UPROOTED: The Tale of Evolution Keep Changing

[tosca1]

It wasn't a tree. It's more like a....................................."messy vine."


This thread is inspired by what I found while involved in a discussion in another thread.
This thread was inspired by what I'd posted in another thread.
Post #64

DE-BUNKED: Scientific American's 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense by John Rennie

How many times do I have to say it? I suppose I have to yell: I HAVE NO PROBLEMS WITH MICRO-EVOLUTION. There is such a thing as ADAPTATION. THE CONTROVERSIAL ISSUE IS ON THE THEORY OF......................COMMON DESCENT (AND MACRO-EVOLUTION) Oh, you're worried about being descended...

debatepolitics.com

The Reason There Are So Many Gaps In The Record Of Human Evolution​

Piecing together human evolution is a frustrating job.
The simple family tree we once pictured is now looking more like a messy vine, and the fossil record is patchy, making it hard to establish how possible ancestral species related to each other.
When we do have fossils, their ages are often unclear.

A new study not only improves our capacity to identify fossils' dates, but explains some major gaps: in southern Africa our specimens are restricted to dry eras.

Major caves were closed by vegetation and flowstones for periods of hundreds of thousands of years between 3.2 and 1.3 million years ago.
“Because the accumulation of fossils was constrained to certain periods, the evolution of these early hominins looks like it happened in rapid bursts,
but it may have actually been a much more gradual process,” Schoville said.


Unfortunately, Schoville explained to IFLScience, we can't do much to fill these gaps, with no likely places to look for wet-era fossils.

The Reason There Are So Many Gaps In The Record Of Human Evolution

The Reason There Are So Many Gaps In The Record Of Human Evolution

www.iflscience.com

So - this thread will be focused on the so-called family tree, and what the fossil records say. It will also include INTELLIGENT DESIGN.


Contrary to what some atheists have been saying - creationism (Intelligent Design), is based on what has been observed and analyzed.
COMPLEXITY and ORDER, are given as evidence for the belief that the universe couldn't have come about by sheer random.
Complexity and Order, have been observed, studied and thoroughly analyzed.


"Scientists, like many others, are touched with awe at the order and complexity of nature." - National Academy of Science


Complexity and Order give evidence for...........................DESIGN!


And yet.........................the irony - no one has ever observed macro-evolution at any time! There is not a single evidence.



Like I said before................................... evolution has to start somewhere.

 

[tosca1]

Speaking of gaps......


The Phylogenetic Chart






I've just discovered Carl Kerby, so I looked him up.
Amusing story how he got introduced to apologetics.



Carl was first introduced to apologetics by two pilots after he’d told them evolution was compatible with the Bible, which is what he’d been taught in Sunday school.
These men pulled out their Bible and showed him that what the WORLD taught wasn’t the same as what the WORD taught.

Reasons for Hope - Carl Kerby

www.rforh.com

 

[tosca1]

Hahaha - just to remind you how apes really look like:










Primate, in zoology, any mammal of the group that includes the lemurs, lorises, tarsiers, monkeys, apes, and humans.
The order Primates, including more than 500 species, is the third most diverse order of mammals, after rodents (Rodentia) and bats (Chiroptera).
- Britannica

 

[tosca1]

The same nightmare continues.........................even today!

 

[tosca1]

Complexity and Order have been observed, studied and well-analyzed.

 

[Loulit01]

Seek professional help.

 

[tosca1]

Seek professional help.

That's all you gonna say?
I gather this thread must've gotten you stumped?

Instead of stooping down to that level, why don't you try defending your position?

Insults, aren't rebuttals you know.
Throwing insults are a sure sign that one cannot refute the argument.

 

[spud_meister]

Contrary to what some atheists have been saying - creationism (Intelligent Design), is based on what has been observed and analyzed.
COMPLEXITY and ORDER, are given as evidence for the belief that the universe couldn't have come about by sheer random.
Complexity and Order, have been observed, studied and thoroughly analyzed.

Is this thread about evolution, or the beginning of the universe? Assuming evolution, can you point to anyone that's ever claimed evolution is random?

And yet.........................the irony - no one has ever observed macro-evolution at any time! There is not a single evidence.

No one's ever observed macro-continental drift, either. We've seen micro changes in the position of continental plates, but there's certainly no evidence for the change in position of entire continents. It's just silly to assume small changes can accumulate over time.

 

[LittleNipper]

Seek professional help.

Tosca1 has and his name is JESUS. Who do you seek help from?

 

[tosca1]

Is this thread about evolution, or the beginning of the universe?

It can include the beginning and the origin of life.
After all, they're all connected somehow.

In a rational discussion, can we truly say................................. "let's talk about evolution, but let's not bring up origin of life?"

If your argument as an evolutionist is that life came suddenly from nothing - how can we not talk about the beginning of the universe?

Assuming evolution, can you point to anyone that's ever claimed evolution is random?

I don't remember saying that.
Can you cite, please?


I said:

COMPLEXITY and ORDER, are given as evidence for the belief that the universe couldn't have come about by sheer random.

No one's ever observed macro-continental drift, either. We've seen micro changes in the position of continental plates, but there's certainly no evidence for the change in position of entire continents. It's just silly to assume small changes can accumulate over time.

What is a MACRO- continental drift?
How is it different from a continental drift? Explain please.

 

[spud_meister]

It can include the beginning and the origin of life.
After all, they're all connected somehow.

In a rational discussion, can we truly say................................. "let's talk about evolution, but let's not bring up origin of life?"

If your argument as an evolutionist is that life came suddenly from nothing - how can we not talk about the beginning of the universe?








I don't remember saying that.
Can you cite, please?


I said:

COMPLEXITY and ORDER, are given as evidence for the belief that the universe couldn't have come about by sheer random.

That's precisely why I asked you to clarify. Your thread's about evolution, but then your commentary references the beginning of the universe. Now you've thrown in the beginning of life. That's three different fields of study, physics, chemistry and biology, you've thrown into a thread. Which do you want to discuss?

What is a MACRO- continental drift?
How is it different from a continental drift? Explain please.

Macro continental drift is the idea that continents can just massively change position. That that Indian tectonic plate can collide with the Eurasian plate with such force as to push rock kilometers into the sky. This differs from micro-continental drift, which is observable and minor changes in plate positions over time. There's simply no evidence that these very small changes could result in the creation of something like the Himalayas, as the idea that small changes can accumulate over time is obviously silly.

 

[Loulit01]

That's all you gonna say?
I gather this thread must've gotten you stumped?

Instead of stooping down to that level, why don't you try defending your position?

Defend my position? LOL Pick up any biology book.

Insults, aren't rebuttals you know.
Throwing insults are a sure sign that one cannot refute the argument.

I rebutted your last thread and your thread before that. Facts have no impact on you — you are a True Believer. When you read On the Origen of Species, I'll be happy to discuss it with you. Until then, seek professional help.

 

[tosca1]

No one's ever observed macro-continental drift, either. We've seen micro changes in the position of continental plates, but there's certainly no evidence for the change in position of entire continents. It's just silly to assume small changes can accumulate over time.

Continental Drift has been updated to PLATE TECTONICS.
It's not comparable to macro-evolution (evolution of organism from one kind to another).


Plate tectonics is like a modern update to continental drift.
In the 1960s, scientists discovered plate edges through magnetic surveys of the ocean floor and through the seismic listening networks built to monitor nuclear testing, according to Encyclopedia Britannica (opens in new tab).
Alternating patterns of magnetic anomalies on the ocean floor indicated seafloor spreading (opens in new tab), where new plate material is born.
Magnetic (opens in new tab) minerals aligned in ancient rocks on continents also showed that the continents have shifted relative to one another.

In fact, plates moving together created the highest mountains in the world, the Himalayans, and the mountains are still growing due to the plates pushing together, even now, according to National Geographic (opens in new tab). Despite his incredible continental drift evidence, Wegener never lived to see his theory gain wider acceptance.

Continental Drift: Theory & Definition

Continental drift theory introduced the idea of moving continents.

www.livescience.com

2.4: Evidence for Plate Tectonics

geo.libretexts.org

What cause earthquakes?
Don't they issue tsunami warnings due to plate tectonics when there are strong earthquakes?

 

[tosca1]

Defend my position? LOL Pick up any biology book.

I rebutted your last thread and your thread before that. Facts have no impact on you — you are a True Believer. When you read On the Origen of Species, I'll be happy to discuss it with you. Until then, seek professional help.

Where did you give your rebuttal?
If you'd given one - there would've been a counter (unless I missed your post).

CITE!

 

[LittleNipper]

That's precisely why I asked you to clarify. Your thread's about evolution, but then your commentary references the beginning of the universe. Now you've thrown in the beginning of life. That's three different fields of study, physics, chemistry and biology, you've thrown into a thread. Which do you want to discuss?



Macro continental drift is the idea that continents can just massively change position. That that Indian tectonic plate can collide with the Eurasian plate with such force as to push rock kilometers into the sky. This differs from micro-continental drift, which is observable and minor changes in plate positions over time. There's simply no evidence that these very small changes could result in the creation of something like the Himalayas, as the idea that small changes can accumulate over time is obviously silly.

So tell us how did life originate naturally? Is this observable? Is it repeatable? If life cannot originate naturally, and there is no Creator, then evolution has no beginning. And that is the end of the discussion.

 

[tosca1]

That's precisely why I asked you to clarify. Your thread's about evolution, but then your commentary references the beginning of the universe. Now you've thrown in the beginning of life. That's three different fields of study, physics, chemistry and biology, you've thrown into a thread. Which do you want to discuss?

They're inter-connected, as explained. You can't discuss evolution and at the same time exclude origin of life, and how the universe began.
What is there to choose? I'm responding.......................am I not?
I gave the arguments (posts) and support for my arguments (videos) - didn't I?
You might want to give your feed back or rebuttals on those.

Macro continental drift is the idea that continents can just massively change position. That that Indian tectonic plate can collide with the Eurasian plate with such force as to push rock kilometers into the sky. This differs from micro-continental drift, which is observable and minor changes in plate positions over time. There's simply no evidence that these very small changes could result in the creation of something like the Himalayas, as the idea that small changes can accumulate over time is obviously silly.

No such thing as MACRO when it comes to contnental drift.
It's just simply called......................continental drift.

Unless you can give me a link that explains what a MACRO continental drift is.

 

[Loulit01]

Where did you give your rebuttal?
If you'd given one - there would've been a counter (unless I missed your post).

CITE!

I cite these two books as my rebuttal. Until you read them you have no business in a serious discussion of the subject.

I'll stop posting now so you can catch up on your reading. Have a nice day.

 

[tosca1]

I cite these two books as my rebuttal. Until you read them you have no business in a serious discussion of the subject.

I'll stop posting now so you can catch up on your reading. Have a nice day.

Explain them in your own words.
If you'd read and understood them - surely you can talk about them..................RIGHT?


Anyway -

You don't just give books in a forum, telling folks to read them.............................and pass them off as your rebuttals!
It doesn't work that way.
This isn't a Book Club!


Until you understand the difference between a forum and a book club -
you definitely and absolutely have no business being here, let alone participating in a serious discussion that's meant for sensible people.

What Can You Do in a Book Club, and What's the Point?

What is a book club and what can you learn at one of these meetings? How do book clubs work? Learn how to start a book club and choose books to read.

www.thoughtco.com

 

[spud_meister]

They're inter-connected, as explained. You can't discuss evolution and at the same time exclude origin of life!
What is there to choose? I'm responding.......................am I not?

Yes, you can, because they're separate processes. Abiogenesis, the start of life from non-life, has absolutely nothing at all to do with evolution, the change of life over time to suit its environment. It's entirely possible abiogenesis was a random event, however, evolution is not random. The two cannot be conflates in the way you're conflating them here.

No such thing as MACRO when it comes to contnental drift.
It's just simply called......................continental drift.

Unless you can give me a link that explains what a MACRO continental drift is.

No, I'm drawing an arbitrary distinction between two points in the same process. In the way small changes in continental position over short time frames accumulate into large differences in position over a long time frame, so to do the genetic differences between isolated groups of the same species.

Can you provide a definition of macroevolution that excludes the accumulation of small differences over a long time as a mechanism for the changes in separated populations over time? Or is evolution just called evolution?

 

[spud_meister]

So tell us how did life originate naturally? Is this observable? Is it repeatable?

Is the existence of God dependent on my personal knowledge of historical events?

If life cannot originate naturally, and there is no Creator, then evolution has no beginning. And that is the end of the discussion.

So tell me how the Creator created life? Is it observable? Is it repeatable? If life cannot originate supernaturally, then that's the end of the discussion.

 

[Loulit01]

Explain them in your own words.
If you'd read and understood them - surely you can talk about them..................RIGHT?


Anyway -

You don't just give books in a forum, telling folks to read them.............................and pass them off as your rebuttals!
It doesn't work that way.
This isn't a Book Club!


Until you understand the difference between a forum and a book cub -
you definitely and absolutely have no business being here, let alone pareticipating in a serioys discussion that's meant for sensible people.

What Can You Do in a Book Club, and What's the Point?

What is a book club and what can you learn at one of these meetings? How do book clubs work? Learn how to start a book club and choose books to read.

www.thoughtco.com

I'm done posting until you're done reading them. Otherwise you aren't qualified to discuss it.

 

[tosca1]

Yes, you can, because they're separate processes. Abiogenesis, the start of life from non-life, has absolutely nothing at all to do with evolution, the change of life over time to suit its environment. It's entirely possible abiogenesis was a random event, however, evolution is not random. The two cannot be conflates in the way you're conflating them here.


No, I'm drawing an arbitrary distinction between two points in the same process. In the way small changes in continental position over short time frames accumulate into large differences in position over a long time frame, so to do the genetic differences between isolated groups of the same species.

Can you provide a definition of macroevolution that excludes the accumulation of small differences over a long time as a mechanism for the changes in separated populations over time? Or is evolution just called evolution?

Read my lips: they're not comparable!



Furthermore -
They don't have to wait over time to know about movements of plate tectonics! And, shifting continents.
Thanks to advanced technology!

 

[tosca1]

I'm done posting until you're done reading them. Otherwise you aren't qualified to discuss it.

GOOD!
Bye-bye.

Have a nice day.

 

[spud_meister]

Read my lips: they're not comparable!



Furthermore -
They don't have to wait over time to know about movements of plate tectonics! And, shifting continents.
Thanks to advanced technology!

Plate tectonics was a facetious analogy to evolution. How do you exclude the accumulation of changes over time in isolated population from your definition of macro evolution?

 

[tosca1]

Is the existence of God dependent on my personal knowledge of historical events?

The beginning of the universe and the origin of life, should be HISTORICAL events!
The historical events are dependent on the existence of the DESIGNER (which Christians believe is their GOD).
Intelligent Design does not specifically say that the Designer is God or a deity.
But Christians of course, would see ithe Designer as their God - especially so with what's been in the Bible about the universe!

So tell me how the Creator created life? Is it observable? Is it repeatable? If life cannot originate supernaturally, then that's the end of the discussion.

Complexity and order are evidence that the universe and everything in it, has been designed!
Those were observed and analyzed.