Yep I'm talking to you.

Initiate
User avatar
Posts: 295
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 1:41 am

PostThu Jun 20, 2013 4:13 am » by Icarium


Cambay411 wrote:
Icarium wrote:Evolution does not have an agenda. It does not decide to kill off another species. What happens is that 2 or more species compete for limited resources in the same environment, the species best adapted continues and their genes are passed on.
It is not as if a given species suddenly has this or that adaptation, there is a situation where say an amphibious creature has a slightly stiffened fin so it can move faster on land, those with the softest fins can not avoid predation or catch food as well as the ones with stiffened fins so that is the feature that carries on. This process continues until eventually the fins become legs. It is clear in the fossil records that these things seem always to have happened in this way.
Intelligence develops as advantageous trait in a given environment. As I said the brain is the most expensive organ in the body so to allow this to develop further it must be cost effective. If your food source is leaves and you have no competition in that environment no further intellect is required (ask mediasorcerer). When it came to hunting intelligence was a useful trait so that adaption was useful. The ability to communicate was also useful hence the development of speech.




Firstly there is nothing clear in the fossil record that shows anything about evolution.

Second an amphibious creature with stiffer legs and the ability to run faster can only prove it is more likely to avoid extinction. It doesnt mean it will eventually evolve into humans.



!) Yes it does very, very clearly
2) never said it did mean that.

Initiate
User avatar
Posts: 295
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 1:41 am

PostThu Jun 20, 2013 4:16 am » by Icarium


Doogle wrote:
Icarium wrote: and I regretted the entire post the usual 5 minutes after I posted.


Ain't that the truth, I know that feeling well. And.

"Having said that Bea might be an alien anyway." Freudian slip?


LOL, yeah, could be.

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 7138
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 10:00 pm
Location: Zin-Uru

PostThu Jun 20, 2013 4:17 am » by Kinninigan


Icarium wrote:By the way I love the dancing Draconian (is it?).



velociraptor with a tin foil suit






:cheers:


Upload to Disclose.tv


https://www.youtube.com/user/kinninigan
http://www.disclose.tv/user/kinninigan/

Initiate
Posts: 657
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 8:25 pm

PostThu Jun 20, 2013 4:31 am » by Jeckk


Evolution is right now the #1 contender for the explanation of where we came from. However, it still is not fact. So to say without a doubt that it is the truth, is something only an ignorant person would do.

Initiate
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 5:37 pm

PostThu Jun 20, 2013 7:18 am » by Cambay411


Icarium wrote:
Cambay411 wrote:
Icarium wrote:Evolution does not have an agenda. It does not decide to kill off another species. What happens is that 2 or more species compete for limited resources in the same environment, the species best adapted continues and their genes are passed on.
It is not as if a given species suddenly has this or that adaptation, there is a situation where say an amphibious creature has a slightly stiffened fin so it can move faster on land, those with the softest fins can not avoid predation or catch food as well as the ones with stiffened fins so that is the feature that carries on. This process continues until eventually the fins become legs. It is clear in the fossil records that these things seem always to have happened in this way.
Intelligence develops as advantageous trait in a given environment. As I said the brain is the most expensive organ in the body so to allow this to develop further it must be cost effective. If your food source is leaves and you have no competition in that environment no further intellect is required (ask mediasorcerer). When it came to hunting intelligence was a useful trait so that adaption was useful. The ability to communicate was also useful hence the development of speech.




Firstly there is nothing clear in the fossil record that shows anything about evolution.

Second an amphibious creature with stiffer legs and the ability to run faster can only prove it is more likely to avoid extinction. It doesnt mean it will eventually evolve into humans.



!) Yes it does very, very clearly
2) never said it did mean that.




What in the fossil record points to evolution? Ive researched this for school several times and the big hole in the theory of evolution is there is no evidence of it in the fossil record. They try to connect dots that aren't there to connect. They find the fossil of a Trilobite and find similar fossils from thousands or even millions of years later and say well this evolved from the Trilobite because its similar in this way. Its all guess work. Purely based off of huge assumptions.

Even when scientist argue evolution the last thing they call on is the fossil record. Darwin himself doubted evolution. He admitted he couldn't explain the sudden appearance of some species.

Just like I said in a post earlier in this thread the evidence for evolution and creationism is all shaky. At best you could consider evidence for either side circumstancial. Niether even fit the scientific term of theory.

Initiate
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 5:37 pm

PostThu Jun 20, 2013 8:02 am » by Cambay411


Edit:

I take one thing I said back, of course an evolutionist will try to use the fossil record as evidence of evolution. Until they are asked to point out actual links in the fossil record.

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 7138
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 10:00 pm
Location: Zin-Uru

PostThu Jun 20, 2013 1:35 pm » by Kinninigan


:look:

icarium this coast to coast show i just posted is about this thread and intelligent design, you may wanna bookmark this show



coast-to-coast-am-6-19-13-darwin-intelligent-design-t84473.html















:peep:


Upload to Disclose.tv


https://www.youtube.com/user/kinninigan
http://www.disclose.tv/user/kinninigan/

Initiate
User avatar
Posts: 295
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 1:41 am

PostThu Jun 20, 2013 6:17 pm » by Icarium


Jeckk wrote:Evolution is right now the #1 contender for the explanation of where we came from. However, it still is not fact. So to say without a doubt that it is the truth, is something only an ignorant person would do.


Totally agree, as I have said all along for me it is just the theory that seems to best cover all the bases.

Initiate
User avatar
Posts: 295
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 1:41 am

PostThu Jun 20, 2013 6:34 pm » by Icarium


Firstly there is nothing clear in the fossil record that shows anything about evolution.

Second an amphibious creature with stiffer legs and the ability to run faster can only prove it is more likely to avoid extinction. It doesnt mean it will eventually evolve into humans.[/quote]


!) Yes it does very, very clearly
2) never said it did mean that.[/quote]



What in the fossil record points to evolution? Ive researched this for school several times and the big hole in the theory of evolution is there is no evidence of it in the fossil record. They try to connect dots that aren't there to connect. They find the fossil of a Trilobite and find similar fossils from thousands or even millions of years later and say well this evolved from the Trilobite because its similar in this way. Its all guess work. Purely based off of huge assumptions.

Even when scientist argue evolution the last thing they call on is the fossil record. Darwin himself doubted evolution. He admitted he couldn't explain the sudden appearance of some species.

Just like I said in a post earlier in this thread the evidence for evolution and creationism is all shaky. At best you could consider evidence for either side circumstancial. Niether even fit the scientific term of theory.[/quote]

Darwins problem with evolution was that he did not understand how the information was carried forwards, had he lived to see DNA discovered he would have felt totally vindicated.
This fossil questioning thing I can only put down to creationist mis-information as it is very clearly demonstrates the process of evolution, if you want to attack evolution attack it where it is weakest not where it is strongest. The fossil records show quite clearly the evolutionary journey of many creatures and scientists are very happy to talk about the fossil record as it shows so graphically the process of evolution.
This "creatures suddenly appearing" thing is very reminiscent of creationist attempts to disprove evolution. Honvid et al are always banging on about how like can only beget like as if evolution says that. It is a very typical straw man argument, you invent something that the other side have said and then attack it for all you are worth. These are tiny changes happening over hundreds of thousands and millions of years.

Initiate
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 5:37 pm

PostFri Jun 21, 2013 4:41 am » by Cambay411


Icarium wrote:
Jeckk wrote:Evolution is right now the #1 contender for the explanation of where we came from. However, it still is not fact. So to say without a doubt that it is the truth, is something only an ignorant person would do.


Totally agree, as I have said all along for me it is just the theory that seems to best cover all the bases.





I hold no quarrel when you phrase your opinion like this.^

The fossil record at best hints at evolution. And that is still pushing it.

They literally take a fossil from 500 million years ago and a fossil from 100 million years later and since they may have some similarities, they say well this evolved from that. The fossil record doesn't come close to showing any sort of step by step process of evolution. It actually doesn't even show a single step. The fossil record shows none of these "tiny changes" you speak of. The fossils they compare are way different with some similarities so they assume one evolved from the other.

And Darwin had far more doubts about his own theory than not understanding how the traits are carried forward.

If you watch an Evolution vs Creationism debate you wont hear the evolution side bring up the fossil record. The only time it will be brought up is by the creation side because the fossil record is (was) the back bone of the Theory of Evolution and the Creationists will use it to disprove evolution.

Do you see what im saying here tho? There is no fossil record of anything evolving at all. The closest the fossil record comes to showing evolution are two similar fossils that are a hundred million years apart.

If you see the evidence of evolution as good enough to be a believer than I understand that. But its literally a fact that the fossil record shows no step by step process (or even a single step) of evolution. Using the fossil record as evidence of evolution is just trying to connect a bunch of dots with very long lines in which most dots aren't even there.

And just to be clear I stand on no side of either argument. And really imo as well there are a lot of things that make sense about evolution.


PreviousNext

  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post
Visit Disclose.tv on Facebook