The Big Bang Theory......

[arraamis]

Don't understand the need for the word 'magically', genetic mutations are real. Spontaneous is another word added to skew the reader's perception - these changes did not occur over night.

Why does there need to be a reason for the existence of life?

The existence of life is undeniable, what is in question to this day is the transition from one form to another. And I'll state again that there is little to no evidence to support such a transition {Ape to Man}. There is however, sufficient\conclusive evidence to support environmental changes species experience as a consequence of migration.

The reason I used magically is because that Process of Natural Selection is in and of itself a complimentary theory. In essence, the question was raised in response to the theory of evolution "What caused the mutation\variance" and another theory had to be formulated to provide an answer. {A theory supporting another theory}

And what I believe Squeal was referencing in terms of Biological science being used to validate certain aspects of evolution theory is only partially accurate. First you must have something to analyze {Provided by Archeologists\palaeontologists etc...} then and only then, can the item {fossil} or items {fossils} be used to provide evidential support -- Biological science cannot operate in a vacuum.

- Archaeology is a branch of anthropology that seeks to document and explain connections, changes, similarities and differences among human cultures. Archaeologists work with the material remains of cultures, past and present. These provide the only source of information available for past non-literate societies. They also increase the written sources for historical and up to date groups.

- Paleontology is the science of the life of past geologic periods based on fossil remains. Knowledge of the existence of fossils dates back at least to the ancient Greeks. Because few fossils are found in rock older than the late Precambrian era, paleontology is generally concerned with only the past six hundred million years. Paleontology deals with early forms of life. In addition, fossil evidence is often used for the concern of the ages of rock strata. Human fossils often consist of small fragments of teeth, skulls, or other bones. Paleontologists use complex techniques to date ancient fossil remains and rocks. Archaeologists, anthropologists, paleontologists, and other scientists work as a team to make new discoveries about how prehistoric people lived.

And as far as dating fossil finds, Chemistry {carbon-14 dating} is more prevalent than biology, but it should be noted that there is a very thin line between the sciences because they are codependent.

[squealpiggy]

No, its not exactly an argument, just a statement of fact that Evolutionists, just like Creationists, do not have enough data\evidence to support their claims -- This is a FACT, it is not conjecture nor speculation.

No it isn't, it's not fact nor is it even conjecture or speculation. It is lying. It is deliberate untruthfulness, it is false witness, it is lying.

Evolutionists believe that apes were without a catalyst, magically and spontaneously selected by something undefined, to evolve into a superior human specimen.

This is so wrong it's not even wrong. This is not even close to what the ToE states. Let me put it into simple terms:

Genes replicate themselves
Genes sometimes make "mistakes" in replication
Some of these "mistakes" are deleterious to the genes
Some of these mistakes are beneficial
Beneficial "mistakes" can help a gene make more copies of itself
Beneficial "mistakes" add up over time

That's it. Nobody argues against any of this. Even creationists are forced to acknowledge that this happens at the level of the gene and the level of the organism. The difference is that creationists will then invoke some magical (and I'm not being facetious, "magic" really is the most precise term) means to stop these changes to prevent them from adding up to major change over time. With "no catalyst".

In other words while in evolution the morphological change is an inevitable consequence of observed activity, with creationists there is a mysterious force acting on evolution to stop it from happening!

The existence of life is undeniable, what is in question to this day is the transition from one form to another. And I'll state again that there is little to no evidence to support such a transition {Ape to Man}.

"Ape to Man" makes no sense. "Man" or **** Sapiens Sapiens is a type of ape. It makes no more sense to talk about "Ape to Man" then it does to talk about "Ape to Gorilla". And there is abundant evidence, morphological, paloeonotological and chemical, so you're either mistaken or lying.

The reason I used magically is because that Process of Natural Selection is in and of itself a complimentary theory. In essence, the question was raised in response to the theory of evolution "What caused the mutation\variance" and another theory had to be formulated to provide an answer. {A theory supporting another theory}

Nothing caused the mutation or variance. It's a consequence of the fidelity of the copies made. Genes make copies of themselves. The copies are pretty high fidelity, otherwise life as we know it could not exist. But errors in copying occur and they can either be neutral, deleterious or beneficial. Beneficial mutations increase in frequency and deleterious ones are removed from the gene pool while neutral ones can remain "piggybacking" on the successful mutations.

And what I believe Squeal was referencing in terms of Biological science being used to validate certain aspects of evolution theory is only partially accurate. First you must have something to analyze {Provided by Archeologists\palaeontologists etc...} then and only then, can the item {fossil} or items {fossils} be used to provide evidential support -- Biological science cannot operate in a vacuum.

I believe you don't understand any of this subject at all. Am I right? Let's look at the evidence:

1. You think archaeology is a field of evolution
2. You think that mutations are magic
3. You think that fossils are central to evolutionary theory
4. You think that biochemists and geneticists analyse fossils
5. You quoted creationists to attempt to argue against evolution

- Archaeology is a branch of anthropology that seeks to document and explain connections, changes, similarities and differences among human cultures. Archaeologists work with the material remains of cultures, past and present. These provide the only source of information available for past non-literate societies. They also increase the written sources for historical and up to date groups.

Which has what to do with biological evolution?

- Paleontology is the science of the life of past geologic periods based on fossil remains. Knowledge of the existence of fossils dates back at least to the ancient Greeks. Because few fossils are found in rock older than the late Precambrian era, paleontology is generally concerned with only the past six hundred million years. Paleontology deals with early forms of life. In addition, fossil evidence is often used for the concern of the ages of rock strata. Human fossils often consist of small fragments of teeth, skulls, or other bones. Paleontologists use complex techniques to date ancient fossil remains and rocks.

Which intersects partially with evolutionary biology, but as I pointed out fossils are really a secondary evidence for evolution. They were not important for Charles Darwin to formulate his theory, they're not important now. We have overwhelming fossil evidence for evolution but we don't even need it.

Archaeologists, anthropologists, paleontologists, and other scientists work as a team to make new discoveries about how prehistoric people lived.

Which has nothing to do with biological evolution.

And as far as dating fossil finds, Chemistry {carbon-14 dating} is more prevalent than biology, but it should be noted that there is a very thin line between the sciences because they are codependent.

Is it now? So if I were to date a fossil that was 100 million years old using Carbon 14 dating, how accurate would that reading be?

[arraamis]

No it isn't, it's not fact nor is it even conjecture or speculation. It is lying. It is deliberate untruthfulness, it is false witness, it is lying.

What concrete evidence exists to support the theory of evolution {not in your mind} but in reality, which is totally different.

This is so wrong it's not even wrong. This is not even close to what the ToE states. Let me put it into simple terms:

Genes replicate themselves
Genes sometimes make "mistakes" in replication
Some of these "mistakes" are deleterious to the genes
Some of these mistakes are beneficial
Beneficial "mistakes" can help a gene make more copies of itself
Beneficial "mistakes" add up over time

So, now we're trying to validate the ToE with gene mutations, while disregarding actual fossils that prove otherwise?

This seems to be a pattern equivalent to creationists, when one theory doesn't work introduce another theory to further detract\sidetrack and confuse.

Not at all, gene's replicate based on genetic code sequences that dictate how it replicates and into what, if there were mutations, excuse me "Beneficial mistakes" in the genes, it would have to be on an unimaginably massive scale to even begin to produce a totally different evolved species.

That's it. Nobody argues against any of this. Even creationists are forced to acknowledge that this happens at the level of the gene and the level of the organism. The difference is that creationists will then invoke some magical (and I'm not being facetious, "magic" really is the most precise term) means to stop these changes to prevent them from adding up to major change over time. With "no catalyst".

In other words while in evolution the morphological change is an inevitable consequence of observed activity, with creationists there is a mysterious force acting on evolution to stop it from happening!

I cannot disagree with you here .........

"Ape to Man" makes no sense. "Man" or **** Sapiens Sapiens is a type of ape. It makes no more sense to talk about "Ape to Man" then it does to talk about "Ape to Gorilla". And there is abundant evidence, morphological, paloeonotological and chemical, so you're either mistaken or lying.

I completely agree, the transition from even a remotely similar creature having both the characteristics of a devolving **** erectus and an evolving **** sapien is missing ... i.e. the missing link.

I'll requote: Scientists who dated and analyzed the specimens — a 1.44-million-year-old **** habilis and a 1.55-million-year-old **** erectus found in 2000 — said their findings challenged the conventional view that these species evolved one after the other. Instead, they apparently lived side by side in eastern Africa for almost half a million years.

This find exposes an inconsistency, because habilis\erectus were according to ToE thought to exist in sequence, not in the same time span. And if they coexisted, which the fossils would suggest and analysis supports, then discovering the missing link becomes that much more important, because the sequential line is now severed.

Nothing caused the mutation or variance. It's a consequence of the fidelity of the copies made. Genes make copies of themselves. The copies are pretty high fidelity, otherwise life as we know it could not exist. But errors in copying occur and they can either be neutral, deleterious or beneficial. Beneficial mutations increase in frequency and deleterious ones are removed from the gene pool while neutral ones can remain "piggybacking" on the successful mutations.

I see where you're going with this, still what you describe would have to occur on a massive scale in order to produce totally aboriginal cells. And to be honest, self-composed constructs cannot be used to support what you believe -- even though this **** you're making up may make sense to you doesn't mean in any way, that its reality -- you should add that disclaimer to your self-formulated constructs.

I believe you don't understand any of this subject at all. Am I right? Let's look at the evidence:

1. You think archaeology is a field of evolution
2. You think that mutations are magic
3. You think that fossils are central to evolutionary theory
4. You think that biochemists and geneticists analyse fossils
5. You quoted creationists to attempt to argue against evolution

1. Never stated that in any way, shape or form -- My statement is that Archeological discoveries {fossils} are proving destructive to the ToE.
2. Again, never stated, along with your self-indulged constructs, you seem to misread on-demand, even when there is little to no evidence to support your rantings.
3. No, again you are incorrect, fossils showing the transitional hominids would go a long way to supporting the ToE, without that evidence, without a shred of proof ... we remain in this current stagnant state. THEORY ONLY!!!

You still haven't produced a shred of evidence stating unequivocally that the ToE is a fact.
4. You're imagination is running wild still, no where did I make that statement. It would seem that you are running out of the necessary arguments needed to sustain your belief. And have as a result, turned to manufacturing words and phrases that aren't even written.

I would guess, this is a side-effect of believing in something without a shred of evidence.
5. Evolutionists & Creationists, as I stated, both believe in constructs that CANNOT and have not to date been proven. When challenged, theories start flying in all directions, but at the root .... Still nothing is proven.

Which has what to do with biological evolution?

Which intersects partially with evolutionary biology, but as I pointed out fossils are really a secondary evidence for evolution. They were not important for Charles Darwin to formulate his theory, they're not important now. We have overwhelming fossil evidence for evolution but we don't even need it.

Which has nothing to do with biological evolution.

Is it now? So if I were to date a fossil that was 100 million years old using Carbon 14 dating, how accurate would that reading be?

Darwin didn't need factual data to formulate his theory, because it is not factual nor is it required for a Theoretical Hypothesis. This theory remains unsupported and as time advances, and more evidence is discovered, it will eventually transition to unfounded -- So, your argument fails miserably here.

And it is your suggestion that fossils should be discounted, in spite of the revelations, and we should in its place, accept conjured up theories that are supported by other theories.

Here is the resounding, unanswered challenge to evolutionists:

Where is your proof?
Where is your evidence?
Where is your missing link?
No more theories constructed to support other theories -- Where is your proof?

Someone point me to the conclusive documentation that supports in its entirety the Theory of Evolution, because to date I cannot find it.

I can admit when I'm wrong ..... all I need is the above.

[deliveryman]

Hundreds of thousands of specimens of transitional fossils, what gaps?



Evolution is a field of biology. It is studied by, among others, microbiologists, biochemists, geneticists, ethologists and paleontologists. Archaeology is the study of human activity and is not a field concerned with evolution of organisms.



Life has been evolving on earth for around three billion years. Archaeology and evolutionary paleontology are fields separate by enormous timescales.



I would like to address something in this quote:

"Liking or not liking a certain word is not the issue, but in science adequately defining a key word is mandatory"

I agree. In this case the key word is:

"Living things undoubtedly change, but they exhibit only variation within discrete kinds"

Define "kind".

By the way the actual source for this quote is The Institute for Creation Research, specifically a column by one Frank Sherwin, one of ICR's cargo-cult scientificators. Apparently one of his "specialties" is Noah's Flood. I can relate. One of my specialties is Star Wars trivia. It's just that I don't think my fictional story is literally true.



Your choice of source is very interesting. I generally check out links to articles. This is what yours says:

"...as you should have guessed the following quotes are almost certainly mined:

Science writer Jennifer Viegas said, “The last common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans remains a holy grail in science.” Six evolutionists stated, “Evidence of humans from this period is sparse and controversial.”

An issue of Scientific American stated, “But with so little evidence to go on, the origin of our genus has remained as mysterious as ever,” and a popular British magazine lamented: “We thought we had just about nailed human evolution, now everything is up for grabs again.” A well-known paleoanthropologist at George Washington University said, “The origin of our own genus remains frustratingly unclear.”

Importantly, also, all of these quotes are talking more about specific fossils than the actual fact that “people evolved from ape-like ancestors.”



You didn't actually read the article. Also archaeologists study artifacts related to human activity so they are not in "the best possible position to validate the theory of evolution". In fact the people who are in the best possible position are geneticists.



Again this article does not in fact challenge the validity of evolution. It suggests that the two genii were contemporaneous as opposed to being ancestral of one another. That's not the same as saying "Well the precise order of evolution is now in doubt therefore MAGIC. Read the links you post. That's my suggestion.



This has nothing to do with evolution.



Archaeologists don't study evolution archaeologists don't study evolution archaeologists don't study evolution.

Great post. Wish I could give some karma.

I just love to sit back and read along as you whoop ass.

[arraamis]

Great post. Wish I could give some karma.

I just love to sit back and read along as you whoop ass.

Both You & Squeal are delusional ... His whole argument was nullified by this statement:
"Importantly, also, all of these quotes are talking more about specific fossils than the actual fact that “people evolved from ape-like ancestors.”"

Anyone making that statement is just as batty as the talking snake believers.

So, he ain't whippin jack-****!!!

[talip bin osman]

Why does there need to be a reason for the existence of life?

...and why must not there be?

[arraamis]

"But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places. When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don't exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn't, or might be, transitional between this group or that." [emphasis in original] Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong (New Haven Ct,:Ticknor and Fields, 1992) p. 19.

"In fact,the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another." Steven M. Stanley, The New Evolutionary Timetable (New York: Basic Books, 1981) p. 95

"And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.

"Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of `seeing' evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of `gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them." David B. Kitts (School of Geology and Geophysics, University of Oklahoma), "Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory," Evolution, Vol. 28, September 1974, p. 467.

."Thus so far as concerns the major groups of animals, the creationists seem to have the better of the argument. There is not the slightest evidence that any one of the major groups arose from any other. Each is a special animal complex related, more or less closely, to all the rest, and appearing, therefore, as a special and distinct creation." Austin H. Clark, "Animal Evolution," Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 3, No. 4, December 1928, p. 539.

"When we descend to details, we can prove that no one species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory [of evolution]." Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. 2, editor Francis Darwin (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1898), p. 210

". . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing." David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), "The Gaps in the Fossil Record," Nature, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.

[ßringer]

And I'll state again that there is little to no evidence to support such a transition {Ape to Man}.

You lost me right there, arraamis.

Anybody who knows anything about evolutionary theory knows that the theory states that both ape and man evolved from a common ancestor. Anybody who falsely labels evolution as having claimed man to have evolved from apes is somebody who is uneducated at best, and intellectually dishonest at worst.

****ing weak, man.

[D-MiZe]

...and why must not there be?

That makes no sense.

________________________

As Bringer has said, we and apes share a common ancestor. Just like the fish around today, we're cousins. It's ironic that you keep mentioning about additional theories being brought into the equation when you refuse to acknowledge the genetic mutations and keep talking about fossil evidence.

Piggy has already explained well and provided evidence of such changes and it wouldn't be hard to look up some evolution case studies.

It's people's ignorance that distorts what's known about evolution and what is made up to mock the theory. The notion that if we came from apes, why aren't they giving birth to humans now is ridiculous. Why are fish around if we came from them?

Well why are the Europeans still around if North Americans descended from us...



The articles you post seem to have an agenda. It's like the writer wouldn't be happy until a living fossil walked into his office and shared with him all the differences.

[talip bin osman]

That makes no sense.

well im just asking the same question as you standing from the other side of the spectrum regarding the reason for life's existence...

we are both asking because we want to make sense out of the damn thing...