macroevolution and intermediate links

[Texan Christian]

So, according to macroevolution, which I have done much study on (I made a 10 minute platform speech against it a year ago), there should be intermediate links between fossils of animals believed to be connected. The problem with this theory, is that there are few if any (I'd argue there are none, the commonly used "Lucy" actually has evidence that it is simply the skeleton of an ape which would be able to more easily sit upright, all the other bones besides the hip are the same as a normal ape. (if you wish bring up any "intermediate links" you know about)) intermediate links, when, there should be plenty. There should, in fact, be more intermediate links than the fossils of animals living today (or extinct).
I believe some macroevolutionists, seeing the faults in this, believe that animals evolved through many series of "good mutations" which actually benefitted the animal, but there have never been observed a "positive" mutation, and by that theory as well, there should be many positive mutations which happen. If I got anything a little confused or appear to have forgotten something let me know

Good day and God bless y'all

[Bust Nak]

If I got anything a little confused or appear to have forgotten something let me know.

0) The term "intermediate links" is problematic in itself. People tend to imagine "chimeras" which isn't what evolution says.
1) There are literally tonnes of "intermediate links."
2) Of course Lucy was a normal ape, that should not be surprising. We human are also normal apes.
3) Generally the older the fossil the rarer it is, so one shouldn't expect to find more fossils of "intermediate links" than the fossils of animals living today. Granted, the idea that there has to be more intermediate forms then extant forms, is correct.
4) "Good mutations" is not supposed to be a work around for the lack of "intermediate links," evolution was accepted long before scientists know what the mechanism for inheritance is.
5) There are documented cases of good mutations, the ability to digest lactose is one such example.
6) If you accept MICROevolution, changes WITHIN the boundaries of its own DNA, what exactly is it that stops an ancient Tetrapod species from changing WITHIN the boundaries of its own DNA, MICROevolving into humans?

[Neatras]

[Replying to post 6 by JoeyKnothead]

While I understand that there's a great deal of effort to get across these points, I do have to wonder how effective this approach will be. In particular, your comment about fossilization seems to have completely and utterly slid off without any consideration on the OP's part. This is very important, because while you may see fossilization as an innocuous fact, and that fossilization occurs at such a small ratio to living beings, others don't have that luxury. It is in fact a component of Christian education to work against ANYTHING in support of evolutionary theory, and obfuscate facts to that end. It might be best if we get Texan Christian's input on exactly what components of evolutionary theory he understands, accepts, rejects, and has been taught by potentially biased sources.

[H.sapiens]

[Replying to post 12 by Neatras]
I already asked him for the sources he studied, he has ignored that request so I'd guess that he looked at the usual suspects and nothing else.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 8:

-A decent amount, maybe 5 or 6 hours worth. I'm in a speech club.

So now you wish to declare that 5 or 6 hours worth of study, and belonging to a speech club should be all the criteria we need to overturn some hundred years of study? Granted, it's about the argument/s, but still, we can consider this in light of your argument, and how it may not represent a fuller, more complete understanding of data / issues that don't show up in the first five or six hours, much less the first five or six months of study.


H.sapiens, I'm sorry to be the one to hafta tell it, and you're about the smartest of 'em I know, but all that schoolin' you did mighta been a waste!

-no... it was a 10 minute (I wasn't allowed to go over 10 minutes) about evidence against evolution.

10 minutes. Do you really think the theory of evolution can be properly explained in ten minutes, especially to what I assume is a group of your teenaged peers?

-according to macroevolution there should be at least just as many intermediate links.

Look at your parents. Look in a mirror. You're an intermediate link to any young'n you might ever produce. It's the compilation of all those tiny, tiny differences, spread across such time that a new species is created.

The fossil record is imperfect owing to the imperfect process of fossilization, among other factors. We simply can't reasonably expect to find every dead critter in order to provide such "intermediate" links that would satisfy the theory's most staunch critics.

It's about reasonable and logical inferences based on reams and reams of data.

-by good I meant benefitting the creature, sorry if that wasn't clear.

We think here of illnesses such as sickle-cell anemia, and how that problem occurs because it also affords protection against malaria at younger, non-procreating ages (allowing procreating ages to be attained). Only thing is, those with sickle-cell anemia don't much fret it being good. Sure, they made it past the age of being at risk of malaria, only to end up a-suffering their fate.

Centers for Disease Control


What I'm trying to get you to understand is that a mutation can even be bad, insofar as who wants to be all sickle-celly, but that by that mutation one has a better (gooder) chance to spread their genes. Instead of a "good" mutation, For you, a young man who's really just learning about the ToE, I propose it's best to just say "mutation", unless, of course, that mutation produces the likes of Sara Jean Underwood, then, we can, with absolute scientific certainty, declare that mutation good. And prettier'n the finest batch of liquor ever cooked off.

Don't fixate on "good", as -ahem- good an idea as that can be. Recognize that mutations can be both good and bad, and that such depends on many factors - factors we may not even be aware of.

[H.sapiens]

H.sapiens, I'm sorry to be the one to hafta tell it, and you're about the smartest of 'em I know, but all that schoolin' you did mighta been a waste!

Thank'e. All that schoolin' I did was nay a waste, it was big fun, let me talk with some really smart folks, play with great toys, and go a lot of far off places.

The cash twasn't that good ... but the fillies sur-as-shooten were.

[For_The_Kingdom]

In science that fact that you are not personally convinced of a theory does not bring the theory into question.

We (I don't believe in macroevolution, either) are not convinced of evolution because we reject the evidence that naturalists provide for the theory...in the same way unbelievers reject the evidence that we present for Christianity.

You don't believe in our religion, and we don't believe in yours.

In science if you want to challenge a theory you need to propose a more compelling theory to replace it along with providing scientifically testable evidence to support your hypotheses.

Or we can keep refuting the evidence that has been presented for the theory...and we do that by making compelling arguments against the theory by mentioning things like the invisible "fossil record", the lack of observational evidence, and the abiogenesis problem that is plaguing the theory of evolution.

So how do you propose that all the different species of plants, animals, and insects arose on Earth?

Easy. I take the Biblical approach. In Genesis, the animals were created and God said "let the animals bring forth after their KIND" (paraphrasing)....and that is what I see. I see animals "bringing forth after their kind"...I see dogs producing dogs, cats producing cats, fish producing fish. That is what I see...so what I SEE is in harmony with what the Bible has been saying for thousands of years.

What I DON'T see is reptile to bird transformations, you know, the kind of stuff that evolutionists believed occurred billions of years ago when no one was conveniently around to see it.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Well, there are plenty of examples of intermediate forms. You're incorrect in saying that there are 'few if any'.

Here is a list of just a few transitional fossils.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... al_fossils

None of those alleged "transitional fossils" are complete, though. How about a complete record? Of all of the hundreds of millions of organisms that have died and fossilized, why don't we have just ONE complete fossil record of any?

Because evolution is false, that's why.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Ten minutes to explain evolutionary theory seems like you're either a very fast talker, or you simply lack a full understanding of the theories / data / evidence involved.

What will take longer, him fully explaining the evolutionary theory, or you providing a complete fossil record for all to see?

I accept that scientists have a tough row to hoe here, what with us not being able to physically observe such drastic changes. The ToE is, however, a sound theory based on reams of data / evidence, and offers a far superior explanation than "God did it".

Theists believe that beliefs in theism are sound and based on "reams of data/evidence" and offers a far superior explanation than "Nature did it".

[Goat]

In science that fact that you are not personally convinced of a theory does not bring the theory into question.

We (I don't believe in macroevolution, either) are not convinced of evolution because we reject the evidence that naturalists provide for the theory...in the same way unbelievers reject the evidence that we present for Christianity.

You don't believe in our religion, and we don't believe in yours.

In science if you want to challenge a theory you need to propose a more compelling theory to replace it along with providing scientifically testable evidence to support your hypotheses.

Or we can keep refuting the evidence that has been presented for the theory...and we do that by making compelling arguments against the theory by mentioning things like the invisible "fossil record", the lack of observational evidence, and the abiogenesis problem that is plaguing the theory of evolution.

So how do you propose that all the different species of plants, animals, and insects arose on Earth?

Easy. I take the Biblical approach. In Genesis, the animals were created and God said "let the animals bring forth after their KIND" (paraphrasing)....and that is what I see. I see animals "bringing forth after their kind"...I see dogs producing dogs, cats producing cats, fish producing fish. That is what I see...so what I SEE is in harmony with what the Bible has been saying for thousands of years.

What I DON'T see is reptile to bird transformations, you know, the kind of stuff that evolutionists believed occurred billions of years ago when no one was conveniently around to see it.

This is what is known as 'equivocator', and attempting to put religion and science equial. There are some huge differences. One is the matter of being able to be tested, and falsified, as well, as being able to make predictions, and to be able to explain the mechanism behind the predictions.

[H.sapiens]

In science that fact that you are not personally convinced of a theory does not bring the theory into question.

We (I don't believe in macroevolution, either) are not convinced of evolution because we reject the evidence that naturalists provide for the theory...in the same way unbelievers reject the evidence that we present for Christianity.

You don't believe in our religion, and we don't believe in yours.

That's what is known as a "false equivalence," a logical fallacy which describes a situation where there is a logical and apparent equivalence, but when in fact there is none. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency. In order to recognize it you need to understand both items being compared, which clearly you do not.

In science if you want to challenge a theory you need to propose a more compelling theory to replace it along with providing scientifically testable evidence to support your hypotheses.

Or we can keep refuting the evidence that has been presented for the theory...and we do that by making compelling arguments against the theory by mentioning things like the invisible "fossil record", the lack of observational evidence, and the abiogenesis problem that is plaguing the theory of evolution.

Even if you discount the entire fossil record, that gets you nowhere, the genetic and immunological data have made the fossil record nothing more than a curious Victorian pastime, completely unnecessary to more than make the case for Evolution. Similarly, the genetic data provides irrefutable and directly observable evidence for the inferences that established the TOE. As for abiogenesis, that has nothing to do with Evolution and is an unknown at the moment. You make an argument from ignorance out of that, but that is just another logical fallacy.

So how do you propose that all the different species of plants, animals, and insects arose on Earth?

Easy. I take the Biblical approach. In Genesis, the animals were created and God said "let the animals bring forth after their KIND" (paraphrasing)....and that is what I see. I see animals "bringing forth after their kind"...I see dogs producing dogs, cats producing cats, fish producing fish. That is what I see...so what I SEE is in harmony with what the Bible has been saying for thousands of years.

What I DON'T see is reptile to bird transformations, you know, the kind of stuff that evolutionists believed occurred billions of years ago when no one was conveniently around to see it.

Do you see the orbit of the Earth? Do you see continental drift? Do you even see your toenails grow? Do all of these things happen? Just because you can not directly witness them as the occur doesn't mean that they are not simply slow natural processes. Much of science is dedicated to transforming the scale so that it can be "seen." Microscopes make the tiny larger, telescopes bring the far away closer, special forms of photography make the fast slower and the slow faster, all sorts of sensors make the invisible able to be seen. No magic needed.

Ten minutes to explain evolutionary theory seems like you're either a very fast talker, or you simply lack a full understanding of the theories / data / evidence involved.

What will take longer, him fully explaining the evolutionary theory, or you providing a complete fossil record for all to see?

First, you must understand the TOE before attempting to explain it. An expert could do it 10 minutes or less. You can not understand the fossil record unless you have expertise at the level of being able to compare, say, the baso-cranial circulation of mammals using that artifact to differentiate between or group the ursids, otariids, odobenids, and phocids. Using examples from the genomic data is easier for layman to understand and interpret.

I accept that scientists have a tough row to hoe here, what with us not being able to physically observe such drastic changes. The ToE is, however, a sound theory based on reams of data / evidence, and offers a far superior explanation than "God did it".

It is not a tough row to hoe, the problem is that the opposition is so poorly informed that the arguments go right over their heads and are, as a result, disbelieved in favor of improbable fairy tales.

Theists believe that beliefs in theism are sound and based on "reams of data/evidence" and offers a far superior explanation than "Nature did it".

That's nice, care to share some "evidence?" That request has been made on this board many times and has yet to be answered. So, come on, lets see some evidence that supports creationism.

Well, there are plenty of examples of intermediate forms. You're incorrect in saying that there are 'few if any'.

Here is a list of just a few transitional fossils.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... al_fossils

None of those alleged "transitional fossils" are complete, though. How about a complete record? Of all of the hundreds of millions of organisms that have died and fossilized, why don't we have just ONE complete fossil record of any?

Because evolution is false, that's why.

You are flat out wrong. There are plenty of complete "transitional fossils" and even transitional series. What was inferred from these fossils has now been confirmed by much more robust data from genetic, genomic and immunological data. You're just playing "God of the gaps," another logical fallacy. The publication of the chimpanzee genome put the final nail in the coffin of your argument, the clear identification of the origin of man in the fusion of two chimp chromosomes.