It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Barcs
originally posted by: TinfoilTP
originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: peter vlar
Philosophical debate that is sincere is not trolling.
Sometimes the reactions can be entertaining as well.
Here is a good article for your thread.
Problem 5: Abrupt Appearance of Species in the Fossil Record Does Not Support Darwinian Evolution
Source
They even get into and debunk the often mentioned Whale land to water scenario cited by evolutionists,
Whale evolution now runs into a severe problem. The fossil record requires that the evolution of whales from small land mammals would have to have taken place in less than 10 million years. That may sound like a long time, but it actually falls dramatically short, especially given that whales have small population sizes and long generation times. Biologist Richard Sternberg has examined the requirements of this transition mathematically and puts it this way: "Too many genetic re-wirings, too little time."
Do you have a source that isn't a creationist propaganda site? Sorry, but that site has been caught lying numerous times, so its credibility is in question.
You don't seem to realize this, but anybody can claim anything on the internet. Just because somebody says so, doesn't make it true.
If you want to claim science is wrong, you need to use science itself to show this, not some guy's personal opinion that is he arrived at using faith. Science uses peer reviewed experiments to determine facts, not just some random guy making claims. I know you do not like this, but it's the way it is.
originally posted by: TinfoilTP
Go read the article before spewing your biased hatred.
They cite real evolutionist's misgivings that they have uttered in public that you cannot refute.
Even the die hard of your doctrine have their doubts and faithful evolutionists want to ignore when they express those doubts.
originally posted by: TinfoilTP
Go read the article before spewing your biased hatred.
source
This poses a major challenge to Darwinian evolution, including the view that all animals are related through common ancestry.
originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
. What I don't believe is that non-organic matter spontaneously became organic and then spontaneously became a one celled organism
originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
I have threads on both those topics right now, but this one is on fossils
If that did happen there would be millions of missing link skeletal remains of both species and genders in between.
And what do we have today for the fossil record, not that.
The abrupt appearance of animals in the early Cambrian has been interpreted either as an explosive biological diversification or, alternatively, as an artefact resulting from a sudden increase in the probability of animal remains becoming fossilised. We attempt to reconcile these competing interpretations in exceptionally-preserved biota, which provide a vital part of our knowledge of the disparity and diversity of the Cambrian fauna. We assess the factors influencing the potential for exceptional fossil preservation using the brine shrimp Artemia salina as our experimental model. Following gut wall rupture, but prior to cuticle failure, internal, gut-derived microbes spread into the body cavity and formed pseudomorphs of tissues. Gut-derived microbes were shown to be the main factor mediating both decay and biofilm replacement and tissue stabilisation. This pattern of preservation is consistent with results from other experimental studies and with the nature of Burgess Shale type fossil remains. Thus, the evolution of a through-gut may have not only underpinned the ecological revolution that bilaterian diversification represents, but also catalysed the exceptional preservation of early bilaterian fossils.
originally posted by: Blue_Jay33 And even the carbon dating is flawed, it's not 100% accurate.
Well depends on what your looking at larger mamal's like yes we do if your talking small ones like rodents we hardly have any. So guess it depends on which side of the coin you look at. Want to know horses cows foxes bears lions tigers etc they are almost complete.
originally posted by: FearYourMind
Also, why haven't any other apes evolved? If we supposedly came from apes then you would expect other apes would have evolved with us, but not one of them has.
originally posted by: PhotonEffect
More recent estimates place the current species number around 9 million, of which we have catalogued roughly 1.5 million.
Fossils are luck of the draw, and are mostly incomplete – mere fragments.
So to correct Krazyshot, no, we do not have fossils for most species on the planet.
originally posted by: JUhrman
a reply to: FearYourMind
It's ironic you would post that since only religious fanatics deny evolution and these people bash religious fanatics.
originally posted by: TownCryer
I'm glad the OP's not my child's science teacher.
a reply to: Blue_Jay33
originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: Noinden
Noinden, you are correct and I agree with you. If you think "transition", you may as well include today's humans in transition as the evidence points to the fact that evolution of humans is speeding up. We are a transitional species. Brain case measurements of homosapien fossils clearly show evidence of transition.
The "gaps" exist only because fossils in good condition are rare. That's not to say they won't be found. It just says that we haven't unearthed everything yet.
originally posted by: ParasuvO
originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: Noinden
Noinden, you are correct and I agree with you. If you think "transition", you may as well include today's humans in transition as the evidence points to the fact that evolution of humans is speeding up. We are a transitional species. Brain case measurements of homosapien fossils clearly show evidence of transition.
The "gaps" exist only because fossils in good condition are rare. That's not to say they won't be found. It just says that we haven't unearthed everything yet.
I LOVE IT, so now you know the secrets of the Universe and somehow KNOW that we are in some sort of system that has nothing controlling it, but has an inevitable outcome.
The "gaps" in logic are astonishing, they constantly leave out SO many possibilities, of course all of which are scoffed at by the theoristic lovers, which by the way ARE religious, they just do not seem to know it
originally posted by: ParasuvO
You are so, SO wrong.
A great many of us have arisen , EVOLVED lol.
And we deny religion AND your ridiculous tiresome "theories".
It is too easy for us to see, that things are not looked upon in a light that is for actually finding the answers.
Constant sabotage, short-sightedness, and lackadaisical research are in abundance.
Frankly the theories of Evolution as so presented are as disgusting, UNLIKELY and BORING as almost every religion, in fact is many ways are worse, they have literally gotten us nowhere, and have uncovered NOTHING.
It is time for something new, a total routing of the common thinking that is being ENFORCED upon us by ludicrous and unimportant theories, that not only decide that things have a natural order, and EVOLVE, but that this natural order appears from nothing "naturally" , and yet is completely random.
Loony bin for the religious, and the controlled Science the both of em.