Evolution is a fact!

Originally posted by LemonJello
creationism has not been proven to be anything of the sort. i am a creature of logic and through my rational functions i maintain that creationism makes extremely little sense. in fact, creationism entails faith. faith and reason are like oil and water -- matters of faith have no proof by definition. your beliefs are at best unfounded. at worst, they ...[text shortened]... ust plain wrong.

when did i insult you or demonstrate emotional outburst? your skin is thin.

Science is an empirical discipline. If evolution is true where is the evidence.

Originally posted by no1marauder
🙄🙄😴😴

Closed mind.

Originally posted by Langtree
Reading your reply disappoints me; your not demonstrating any rational thought, supported by empirical evidence, remember science is an empirical discipline. Hard cold facts, not speculation, that is philosophy.

listen more closely to what i am saying. you are the one making bold assertions and i am just simply telling you that your assertions are far too bold. you are saying that a faith-based explanation (creationism) is the only 'logical' one. that's nonsense when faith entails ascribing little or no value to reason.

Originally posted by LemonJello
listen more closely to what i am saying. you are the one making bold assertions and i am just simply telling you that your assertions are far too bold. you are saying that a faith-based explanation (creationism) is the only 'logical' one. that's nonsense when faith entails ascribing little or no value to reason.

You are side stepping the issue at hand. The evolutionists claims a far too bold, especially in light of the severe lack of evidence. Evolution is faith based as well, but it takes alot more faith.

Originally posted by Langtree
Closed mind.

Langtree: You don't want to acknowledge the fact of the existence of God.

Open mind???

Originally posted by Langtree
You are side stepping the issue at hand. The evolutionists claims a far too bold, especially in light of the severe lack of evidence. Evolution is faith based as well, but it takes alot more faith.

BS. From my first post in this thread.

The tremendous success of science in explaining natural phenomena and fostering technological innovation arises from its focus on explanations that can be inferred from confirmable data. Scientists seek to relate one natural phenomenon to another and to recognize the causes and effects of phenomena. In this way, they have developed explanations for the changing of the seasons, the movements of the sun and stars, the structure of matter, the shaping of mountains and valleys, the changes in the positions of continents over time, the history of life on Earth, and many other natural occurrences. By the same means, scientists have also deciphered which substances in our environment are harmful to humans and which are not, developed cures for diseases, and generated the knowledge needed to produce innumerable labor-saving devices.

The concept of biological evolution is one of the most important ideas ever generated by the application of scientific methods to the natural world. The evolution of all the organisms that live on Earth today from ancestors that lived in the past is at the core of genetics, biochemistry, neurobiology, physiology, ecology, and other biological disciplines. It helps to explain the emergence of new infectious diseases, the development of antibiotic resistance in bacteria, the agricultural relationships among wild and domestic plants and animals, the composition of Earth's atmosphere, the molecular machinery of the cell, the similarities between human beings and other primates, and countless other features of the biological and physical world. As the great geneticist and evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky wrote in 1973, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."

http://books.nap.edu/html/creationism/preface.html

Originally posted by Langtree
Frogstomp, How typical of an evolutionist, to hurl uinsults and display emotions. Evolution is a faith and an unproven theory, see some of my earlier posts, IF YOU DARE!

So what he is a jerk , and you aint said anything worth answering again , and you just show you have no idea what faith or theory means.

and you can read my prievious posts, heck maybe you can learn something.

Originally posted by no1marauder
BS. From my first post in this thread.

The tremendous success of science in explaining natural phenomena and fostering technological innovation arises from its focus on explanations that can be inferred from confirmable data. Scientists seek to relate one natural phenomenon to another and to recognize the causes and effects of phenomena. In this way, ...[text shortened]... except in the light of evolution."

http://books.nap.edu/html/creationism/preface.html

jeez, no1 where do there creeps come from? they all post the same pseudo science and are about as Christian as warthogs.

Originally posted by Langtree
Here's a quote from an evolutionist, Steven Stanley, Macro-evolution😛atterns and Process. San Francisco W.M Freeman and Co. 1979 , p 79, "The known fossil record fails to document a single example of plyetic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition . . ." "The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions ...[text shortened]... xtbbooks." Taken from Evolution and the Fossil Record, Science (vol 213: July 17, 1981 p. 289.

There are Cambrian fossils transitional between vertebrate and invertebrate:
Pikaia, an early invertebrate chordate. It was at first interpreted as a segmented worm until a reanalysis showed it had a notochord.
Yunnanozoon, an early chordate.
Haikouella, a chordate similar to Yunnanozoon, but with additional traits, such as a heart and a relatively larger brain (Chen et al. 1999).
Conodont animals had bony teeth, but the rest of their body was soft. They also had a notochord (Briggs et al. 1983; Sansom et al. 1992).
Cathaymyrus diadexus, the oldest known chordate (535 million years old; Shu et al. 1996).
Myllokunmingia and Haikouichthys, two early vertebrates that still lack a clear head and bony skeletons and teeth. They differ from earlier invertebrate chordates in having a zigzag arrangement of segmented muscles, and their gill arrangement is more complex than a simple slit (Monastersky 1999).
There are living invertebrate chordates (Branchiostoma [Amphioxus], urochordates [tunicates]) and living basal near-vertebrates (hagfish, lampreys) that show plausible intermediate forms.
tetrapods (Daeschler and Shubin 1998).
A Devonian humerus has features showing that it belonged to an aquatic tetrapod that could push itself up with its forelimbs but could not move it limbs back and forth to walk (Shubin et al. 2004).
Acanthostega, a Devonian fossil, about 60 cm long, probably lived in rivers (Coates 1996). It had polydactyl limbs with no wrists or ankles (Coates and Clack 1990). It was predominantly, if not exclusively, aquatic: It had fishlike internal gills (Coates and Clack 1991), and its limbs and spine could not support much weight. It also had a stapes and a lateral sensory system like a fish.
Ichthyostega, a tetrapod from Devonian streams, was about 1.5 m long and probably amphibious. It had seven digits on its rear legs (its hands are unknown). Its limbs and spine were more robust than those of Acanthostega, and its rib cage was massive. It had fishlike spines on its tail, but these were fewer and smaller than Acanthostega's. Its skull had several primitive fishlike features, but it probably did not have internal gills (Murphy 2002).
Tulerpeton, from estuarine deposits roughly the same age as Acanthostega and Ichthyostega, had six digits on its front limbs and seven on its rear limbs. Its shoulders were more robust than Acanthostega, suggesting it was somewhat less aquatic, and its skull appears to be closer to later Carboniferous amphibians than to Acanthostega or Ichthyostega
The main character that separates amphibians (primitive tetrapods) from reptiles (amniotes) is possession of an amnion, which does not fossilize. We have a lot of Permian creatures; some are early amniotes and some likely are not. There are no unambiguous intermediates between the two groups like Acanthostega between fish and tetrapods, or Morganucodon between reptiles and mammals. However, the same uncertainty means there is no clear gap between the amphibians and reptiles, either.
Many new bird fossils have been discovered in the last couple of decades, revealing several intermediates between theropod dinosaurs (such as Allosaurus) and modern birds:
Sinosauropteryx prima. A dinosaur covered with primitive feathers, but structurally similar to unfeathered dinosaurs Ornitholestes and Compsognathus (Chen et al. 1998; Currie and Chen 2001).
Ornithomimosaurs, therizinosaurs, and oviraptorosaurs. The oviraptorosaur Caudipteryx had a body covering of tufted feathers and had feathers with a central rachis on its wings and tail (Ji et al. 1998). Feathers are also known from the therizinosaur Beipiaosaurus (Xu et al. 1999a). Several other birdlike characters appear in these dinosaurs, including unserrated teeth, highly pneumatized skulls and vertebrae, and elongated wings. Oviraptorids also had birdlike eggs and brooding habits (Clark et al. 1999).
Deinonychosaurs (troodontids and dromaeosaurs). These are the closest known dinosaurs to birds. Sinovenator, the most primitive troodontid, is especially similar to Archaeopteryx (Xu et al. 2002). Byronosaurus, another troodontid, had teeth nearly identical to primitive birds (Makovicky et al. 2003). Microraptor, the most primitive dromaeosaur, is also the most birdlike; specimens have been found with undisputed feathers on their wings, legs, and tail (Hwang et al. 2002; Xu et al. 2003). Sinornithosaurus also was covered with a variety of feathers and had a skull more birdlike than later dromaeosaurs (Xu, Wang, and Wu 1999; Xu and Wu 2001; Xu et al. 2001).
Protarchaeopteryx, alvarezsaurids, Yixianosaurus and Avimimus. These are birdlike dinosaurs of uncertain placement, each potentially closer to birds than deinonychosaurs are. Protarchaeopteryx has tail feathers, uncompressed teeth, and an elongated manus (hand/wing) (Ji et al. 1998). Yixianosaurus has an indistinctly preserved feathery covering and hand/wing proportions close to birds (Xu and Wang 2003). Alvarezsaurids (Chiappe et al. 2002) and Avimimus (Vickers-Rich et al. 2002) have other birdlike features.
Archaeopteryx. This famous fossil is defined to be a bird, but it is actually less birdlike in some ways than some genera mentioned above (Paul 2002; Maryanska et al. 2002).
Shenzhouraptor (Zhou and Zhang 2002), Rahonavis (Forster et al. 1998), Yandangornis and Jixiangornis. All of these birds were slightly more advanced than Archaeopteryx, especially in characters of the vertebrae, sternum, and wing bones.
Sapeornis (Zhou and Zhang 2003), Omnivoropteryx, and confuciusornithids (e.g., Confuciusornis and Changchengornis; Chiappe et al. 1999). These were the first birds to possess large pygostyles (bone formed from fused tail vertebrae). Other new birdlike characters include seven sacral vertebrae, a sternum with a keel (some species), and a reversed hallux (hind toe).
Enantiornithines, including at least nineteen species of primitive birds, such as Sinornis (Sereno and Rao 1992; Sereno et al. 2002), Gobipteryx (Chiappe et al. 2001), and Protopteryx (Zhang and Zhou 2000). Several birdlike features appeared in enantiornithines, including twelve or fewer dorsal vertebrae, a narrow V-shaped furcula (wishbone), and reduction in wing digit bones.
Patagopteryx, Apsaravis, and yanornithids (Chiappe 2002; Clarke and Norell 2002). More birdlike features appeared in this group, including changes to vertebrae and development of the sternal keel.
Hesperornis, Ichthyornis, Gansus, and Limenavis. These birds are almost as advanced as modern species. New features included the loss of most teeth and changes to leg bones.
The transition from reptile to mammal has an excellent record. The following fossils are just a sampling. In particular, these fossils document the transition of one type of jaw joint into another. Reptiles have one bone in the middle ear and several bones in the lower jaw. Mammals have three bones in the middle ear and only one bone in the lower jaw. These species show transitional jaw-ear arrangements (Hunt 1997; White 2002b). The sequence shows transitional stages in other features, too, such as skull, vertebrae, ribs, and toes.
Sphenacodon (late Pennsylvanian to early Permian, about 270 million years ago (Mya)). Lower jaw is made of multiple bones; the jaw hinge is fully reptilian. No eardrum.
Biarmosuchia (late Permian). One of the earliest therapsids. Jaw hinge is more mammalian. Upper jaw is fixed. Hindlimbs are more upright.
Procynosuchus (latest Permian). A primitive cynodont, a group of mammal-like therapsids. Most of the lower jaw bones are grouped in a small complex near the jaw hinge.
Thrinaxodon (early Triassic). A more advanced cynodont. An eardrum has developed in the lower jaw, allowing it to hear airborne sound. Its quadrate and articular jaw bones could vibrate freely, allowing them to function for sound transmission while still functioning as jaw bones. All four legs are fully upright.
Probainognathus (mid-Triassic, about 235 Mya). It has two jaw joints: mammalian and reptilian (White 2002a).
Diarthrognathus (early Jurassic, 209 Mya). An advanced cynodont. It still has a double jaw joint, but the reptilian joint functions almost entirely for hearing.
Morganucodon (early Jurassic, about 220 Mya). It still has a remnant of the reptilian jaw joint (Kermack et al. 1981).
Hadrocodium (early Jurassic). Its middle ear bones have moved from the jaw to the cranium (Luo et al. 2001; White 2002b).
The transitional sequence from mesonychids (an extinct wolflike mammal) to whales is quite robust. See Banta (2001) for pictures of some of these.
Pakicetus inachus: latest Early Eocene (Gingerich et al. 1983; Thewissen and Hussain 1993).
Ambulocetus natans: Early to Middle Eocene, above Pakicetus. It had short front limbs and hind legs adapted for swimming; undulating its spine up and down helped its swimming. It apparently could walk on land as well as swim (Thewissen et al. 1994).
Indocetus ramani: earliest Middle Eocene (Gingerich et al. 1993).
Dorudon: the dominant cetacean of the late Eocene. Their tiny hind limbs were not involved in locomotion.
Basilosaurus: middle Eocene and younger. A fully aquatic whale with structurally complete legs (Gingerich et al. 1990).
an early baleen whale with its blowhole far forward and some structural features found in land animals but not later whales (Stricherz 1998).


'nuff said?

Originally posted by Langtree
You are side stepping the issue at hand. The evolutionists claims a far too bold, especially in light of the severe lack of evidence. Evolution is faith based as well, but it takes alot more faith.

i'm tired and at this point would rather watch paint dry, but i just wanted to recap your position quickly because, after all, you are the one making loud, boisterous claims. you speak of creationism (a faith-based theory that necessarily abandons reason) as the only 'logical conclusion'. hmmm....so what you are saying is that the only rational choice is one not based on reason; and that the only logical choice is one not based on logic; and the only natural conclusion is one that deals with the supernatural.

i think i finally understand: you are the mad-hatter and you are just annoyed that nobody has wished you a very merry unbirthday yet today. well, let me be the first. and how old does that still make you?

Originally posted by LemonJello
i'm tired and at this point would rather watch paint dry, but i just wanted to recap your position quickly because, after all, you are the one making loud, boisterous claims. you speak of creationism (a faith-based theory that necessarily abandons reason) as the only 'logical conclusion'. hmmm....so what you are saying is that the only rational choic ...[text shortened]... y merry unbirthday yet today. well, let me be the first. and how old does that still make you?

that one cant be too young, since he has such old refrences. lol

Originally posted by LemonJello
i'm tired and at this point would rather watch paint dry, but i just wanted to recap your position quickly because, after all, you are the one making loud, boisterous claims. you speak of creationism (a faith-based theory that necessarily abandons reason) as the only 'logical conclusion'. hmmm....so what you are saying is that the only rational choic ...[text shortened]... y merry unbirthday yet today. well, let me be the first. and how old does that still make you?

I'll get to your previous posts, but why hurl insults, they only detract from your arguments. Why should I be annoyed, I find this exciting and stimulating. It forces me to further research on my position. I don't get emotionally involved, just intellectually.

Originally posted by Langtree
No, it's the evolutionists who expect to find fossil record replete with evidence for every stage. I believe that there are systematic gaps. Creatures appearing suddenly fully formed and functional with no intermediary forms. Come on, don't you know your position.

I do know my position. My position is that the missing parts of fossil history can be explained by the fact that fossils are extremely rare. Read the example I gave. If the entire population of the US would be represented by a few bones how would a smaller population be represented? Without some luck they may not be represented at all. Then we have a gap.

Originally posted by frogstomp
There are Cambrian fossils transitional between vertebrate and invertebrate:
Pikaia, an early invertebrate chordate. It was at first interpreted as a segmented worm until a reanalysis showed it had a notochord.
Yunnanozoon, an early chordate.
Haikouella, a chordate similar to Yunnanozoon, but with additional traits, such as a heart and a relatively l ...[text shortened]... uctural features found in land animals but not later whales (Stricherz 1998).


'nuff said?

The problem with the Cambrian fossils is they are too complex, where are the simpler forms, according to evolution these should have appeared first, but they didn't. Marshall Kay and Edwin Colbert address this issue in their book, Stratigraphy and life History. The evidence only supports the fact that these early fossils appeared suddenly fully formed and functional. A little aside, you quote some vaste ages, it is a commonly know fact, that the dating methods, ie Uranium, Thorium, Potassium are not reliable, because of so much guess work. That in itself casts a giant shadow of doubt on the evolutionary theory. Archaeopteryx is strictly a bird, it has a complex wing structure like a bird, it has a fucula, rather than a keel, but that enabled flight. The structural differences of the plithora of creatures you cited are not any surprise to me. The differences are insufficient to make a definite conclusion, but I will continue to research. As a famous cyborg once said, "I'll be be back."

Originally posted by frogstomp
that one cant be too young, since he has such old refrences. lol

Frogstomp, the references may be old, but still applicable in this present day. There are more comtemporary quotes, but I've been pursuing a doctorate in Philosophy, I haven't had much chance to stay current with all the new publications.