Evolution Proven False

Why is it so hard to believe that they haven't found the so called missing link fossil?

We only have fossils for around 10% of all life that ever lived.

The thing about eyes is that they may not have evolved all at once. Perhaps they started as a form of camoflauge like caterpillars with fake faces. Perhaps they started as primitive sensory organs that evolved into eyes that we know of today. Irreducible complexity is a pretty weak argument IMHO, considering the time scale and unknowns that still exist.

Originally posted by carluk
IF we did evolve from primates, why did the primates just stop evolving? IF there was a missing link i find it hard to beleive that they havnt found it yet. IF we evolved from primates and they evolve from whatever and they evolved from whatever where did it all start?[\quote]

Why do you think that primates have stopped evolving? The differences between a chimpanzee and a gorilla are pretty big. I think that makes a case for evolution. As for us, we came from a common ancester to them and we seem to have lived in a different environment, probably the savannahs of East Africa, possibly at one point close to the sea, although the aquatic ape theory has been deeply controversial. And as for the missing link - it's out there, we are pushing the history of the human race back all the time with new discoveries. And do you know how hard it is to find meaningful fossils in East Africa? Very difficult. We're lucky to have found the pieces that we have so far.

for something to evolve it despretly needs that extra thing (organ, body part). as for the eye it is a complex part and every part individual and all works together as one, if you take a part away it is rendered useless. each part would have to evolve independantly and IF it was evolution that happened it would take along time for the eye to evolve and natural selection would not alow the eye to be formed as each part would be useless without the rest. thus having no meaning for being there

This is a standard creationist argument and as such is fallacious. There has never been any such thing as half an eye, or an eye that lacks internal parts. What you have instead is a light-sensing organ that gets better with time. This is evolution.

[edit on 1-12-2005 by Darkmind]

Originally posted by Byrd
Point 2: the Neanderthals WERE around when homo sapiens were. A number of skeletons have been found in Portugal where h sapiens h neanderthalis both lived together for about 10,000 years -- skeletons that show interbreeding between the two groups.

Not to dissapoint you Byrd, but it has been proven that they couldnt reproduce together, they were so different it would be like a horse and a elephant!

Actually:

There has never been any conclusive evidence that the two species did interbreed, but it has always been a possibility. And just a few years ago, in 1999, scientists in Portugal found the 25,000-year-old skeleton of a boy who seemed to have been a hybrid, the offspring of Homo sapiens (modern humans) and Homo neanderthalensis.

dienekes.ifreepages.com...

anyways, since when was breeding a factor of human sexuality?

I find it difficult to fathom how the Earth can be only thousands of years old when we have fossils that some would have us believe are the remnants of lifeforms from no older than 6,000 B.C., when we also have bodies that have not been fossilized that we know died from around 3,000 to 4,000 B.C.

I guess my question for creationists is:

How long does it take a fossil to become a fossil, and if it takes only so long under certain conditions, why then can we have 2 bodies from the same time that resulted in one turning to a fossil, and one not turning into a fossil?

Originally posted by PanzerDiv
Not to dissapoint you Byrd, but it has been proven that they couldnt reproduce together, they were so different it would be like a horse and a elephant!

Panzer, what do you mean by this? How can this be proven? The ability to breed, at least in a large part, is related to the compatibility of chromosome pairs. Last time I was really up on my neandrethal stuff, nothing was really known about their chromosomes.

How was this proven? Do you have any refs?

Originally posted by mattison0922

Originally posted by PanzerDiv
Not to dissapoint you Byrd, but it has been proven that they couldnt reproduce together, they were so different it would be like a horse and a elephant!

Panzer, what do you mean by this? How can this be proven? The ability to breed, at least in a large part, is related to the compatibility of chromosome pairs. Last time I was really up on my neandrethal stuff, nothing was really known about their chromosomes.

How was this proven? Do you have any refs?

I dont recall the book this was in, but essentialy they were two different species!

Originally posted by PanzerDiv
I dont recall the book this was in, but essentialy they were two different species!

This idea of Neandrethals and Sapiens being different species and not being able to interbreed is far from a fact, and more like weak speculation at best.

There is really no way to determine the degree of molecular variation present to account for the morphological variation observed. Genetically identical individuals can significantly vary phenotypically as a function of the environment. This is one of the fundamental problems with these kinds of assumptions.

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher

I guess my question for creationists is:

How long does it take a fossil to become a fossil, and if it takes only so long under certain conditions, why then can we have 2 bodies from the same time that resulted in one turning to a fossil, and one not turning into a fossil?

Well, I'm not arguing from the side of creationalist on this question so much as having a different opinion as to where fossills came from. I do not believe the forces exist in nature to create the pressure needed for fossilization on such a broad scale as we tend to find them but rather intense pressure from a cataclismic event such as a comet strike which deposited huge amounts of ice suddenly. We have many other hints that something of this magnatude happened as well such as a Mammoth found flash-frozen with undigested prarie grass in its stomach. Glaciers took years to advance supposedly so where would it get grass in a peri-glacial environment?

Personally, I would not carve the theory of evolution is stone just yet for no better reason than political agends. I think they have many issues with it and I think some of the building blocks are very subjective. I can prove anything if I am able to surmise some protions of the data to get there.

Its sad to say of the scientific community because I consider myself a part of it but I think in many cases we have gone from seekeing truth to defense of our grant money.

Yellow Eyes!!!

Originally posted by astrocreep
Its sad to say of the scientific community because I consider myself a part of it but I think in many cases we have gone from seekeing truth to defense of our grant money.

Scut... you're a scientist? Right on... me too? Might I inquire as to what your particular field is?

Originally posted by astrocreep
Well, I'm not arguing from the side of creationalist on this question so much as having a different opinion as to where fossills came from. I do not believe the forces exist in nature to create the pressure needed for fossilization on such a broad scale as we tend to find them but rather intense pressure from a cataclismic event such as a comet strike which deposited huge amounts of ice suddenly. We have many other hints that something of this magnatude happened as well such as a Mammoth found flash-frozen with undigested prarie grass in its stomach. Glaciers took years to advance supposedly so where would it get grass in a peri-glacial environment?

Actually I do not believe that the mammoth in question qualifies as a fossil as it is just frozen/mummified.. [why they were careful with thawing it to prevent it decomposing]. I would be grateful if you be more specific in what you mean.. or provide other actual rock examples of these 'quick set' fossils as what you have said infers that the can be questionable [even amber requires a substantial amount of time to form].. and therefore the age of the rocks themselves. What is your own explanation of how it had grass in it's stomach when it seemed unavailable?
My own theories.. perhaps they had slow digestive system and it had eaten it elsewhere, or more probably it was caught in a cold snap. Yes, this was possibly caused by a comet striking the planet causing a mini ice age.. so why would it be relevent for glaciers to advance if they could form in a short amount of time anyway? I cannot remember the peticulars of that mammoth; whether it was found on a glacier that was on land or water, how far it was from the shore, if it was found in a rock or an ice cave, whether there has been vegetation from the same time frame and region dug up, whether vegatation is capable of growing out of ice [pockets of soil]. You bring up an interesting point- even though I do not think it compromises the evolution theory at all, I will get back to this at a later time and try answer it properly.

[edit on 3-12-2005 by riley]

to me this all seems to come down to a misinterpretation of the term "race"

white people are to black people as poodles are to great danes.

same species, different minor adaptations.

Originally posted by riley
You bring up an interesting point- even though I do not think it compromises the evolution theory at all, I will get back to this at a later time and try answer it properly.

[edit on 3-12-2005 by riley]

It was not my intent to compromise the integrity of evolutionary studies at all, on the contrary, I think those who are so ready to hang their hats of the preliminary (yes it is preliminary) hypothesis already are doing that themsleves. My argument is to always leave room for expanding and if need be, admitting that it was a good theory but just plain wrong. It could happen someday just as we learned the Earth wasn't flat.

It seems that as people's personal interests get involved, such as their funding or reputation, we tend to move from a frontier of discovery to a defensive posturing where we like to put our fingers in our ears and hum rather than hear an alternate thought. I accept that there is evidence for evolution of man but I also accept there is something to be said for intellegent design whether by a perceived Almighty or ETs. Why? Well, because we cannot be certain. Not absolutly certain and that uncertainty will always be there. How boring would life be if it were any other way? Almost as if it was planned to be that way.

Well ive read the first few replies and can i just say the 4 races you mention guess what-
we're all the same, it would take 1000 years for say a corcasion (sp?) to become what is regarded as a asian with no interbreeding with natives.

I like evolution so I have to comment. I have been watching the science channel all day and it has had this stuff on all day. They have found some new information about the middle jurassic. I guess they did not know why dinosaurs were so little and had so few species, and then got so big in 400 million years. During this middle jurassic the super continent Pangea (spelling) broke up into smaller continents. Although this killed a lot of the plant and animal life it boosted evolution. There was more water around the land, which meant more food for the herbavors and they grew bigger, so the carnivors had to get bigger to be able to kill the prey. They called it an "arms race". Even though all the surviving dinosaurs were the same they evolved differantly because of differant climates. The dinosaurs on North America had a differant bump in the legbone than the ones from South America. So I think that if we did evolve from primates or neanderthols, we evolved differently because of our habitat. And t hat is why we don't look the same, and maybe why they didn't live is because they did not evolve quickly enough to live.

Innana, you hit the point dead on.

also,

we have all this evidence that evolution is true, yet the only way you can prove other theories is by saying that its too much to happen randomly

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Innana, you hit the point dead on.

also,

we have all this evidence that evolution is true, yet the only way you can prove other theories is by saying that its too much to happen randomly

Well actually there are two sides to that coin. When you look through a thousand facts to find one that supports your theory, remember that leaves 999 that don't. If you find 999, that still leaves one that doesn't. My point is that its enough to leave some doubt for future research.

i see where you're going
however, saying god did it doesn't exactly help out science a whole lot
there could be other ways to explain it, but i doubt divine intervention

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
i see where you're going
however, saying god did it doesn't exactly help out science a whole lot
there could be other ways to explain it, but i doubt divine intervention

That's why scientist's, including IDTist's don't do this.

And you're certainly entitled to your opinion.

Question:

If evoluton is about Natural Selection and one species dieing off after another was has "evolutionized"
...

..

Why are there still Monkey's here?
Is it me, or are Monkeys no where nears dieing off?

What about the hundreds of gaps between fossil records?
They have more fossil records to fill a huge museum, all piled up. not one of them finds missing links to this evolutionary chain.

[edit on 10-11-2007 by linkjoy124]

[edit on 10-11-2007 by linkjoy124]