Alright I think I understand. First you have mud, then bacteria, fish, mudskippers, mermaids, centaurs, and then people...another 2 million years and we will be elves! JK of course XD.
"It therefore challenges the convictions of biblical creationists, progressive creationists, and all who believe that mankind was created separately from animals."
Since when are truths, scientific principles, or empirical observations responsible for coddling the feelings and dogmatic beliefs of the religious? Since when?
Even if you ignore everything else I post, answer THAT one...
explain or accommodate nested hierarchy (though not without difficulty in the specific
case of neo-Darwinism), but it does not predict it."
False, if a new species of animal is found, according to nested hierarchal patterns, we should be able to fit it into the existing trees (prediction). This happens everytime a new species is found, for the last century. No exceptions exist. If they do, please present them, otherwise, the above quote has been falsified.
There are approximately 1,200,000 American earth/biological scientists. Less than 600 discount evolution. That is less than 0.05%. World wide that percentage drops even more.
A new Gallup Poll shows that American views on evolution have changed little in 26 years. In seven polls, 43% to 47% selected the recent-creation answer, 35-40% selected the theistic evolution answer, and only 9-14% selected the secular evolutionary answer.
"If there were empirical evidence for Darwinian evolution, the poll results might be different. What do you think?" Since a correct conceptual understanding of theory AS WELL AS an understanding of exactly what comprises evolutionary theory, isn't pertinent to the automated lives we live.Few actually understand it.
You should check the polls from the holders of phD's in the natural sciences. It's the EXTREME majority who UNDERSTANDS and beleive Evo Theory to be correct. THATS a fact!
So, your suggestion of relying on uneducated masses as an indicator of scientific truth is quite assinine. If left up to you, society would crumble in ignorance...
"Now if they only had some empirical evidence to back up that blind faith."
Blind faith? You mean that which you are utilizing right now? I see right through your ploy... Hurry up and accuse the opposition of precisely what you yourself are commonly accused of.
You think your smart? Make a video. Oh, wait, you're one of the anonymous (closet) fundamentalists, aren't you? I know your type. Your not intelligent enough to make a good case so you use the "shotgun" approach.
"There are 7,268 videos about evolution on YouTube. What could I possibly say in another video that hasn't already been said?"
Here's a good idea for you:
Make a video and come right out, be honest and admit that just because you don't understand something doesn't automatically make it false.
You'd be one of the first. You'd also be garaunteed a HIGH subscriber count and possibly be offered a partnership. Hell, I'd subscribe to you if you did.
I give you a 9.5 mark for sarcasm, twothless. You dropped into that mode almost effortlessly. Have you had a lot of practice?
Actually, I understand the claims for Darwinian evolution quite well. What makes it false is that there is no evidence for it anywhere on the face of the earth in any scientific discipline.
When there is evidence for it, I will embrace it with the same enthusiasm as you do. But not before.
P.S. Your appeals to authority are not at all persuasive. Sorry.
"I understand the claims for Darwinian evolution quite well... there is no evidence for it anywhere on the face of the earth in any scientific discipline. When there is evidence for it?"
You're full of shit. Don't play coy with me, bub. Take your pick from any online search and give a try at debunking.
This IS a challenge. We'll use the correspondence medium of your choice. If you forego this challenge, I accept your concession...
"Debunk what? There is nothing to debunk. To debunk something it first has to exist, does it not?"
Oh, come now. Methinks your not very aptly named. In fact, you should have chosen SirAdricTheNotSoBrave.
You are a terrible liar. Whenever you get serious and want to truly defend your faith, let me know, otherwise, you're just a scared little hypocritical fundy...
You guys are all alike. You claim to be such admirers of science but 30 seconds into a discussion of the science (or, more correctly, the lack of science) behind Darwinian evolution and you bound off on a tangent about religion.
I can see you have no ambition to actually defend your position. I've asked you several times now to debunk ANYTHING within the realm of scientific theory regarding evolution. Take your pick. I'll even do half of the homework for you:
Google "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution"
Give it a shot. If you think you've got the smarts, that is.
You have now been informed. You can no longer claim that evidence doesn't exist because I gave you a list WITH referrences.
You stated there was no proof, I gave you a long list of proof to pick and choose from to refute in a debate with me. Since you passed on the chance to engage in intellectual debate, you have thus conceded.
It's funny, you came here all sure of yourself but you've yet to provide a single refutation to back your claim.
Typical creationist methodology. Have fun swimming in your ignorance!
O.K. Here is the second paragraph. Please point out the "blatant falsehoods" to which you refer.
"Dr. Theobald does not address the origin of the first living thing or the mechanism
by which that first organism diverged into every life form that has ever existed. His
thesis is expressly restricted to the affirmation of universal common ancestry. In other words, he argues that, without knowing anything about how the first life arose or how it diversified, [continued]
O.K., here is the SECOND paragraph. Please point out the "blatant falsehoods" to which you refer.
"Dr. Theobald does not address the origin of the first living thing or the mechanism
by which that first organism diverged into every life form that has ever existed. His
thesis is expressly restricted to the affirmation of universal common ancestry. In other words, he argues that, without knowing anything about how the first life arose or how it diversified," [continued]
Well, your "REPOST" simply confirms my first suspicion, which was that either your reading comprehension skills need a great deal of improvement or you made no effort to comprehend Camp.
Neither of your points correlate to paragraph two because Camp has not begun to argue in paragraph two. He is simply orienting readers who are not familiar with the work he is critiquing.
O.K., if you insist that you tried to comprehend Camp, that leaves only the explanation that your reading comprehension skills are sorely lacking. You may want to consider remedial classes.
incompatible with the belief that God separately created more than one living thing."
This is the type of argument I expect. falsely dichotimizing science and religion is tantamount to brainwashing. Take theistic evolution for example. Separate creations easily fit their criteria.
Besides, the above quote only goes to prove that this it's the judeo-christian religion which is being peddled, not knowledge or truth.
See the common theme in the few statements I pulled from your PDF document? Religious views. Tell me, what does religion have to do with making as close a proximation to the truth as physically possible (scientific method)? I'll tell you, NOTHING. It has no place because nobody has established it's existence nor even defined it so as to establish verifiability.
"It therefore challenges the convictions of biblical creationists, progressive creationists, and all who believe that mankind was created separately from animals."
Since when are truths, scientific principles, or empirical observations responsible for coddling the feelings and dogmatic beliefs of the religious? Since when?
Even if you ignore everything else I post, answer THAT one...
"A large number of well-trained scientists outside of evolutionary biology and paleontology have unfortunately gotten the idea that the fossil record is far more Darwinian than it is. This probably comes from the oversimplification inevitable in ... low-level textbooks, semi popular articles, and so on. Also, there is probably some wishful thinking involved." ~Dr. David M. Raup, Professor of Geology, University of Chicago, Science, Vol. 213, No. 4505, p.289
I have looked up Dr. Raup and it seems that he firmly accepts the theory of evolution. I even copied and pasted the quote into a search on Google scholar; nothing came up for it. The only place that I can find the quote is on creationists' propaganda sites. It seems they will do anything to try to make it seem like there is controversy in the scientific community.
The fossil record is supportive of Darwinian evolution only in the sense that it is loosely compatible with it. But it is also compatible with other explanations including progressive creation. When data fits two or more hypotheses, it cannot be used as evidence for any of the hypotheses.
Oh gosh, one quote from one scientist is not going to do anything. You were asking for empirical evidence and I have it in this video. You cannot counter empirical evidence with a quote. In addition, it does not matter how many quotes you find, it will not make the empirical evidence go away.
To repeat myself, the fossil record is supportive of Darwinian evolution only in the sense that it is loosely compatible with it. But it is also compatible with other explanations including progressive creation. When data fit two or more hypotheses, it cannot be used as evidence for any of the hypotheses. There, I just made it go away.
Nevertheless, it does not support creation at all. We have the links that show species evolve from one another. If there is descent with modification than there could not be special creation. In addition, the gradual evolution that I show here in this video does not fit into the creationists "hypothesis".
Besides there is also genetic evidence that supports evolution, also embryology that supports it. The fossil record is just one part of the evidence behind evolution.
Let's stay on subject, may we? You are not qualified to say what supports creation and what doesn't and I don't have the slightest interest in promoting or defending it.
The subject at hand is your post, "Does not get any more empirical than fossil evidence...."
Do you see how a fact can be compatible with the Theory of Evolution yet still not be proof of it?
Yes, I can see that, but as I pointed out it is only one piece of evidence that is supported by many others.
However, I still do not see how evidence for gradual evolution, small changes over long periods, can be seen as anything else but evidence for evolution.
Progressive creationists (I am not one of them) point to the fossil record and say, "I don't see how you can interpret this as anything but evidence for progressive creation."
In which case, NEITHER of you can call it "evidence".
Another example of the evolution theory at works in the discovery of Tiktaalik. With evolutionary theory scientists were able to predict that type of creature living in the time period they found it in.
Many species of LIVING fish are known to breathe air and "walk" with the help of their pectoral fins. The northern snakehead, "walking catfish" and mudskippers for example. The climbing perch not only breathes air and "walks" on land but is even capable of climbing trees! Yet none of these curious fish are considered to be ancestors of tetrapods. Are you certain that Tiktaalik is?
Yes because Tiktaalik has homologues features to the fish that came before it and the amphibians that came after it. It also fits the timeline for the first amphibians' appearance. Those species that you named could not be ancestors of tetrapods because they are alive now. They are modern creatures and do not share any of the features (structures in the hand, feet, and neck) that tetrapods have today. Taktaalik does.
If you really want to know read the book "Your Inner Fish" by Neil Shubin. It is a great read. It goes over many of the homologies features that Tiktaalik has in common with tetrapods. It explains why our body is laid out the way it is based on the anatomy of Tiktaalik. This good book shows how evolution modifies living things.
I am familiar with Tiktaalik, jebus. I asked the question to see how much YOU understood about it.
I find it interesting that a heavyweight on the subject, Jennifer Clack (curator at the Museum of Zoology and Professor of Vertebrate Palaeontology at Cambridge University), doesn't think that we can tell if Tiktaalik was a direct ancestor of land vertebrates.
There is no way to tell if any fossil is a direct ancestor. Tiktaalik could have lead to an evolutionary dead end. However, it still would have hand to evolve from something that hand the same homologies structures in its neck, shoulders, and arms, and that creature would be our ancestor.
Dr. Clack also firmly accepts the theory of evolution. Her being skeptical (which is good) about fossil also does not demise the theory.
"Tiktaalik could have lead to an evolutionary dead end."
Tiktaalik might also have been a "mosaic" life form, one with characteristics belonging to dissimilar creatures. In that case it could not be regarded as an intermediate form (see Gould & Eldredge, Paleobiology, Vol 3, 1977, p. 147).
Mosaic creatures, like the platypus, have superficial features that resemble other creatures. The features in Taktaalik in no way superficial resemble the primitive amphibians that follow it, its features fit homologies with them.
Sighting a source from the 70s, tisk tisk, that would never fly at a university. Please to some more up to date research on this subject. I am sure I could look that far back and find papers about group selection, that hypothesis has been debunked.
Look, in spite of all your bluster, you don't know if Tiktaalik is transitional to tetrapods or not. For years the scientific community claimed that the coelacanth was transitional to tetrapods ... until fishermen caught one in the early 1900's. Oops.
The fossilized Coelacanths are still thought of as transitional species. They have features (such as the lobe-finned) that are homologies with tetrapods.
Second, the modern Coelacanths are different from the fossilized ones. They live in deep water, to name one of the difference they have. Ancient Coelacanth lived in shallow seas, which also explains why modern Coelacanth's fossils were not found.
In addition, the first modern specimen was found in 1938 of the coast of South Africa.
"Seemingly immune to the pressures of natural selection, the coelacanth changed little (except in size and possibly in habitat) over the eons." (w w w[dot]dinofish[dot]com)
Even from your quote, it shows that evolution has happened to it. It changed in size and habit. Do you know how many changes this population would have to go through before they were able to live in deep water if they started living in shallow seas?
Second the modern Coelacanth resembles Macropoma which went extinct 70 million years ago. That species was already different from the species believed to be a transitional of tetrapods.
The point I am trying to make is that the modern Coelacanth, Latimeria, resembles an ancient Coelacanth named Macropoma. Macropoma was already different from the even more ancient species of Coelacanth that gave rise to tetrapods. However, Macropoma is still different from Latimeria because Latimeria lives in the deep oceans, Macropoma lived in shallow seas. Even though Latimeria resembles Macropoma they are still different enough that scientists give them different taxonomic classifications.
You quoted me something stating that the modern Coelacanth is unchanged. I have just pointed out that it has changed. I have also pointed out that the Coelacanth that leads to tetapods is not the same Coelacanth that resembles the modern one.
Something else I want to point out is if you are trying to use a living fossil to disprove evolution than, your understand of it is flawed. Natural selection states that creatures will evolve to fit an ecological niche, ones that niche is met there is no need to evolve until the ecological niche changes again. That is why things like the horseshoe crab have been unchanged for eons.
I see what you are talking about. The thing with that is I have never heard anyone ever use that argument before. The argument that they use is that creatures are special created in the forms they are now.
The problem with that is that we see evolution happening in short time scales. With more time the types of changes predictions by evolution could happen.
@jebus6kryst
@:08, do you have a hyperlink to the "Genetic Relationship" flow chart?
smylod 2 weeks ago
CHECK OUT KENT HOVIND AND WHAT HE MAKES OF THE MISSING LINKS
pinball281 7 months ago
Alright I think I understand. First you have mud, then bacteria, fish, mudskippers, mermaids, centaurs, and then people...another 2 million years and we will be elves! JK of course XD.
Icarusdecending82 2 years ago
you're pronouncing heildeburgensis wrong XD
burg as in iceburg en as in the last sylable of even (evEN) then sis as in sister
burg en sis
JamesCalico 2 years ago 2
Lady paleontologist explains transitionals .Many paleo lectures / classes online . More added monthly.
"Transitional Fossils in Evolution pt. 1 of4"
flyingscience 3 years ago
thanx man, great video
Frenki93 3 years ago
Great vid!
You need a cat in the end.
russjumps4fun 3 years ago
Nice. I have waited to see a video like this. 5 *****.
FreeBDesh 3 years ago
Repost for EMPHASIS:
"It therefore challenges the convictions of biblical creationists, progressive creationists, and all who believe that mankind was created separately from animals."
Since when are truths, scientific principles, or empirical observations responsible for coddling the feelings and dogmatic beliefs of the religious? Since when?
Even if you ignore everything else I post, answer THAT one...
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
"Common descent can
explain or accommodate nested hierarchy (though not without difficulty in the specific
case of neo-Darwinism), but it does not predict it."
False, if a new species of animal is found, according to nested hierarchal patterns, we should be able to fit it into the existing trees (prediction). This happens everytime a new species is found, for the last century. No exceptions exist. If they do, please present them, otherwise, the above quote has been falsified.
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
There are approximately 1,200,000 American earth/biological scientists. Less than 600 discount evolution. That is less than 0.05%. World wide that percentage drops even more.
Knowledge trumps ignorance every time...
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
A new Gallup Poll shows that American views on evolution have changed little in 26 years. In seven polls, 43% to 47% selected the recent-creation answer, 35-40% selected the theistic evolution answer, and only 9-14% selected the secular evolutionary answer.
SirAdricTheBrave 3 years ago
"A new Gallup Poll shows"
This is precisely why I'm glad empirical evidence dictates scientific fact and NOT popular (mis)conception...
Aren't you?
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
If there were empirical evidence for Darwinian evolution, the poll results might be different. What do you think?
SirAdricTheBrave 3 years ago
"If there were empirical evidence for Darwinian evolution, the poll results might be different. What do you think?" Since a correct conceptual understanding of theory AS WELL AS an understanding of exactly what comprises evolutionary theory, isn't pertinent to the automated lives we live.Few actually understand it.
You should check the polls from the holders of phD's in the natural sciences. It's the EXTREME majority who UNDERSTANDS and beleive Evo Theory to be correct. THATS a fact!
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
So, your suggestion of relying on uneducated masses as an indicator of scientific truth is quite assinine. If left up to you, society would crumble in ignorance...
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
Now if they only had some empirical evidence to back up that blind faith.
SirAdricTheBrave 3 years ago
"Now if they only had some empirical evidence to back up that blind faith."
Blind faith? You mean that which you are utilizing right now? I see right through your ploy... Hurry up and accuse the opposition of precisely what you yourself are commonly accused of.
You think your smart? Make a video. Oh, wait, you're one of the anonymous (closet) fundamentalists, aren't you? I know your type. Your not intelligent enough to make a good case so you use the "shotgun" approach.
Lame.
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
There are 7,268 videos about evolution on YouTube. What could I possibly say in another video that hasn't already been said?
SirAdricTheBrave 3 years ago
"There are 7,268 videos about evolution on YouTube. What could I possibly say in another video that hasn't already been said?"
Here's a good idea for you:
Make a video and come right out, be honest and admit that just because you don't understand something doesn't automatically make it false.
You'd be one of the first. You'd also be garaunteed a HIGH subscriber count and possibly be offered a partnership. Hell, I'd subscribe to you if you did.
Is honesty asking too much? I guess so.
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
I give you a 9.5 mark for sarcasm, twothless. You dropped into that mode almost effortlessly. Have you had a lot of practice?
Actually, I understand the claims for Darwinian evolution quite well. What makes it false is that there is no evidence for it anywhere on the face of the earth in any scientific discipline.
When there is evidence for it, I will embrace it with the same enthusiasm as you do. But not before.
P.S. Your appeals to authority are not at all persuasive. Sorry.
SirAdricTheBrave 3 years ago
I was being dead honest in my suggestion.
"I understand the claims for Darwinian evolution quite well... there is no evidence for it anywhere on the face of the earth in any scientific discipline. When there is evidence for it?"
You're full of shit. Don't play coy with me, bub. Take your pick from any online search and give a try at debunking.
This IS a challenge. We'll use the correspondence medium of your choice. If you forego this challenge, I accept your concession...
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
Debunk what? There is nothing to debunk. To debunk something it first has to exist, does it not?
SirAdricTheBrave 3 years ago
"Debunk what? There is nothing to debunk. To debunk something it first has to exist, does it not?"
Oh, come now. Methinks your not very aptly named. In fact, you should have chosen SirAdricTheNotSoBrave.
You are a terrible liar. Whenever you get serious and want to truly defend your faith, let me know, otherwise, you're just a scared little hypocritical fundy...
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
Defend my faith? Fundy?
You guys are all alike. You claim to be such admirers of science but 30 seconds into a discussion of the science (or, more correctly, the lack of science) behind Darwinian evolution and you bound off on a tangent about religion.
LOL
SirAdricTheBrave 3 years ago
I can see you have no ambition to actually defend your position. I've asked you several times now to debunk ANYTHING within the realm of scientific theory regarding evolution. Take your pick. I'll even do half of the homework for you:
Google "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution"
Give it a shot. If you think you've got the smarts, that is.
You have now been informed. You can no longer claim that evidence doesn't exist because I gave you a list WITH referrences.
Try me...
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
If you are going to let someone else do your heavy lifting, I will too.
arn[DOT]org/docs/pbsevolution/camp_all[DOT]pdf
SirAdricTheBrave 3 years ago
You stated there was no proof, I gave you a long list of proof to pick and choose from to refute in a debate with me. Since you passed on the chance to engage in intellectual debate, you have thus conceded.
It's funny, you came here all sure of yourself but you've yet to provide a single refutation to back your claim.
Typical creationist methodology. Have fun swimming in your ignorance!
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
"Dr. Theobald does not address the origin of the first living thing or the mechanism
by which that first organism diverged into every life form that has ever existed."
The first paragraph contains blatant falsehoods:
1- abiogenesis is not biological evolution. Try the dictionary.
2- Mutation and Natural Selection are the underlying themes for evolution. Denying this correalation is intellectual dishonesty.
The rest of that document reflects this fallacial methodology and thus, BUNK.
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
Here is the first paragraph. Please point out the "blatant falsehoods" to which you refer.
In "29 Evidences for Macroevolution," Douglas Theobald sets forth the evidence
that he believes proves scientifically that all living organisms descended from "one
original living species." He does so by listing what he claims are 29 potentially
falsifiable predictions of the hypothesis of universal common ancestry and presenting the
evidence that he believes confirms each of those predictions.
SirAdricTheBrave 3 years ago
scuse me, the second paragraph. THE ONE I QUOTED!
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
O.K. Here is the second paragraph. Please point out the "blatant falsehoods" to which you refer.
"Dr. Theobald does not address the origin of the first living thing or the mechanism
by which that first organism diverged into every life form that has ever existed. His
thesis is expressly restricted to the affirmation of universal common ancestry. In other words, he argues that, without knowing anything about how the first life arose or how it diversified, [continued]
SirAdricTheBrave 3 years ago
[continued] one can still be certain that all living things descended from the same
ancestor. He states in the introduction (emphasis supplied):"
SirAdricTheBrave 3 years ago
O.K., here is the SECOND paragraph. Please point out the "blatant falsehoods" to which you refer.
"Dr. Theobald does not address the origin of the first living thing or the mechanism
by which that first organism diverged into every life form that has ever existed. His
thesis is expressly restricted to the affirmation of universal common ancestry. In other words, he argues that, without knowing anything about how the first life arose or how it diversified," [continued]
SirAdricTheBrave 3 years ago
"Please point out the "blatant falsehoods" to which you refer."
Here, I'll REPOST since you seem to be incapable of reasoned logic:
1- abiogenesis is not biological evolution. Try the dictionary.
2- Mutation and Natural Selection are the underlying themes for evolution. Denying this correalation is intellectual dishonesty.
There you go honey. All spoon fed and wiped...
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
Well, your "REPOST" simply confirms my first suspicion, which was that either your reading comprehension skills need a great deal of improvement or you made no effort to comprehend Camp.
Neither of your points correlate to paragraph two because Camp has not begun to argue in paragraph two. He is simply orienting readers who are not familiar with the work he is critiquing.
SirAdricTheBrave 3 years ago
"Neither of your points correlate to paragraph two..."
That quote was pulled directly out of paragraph 2. Follow me?
"because Camp has not begun to argue in paragraph two"
In the mind of the reader, they are a direct argument. Especially since the abio argument is protocol for creationists.
"He is simply orienting readers who are not familiar with the work he is critiquing."
It's a misrepresentation. He could have simply stated the obvious, abio has no place in this argument.
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
So your going to let the one question I want answered just slip right by, huh?
Since when is science suppose to be coddling?
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
It isn't. Who said it was?
SirAdricTheBrave 3 years ago
O.K., if you insist that you tried to comprehend Camp, that leaves only the explanation that your reading comprehension skills are sorely lacking. You may want to consider remedial classes.
SirAdricTheBrave 3 years ago
"the claim of universal common ancestry is
incompatible with the belief that God separately created more than one living thing."
This is the type of argument I expect. falsely dichotimizing science and religion is tantamount to brainwashing. Take theistic evolution for example. Separate creations easily fit their criteria.
Besides, the above quote only goes to prove that this it's the judeo-christian religion which is being peddled, not knowledge or truth.
Lame...
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
See the common theme in the few statements I pulled from your PDF document? Religious views. Tell me, what does religion have to do with making as close a proximation to the truth as physically possible (scientific method)? I'll tell you, NOTHING. It has no place because nobody has established it's existence nor even defined it so as to establish verifiability.
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
"It therefore challenges the convictions of biblical creationists, progressive creationists, and all who believe that mankind was created separately from animals."
Since when are truths, scientific principles, or empirical observations responsible for coddling the feelings and dogmatic beliefs of the religious? Since when?
Even if you ignore everything else I post, answer THAT one...
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
Does not get any more empirical than fossil evidence showing evolution.
jebus6kryst 3 years ago
"A large number of well-trained scientists outside of evolutionary biology and paleontology have unfortunately gotten the idea that the fossil record is far more Darwinian than it is. This probably comes from the oversimplification inevitable in ... low-level textbooks, semi popular articles, and so on. Also, there is probably some wishful thinking involved." ~Dr. David M. Raup, Professor of Geology, University of Chicago, Science, Vol. 213, No. 4505, p.289
[continued]
SirAdricTheBrave 3 years ago
I have looked up Dr. Raup and it seems that he firmly accepts the theory of evolution. I even copied and pasted the quote into a search on Google scholar; nothing came up for it. The only place that I can find the quote is on creationists' propaganda sites. It seems they will do anything to try to make it seem like there is controversy in the scientific community.
jebus6kryst 3 years ago
[continued]
The fossil record is supportive of Darwinian evolution only in the sense that it is loosely compatible with it. But it is also compatible with other explanations including progressive creation. When data fits two or more hypotheses, it cannot be used as evidence for any of the hypotheses.
SirAdricTheBrave 3 years ago
Oh gosh, one quote from one scientist is not going to do anything. You were asking for empirical evidence and I have it in this video. You cannot counter empirical evidence with a quote. In addition, it does not matter how many quotes you find, it will not make the empirical evidence go away.
jebus6kryst 3 years ago
To repeat myself, the fossil record is supportive of Darwinian evolution only in the sense that it is loosely compatible with it. But it is also compatible with other explanations including progressive creation. When data fit two or more hypotheses, it cannot be used as evidence for any of the hypotheses. There, I just made it go away.
SirAdricTheBrave 3 years ago
Nevertheless, it does not support creation at all. We have the links that show species evolve from one another. If there is descent with modification than there could not be special creation. In addition, the gradual evolution that I show here in this video does not fit into the creationists "hypothesis".
Besides there is also genetic evidence that supports evolution, also embryology that supports it. The fossil record is just one part of the evidence behind evolution.
jebus6kryst 3 years ago
Let's stay on subject, may we? You are not qualified to say what supports creation and what doesn't and I don't have the slightest interest in promoting or defending it.
The subject at hand is your post, "Does not get any more empirical than fossil evidence...."
Do you see how a fact can be compatible with the Theory of Evolution yet still not be proof of it?
SirAdricTheBrave 3 years ago
Yes, I can see that, but as I pointed out it is only one piece of evidence that is supported by many others.
However, I still do not see how evidence for gradual evolution, small changes over long periods, can be seen as anything else but evidence for evolution.
Change over time is evolution.
jebus6kryst 3 years ago
Progressive creationists (I am not one of them) point to the fossil record and say, "I don't see how you can interpret this as anything but evidence for progressive creation."
In which case, NEITHER of you can call it "evidence".
SirAdricTheBrave 3 years ago
Another example of the evolution theory at works in the discovery of Tiktaalik. With evolutionary theory scientists were able to predict that type of creature living in the time period they found it in.
jebus6kryst 3 years ago
Many species of LIVING fish are known to breathe air and "walk" with the help of their pectoral fins. The northern snakehead, "walking catfish" and mudskippers for example. The climbing perch not only breathes air and "walks" on land but is even capable of climbing trees! Yet none of these curious fish are considered to be ancestors of tetrapods. Are you certain that Tiktaalik is?
SirAdricTheBrave 3 years ago
Yes because Tiktaalik has homologues features to the fish that came before it and the amphibians that came after it. It also fits the timeline for the first amphibians' appearance. Those species that you named could not be ancestors of tetrapods because they are alive now. They are modern creatures and do not share any of the features (structures in the hand, feet, and neck) that tetrapods have today. Taktaalik does.
jebus6kryst 3 years ago
Exactly what features do you believe Taktaalik shares ... SHARES ... with tetrapods?
SirAdricTheBrave 3 years ago
If you really want to know read the book "Your Inner Fish" by Neil Shubin. It is a great read. It goes over many of the homologies features that Tiktaalik has in common with tetrapods. It explains why our body is laid out the way it is based on the anatomy of Tiktaalik. This good book shows how evolution modifies living things.
jebus6kryst 3 years ago
I am familiar with Tiktaalik, jebus. I asked the question to see how much YOU understood about it.
I find it interesting that a heavyweight on the subject, Jennifer Clack (curator at the Museum of Zoology and Professor of Vertebrate Palaeontology at Cambridge University), doesn't think that we can tell if Tiktaalik was a direct ancestor of land vertebrates.
SirAdricTheBrave 3 years ago
There is no way to tell if any fossil is a direct ancestor. Tiktaalik could have lead to an evolutionary dead end. However, it still would have hand to evolve from something that hand the same homologies structures in its neck, shoulders, and arms, and that creature would be our ancestor.
Dr. Clack also firmly accepts the theory of evolution. Her being skeptical (which is good) about fossil also does not demise the theory.
jebus6kryst 3 years ago
"Tiktaalik could have lead to an evolutionary dead end."
Tiktaalik might also have been a "mosaic" life form, one with characteristics belonging to dissimilar creatures. In that case it could not be regarded as an intermediate form (see Gould & Eldredge, Paleobiology, Vol 3, 1977, p. 147).
SirAdricTheBrave 3 years ago
Mosaic creatures, like the platypus, have superficial features that resemble other creatures. The features in Taktaalik in no way superficial resemble the primitive amphibians that follow it, its features fit homologies with them.
Sighting a source from the 70s, tisk tisk, that would never fly at a university. Please to some more up to date research on this subject. I am sure I could look that far back and find papers about group selection, that hypothesis has been debunked.
jebus6kryst 3 years ago
Are you suggesting that what Gould and Eldridge wrote, that mosaics can't be considered transitional forms, is no longer true?
SirAdricTheBrave 3 years ago
I am saying to get up to date and find a source that is worth reading. I am not going to go through a paper that could be out of date.
jebus6kryst 3 years ago
Look, in spite of all your bluster, you don't know if Tiktaalik is transitional to tetrapods or not. For years the scientific community claimed that the coelacanth was transitional to tetrapods ... until fishermen caught one in the early 1900's. Oops.
SirAdricTheBrave 3 years ago
The fossilized Coelacanths are still thought of as transitional species. They have features (such as the lobe-finned) that are homologies with tetrapods.
Second, the modern Coelacanths are different from the fossilized ones. They live in deep water, to name one of the difference they have. Ancient Coelacanth lived in shallow seas, which also explains why modern Coelacanth's fossils were not found.
In addition, the first modern specimen was found in 1938 of the coast of South Africa.
jebus6kryst 3 years ago
"Seemingly immune to the pressures of natural selection, the coelacanth changed little (except in size and possibly in habitat) over the eons." (w w w[dot]dinofish[dot]com)
SirAdricTheBrave 3 years ago
Even from your quote, it shows that evolution has happened to it. It changed in size and habit. Do you know how many changes this population would have to go through before they were able to live in deep water if they started living in shallow seas?
Second the modern Coelacanth resembles Macropoma which went extinct 70 million years ago. That species was already different from the species believed to be a transitional of tetrapods.
jebus6kryst 3 years ago
I apologize, jebus, but it is not clear to me what point you are trying to make. Help me out here.
SirAdricTheBrave 3 years ago
The point I am trying to make is that the modern Coelacanth, Latimeria, resembles an ancient Coelacanth named Macropoma. Macropoma was already different from the even more ancient species of Coelacanth that gave rise to tetrapods. However, Macropoma is still different from Latimeria because Latimeria lives in the deep oceans, Macropoma lived in shallow seas. Even though Latimeria resembles Macropoma they are still different enough that scientists give them different taxonomic classifications.
jebus6kryst 3 years ago
Yes, but in what way does all that fit into our present discussion?
SirAdricTheBrave 3 years ago
You quoted me something stating that the modern Coelacanth is unchanged. I have just pointed out that it has changed. I have also pointed out that the Coelacanth that leads to tetapods is not the same Coelacanth that resembles the modern one.
jebus6kryst 3 years ago
Something else I want to point out is if you are trying to use a living fossil to disprove evolution than, your understand of it is flawed. Natural selection states that creatures will evolve to fit an ecological niche, ones that niche is met there is no need to evolve until the ecological niche changes again. That is why things like the horseshoe crab have been unchanged for eons.
jebus6kryst 3 years ago
I guess someone just ignored the evidence in this video.
jebus6kryst 3 years ago
Have you noticed how that some readers give purely factual and opinion-free posts, such as the one above, a thumbs down?
Perhaps their mother was frightened by a fact while they were in the womb.
SirAdricTheBrave 3 years ago
I see what you are talking about. The thing with that is I have never heard anyone ever use that argument before. The argument that they use is that creatures are special created in the forms they are now.
The problem with that is that we see evolution happening in short time scales. With more time the types of changes predictions by evolution could happen.
jebus6kryst 3 years ago
very educational video great work!!!!!!!!
ShellySummers 3 years ago
Thank you.
jebus6kryst 3 years ago