only if you use evolution imagination,I guess.[You guess wrong. As usual.]Tiktaalik is said to be a transitional fossil and yet there are no transitional fossils not even one in between fish and reptiles. Neither with Archy either between dinosaurs and birds.Also yes wikipedia is implying it acquired the wrist bones and all of the other features by suggesting that they would give the creature more freedom for hunting prey.

Enough already. I don't think I'm going to respond to this anymore. I wish you well.

[abelcainsbrother]

Here is the link Hugh gave earlier trying to show transitional fossils. Look how they have been grouped together to make them look like transitional fossils.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... vograms_04

Notice that there are not zillions of transitional fossils that shows clear transition between one species and the next like Darwin predicted would be found if his theory was true and that we would have grounds to reject his theory if they were not found.Look and see that the fossils all show fully formed creatures and there is no way that anybody could know or say they were evolving by looking at them. They just believe life evolves and add this thinking into the fossils as they have grouped them together to try to make you think they evolved.

Also remember that they still do not even know if life evolves today after 150 years and have only proved life can adapt when trying to show it evolves. No matter their evidence whether it is bacteria,viruses,fruit flies,etc you see in every case that even after life adapts it remains the same kind of life and does not ever evolve. Their own evidence proves and shows life does not evolve and it proves adaptation is not a mechanism of evolution like they teach. Their own evidence does not back up these scientific statements they repeat like evolution,natural selection,adaptation,etc. These phrases must be believed by faith.

I have so far only given a few reasons why I reject evolution but I might get into more reasons.

[swordfish7]

Cruelty in nature was one of the results of the fall.

[RickD]

Cruelty in nature was one of the results of the fall.

"Cruelty" in nature is part of the ecosystems that God designed into nature. Animal death is not a result of one man's sin.

But hey, don't let evidence get in the way of your dogmatism.

[abelcainsbrother]

No it is you that never gives evidence like I do and have.

Bless you, abelcainsbrother but you're really in free fall now. I have mentioned ammonites, diatoms, trilobites and Tiktaalik in some detail. I have brought in Pikaia and Archaeopteryx, and earlier on we discussed Pakicetus and its relatives. This is evidence.

You just deny it [deny what?] claim I don't know about evolution [that's painfully obvious] and you just preach evolution is true. [No, I present evidence to support it] Then you say I'm just making up things,which I am not doing. [Your alleged quote from Carl Woese was wholly made up] Then you ignore that Darwin acknowledged the lack of transitional fossils but insisted they would be found. [No; if you had read my previous comments you would have read that I specifically mentioned that Darwin devoted an entire chapter of On the Origin Of Species to that very problem.] and many of them althroughout the strata and yet you totally overlook that Punctuated Equilibrium was proposed because of large gaps in the fossil record. [No. Punctuated Equilibrium was proposed because of the continuity of the fossil record, which showed rapid transition rather than gradualism.] You ignore that Darwin's prediction that there should be all kinds of transitional fossils that show transition between one species to another,but you ignore that Darwin was wrong. [I did not ignore Darwin's prediction, and he was not wrong.] There are not as many transitional fossils today Darwin said should be found if his theory was true. But now you claim they were eaten up by predators as an excuse. [No. Animals which did not live to reproduce were obviously not transitional; they were the end of their line.] This prediction from Darwin was wrong,so evolutionists cover it up with PE and by saying the fossils were found in the layer of strata they were supposed to be found claiming it was a prediction,then you make up excuses why there are not many transitional fossils like Darwin said would be found if his theory was true. But they carried on with evolution when it should have been rejected based on Darwin's prediction of finding all kinds of transitional fossils confirming evolution.which were not found.[What little of this which is not meaningless is untrue.]

There is not hundreds of transitional fossil either. [Yes, there are. Have a look at Donald Prothero's "Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters"] None of them show transition from one kind of species to another. [Yes they do.] There were supposed to be fossils found that shows clear evolution based on transitional fossils,which the fossil evidence does not show.[Yes it does] It was not supposed to be just one transitional fossil between,but many showing clear transition from one species to another.They are all fully formed life forms like I have been saying,but yes evolutionists have grouped them together to make them look like transitional fossils but they are not. None show clear transition from one kind of species to another,only if you use evolution imagination,I guess.[You guess wrong. As usual.]Tiktaalik is said to be a transitional fossil and yet there are no transitional fossils not even one in between fish and reptiles. Neither with Archy either between dinosaurs and birds.Also yes wikipedia is implying it acquired the wrist bones and all of the other features by suggesting that they would give the creature more freedom for hunting prey.

Enough already. I don't think I'm going to respond to this anymore. I wish you well.

Why not? I was just trying to show you and explain problems with evidence scientists use as evidence for evolution. You cannot defend evolution and the truthful reasons I've given that you cannot refute. You just believe evolution is true,have your mind made up and ignore the issues I've brought up. This is typical of evolutionists when confronted with the truth they hide behind the wall of peer review. But like I've said before science is only hurting its own credibility in the end by pushing and promoting a theory all of these years as true science that they have never confirmed. You cannot stop the truth.

A former lost world with different kinds of life in it fits the evidence much better and is more believable when it comes to the fossils. They show some of the kinds of life that lived in the former world that perished before God made this world and the life we have in this world.Because there is no way you could or can convince people that based on the fossils and the kinds of life they show existed,they were evolving. Look at the link you gave above and see.

2nd Peter 3:5-6 " For this they willingly are ignorant of,that by the word of God the heavens( cosmos) were of Old,and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the WORLD that then WAS,being overflowed with water PERISHED.

[swordfish7]

Cruelty in nature was one of the results of the fall.

"Cruelty" in nature is part of the ecosystems that God designed into nature. Animal death is not a result of one man's sin.

But hey, don't let evidence get in the way of your dogmatism.

You are the dogmatic one! How do you know that death has always been a part of ecosystems? Could not life and ecosystems be very different before the fall? Could they not be herbivores? We don't have any evidence before the fall, so this is hard to prove, but what evidence do we have? We do see design in life, where what is called evolution could actually the pre-programmed intelligent to modify life in the post fallen world into the ecosystems we see today. It could also enable life-forms to have the robustness to survive changing environments and not just die out. Mutations have nothing to do with it for it is pre-programmed intelligence. We also know that plant life communicate within ecosystems warning of disease, stress in plants, and the need for nutrients. This system could have been much more fine-tuned to regulate ecosystem needs providing the optimal environment for feeding all life. The more complexity we see in life makes the question of design more glaring.

[RickD]

Cruelty in nature was one of the results of the fall.

"Cruelty" in nature is part of the ecosystems that God designed into nature. Animal death is not a result of one man's sin.

But hey, don't let evidence get in the way of your dogmatism.

You are the dogmatic one! How do you know that death has always been a part of ecosystems? Could not life and ecosystems be very different before the fall? Could they not be herbivores? We don't have any evidence before the fall, so this is hard to prove, but what evidence do we have? We do see design in life, where what is called evolution could actually the pre-programmed intelligent to modify life in the post fallen world into the ecosystems we see today. It could also enable life-forms to have the robustness to survive changing environments and not just die out. Mutations have nothing to do with it for it is pre-programmed intelligence. We also know that plant life communicate within ecosystems warning of disease, stress in plants, and the need for nutrients. This system could have been much more fine-tuned to regulate ecosystem needs providing the optimal environment for feeding all life. The more complexity we see in life makes the question of design more glaring.

One big, fat, straw man post. I'm not an evolutionist. Stop conflating millions of years, and animal death before Adam's sin, with naturalistic evolution. It's a really dishonest way to have a conversation. You need to understand what you're arguing against, before you actually argue against it.

What's more, you also conflate evolution with naturalistic evolution. Arguing tactics, straight out of the Ken Ham school.

[abelcainsbrother]

Cruelty in nature was one of the results of the fall.

"Cruelty" in nature is part of the ecosystems that God designed into nature. Animal death is not a result of one man's sin.

But hey, don't let evidence get in the way of your dogmatism.

You are the dogmatic one! How do you know that death has always been a part of ecosystems? Could not life and ecosystems be very different before the fall? Could they not be herbivores? We don't have any evidence before the fall, so this is hard to prove, but what evidence do we have? We do see design in life, where what is called evolution could actually the pre-programmed intelligent to modify life in the post fallen world into the ecosystems we see today. It could also enable life-forms to have the robustness to survive changing environments and not just die out. Mutations have nothing to do with it for it is pre-programmed intelligence. We also know that plant life communicate within ecosystems warning of disease, stress in plants, and the need for nutrients. This system could have been much more fine-tuned to regulate ecosystem needs providing the optimal environment for feeding all life. The more complexity we see in life makes the question of design more glaring.

http://aigexposed.com/

[abelcainsbrother]

Cruelty in nature was one of the results of the fall.

"Cruelty" in nature is part of the ecosystems that God designed into nature. Animal death is not a result of one man's sin.

But hey, don't let evidence get in the way of your dogmatism.

You are the dogmatic one! How do you know that death has always been a part of ecosystems? Could not life and ecosystems be very different before the fall? Could they not be herbivores? We don't have any evidence before the fall, so this is hard to prove, but what evidence do we have? We do see design in life, where what is called evolution could actually the pre-programmed intelligent to modify life in the post fallen world into the ecosystems we see today. It could also enable life-forms to have the robustness to survive changing environments and not just die out. Mutations have nothing to do with it for it is pre-programmed intelligence. We also know that plant life communicate within ecosystems warning of disease, stress in plants, and the need for nutrients. This system could have been much more fine-tuned to regulate ecosystem needs providing the optimal environment for feeding all life. The more complexity we see in life makes the question of design more glaring.

Young earth creationists don't know the difference between old earth creationists who are not evolutionists and theistic evolutionists. The reason is because they listen to young earth creationist leaders who make it seem they are all the same,they have all allowed evolution to influence the way they interpret the bible and have compromised scripture. It is slander,wrong and lies. Both Gap Theory old earth creationists and Day Age old earth creationists reject evolution,the only difference is Day Agers don't make much of an issue about it and are not against evolution as much as Gap creationists are.

The Gap Theory makes the theory of evolution wrong because it takes pretty much all the same evidence evolutionists use but we come to a totally different conclusion about what this evidence proves. Gap Creationists believe it proves the Gap Theory interpretation true,that there was a former world that existed prior to God making this world we now live in,this former world perished in Lucifer's flood,NOT Noah's flood and all life died when it perished,then there was a gap of time in which nothing survived until God made this world and the evidence in the earth proves it,NOT evolution. The rest of the bible is not effected at all.

It doesn't make sense to ask a Gap Creationists how was there death before Adam because what happened in the former world had no bearing on this world because that world perished completely unlike this world in Noah's flood and when God made this world he wiped the slate clean and placed Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden.