This video is complete fantasy. Take the evolutionary animation for instance..none of that is supported in the fossil record. All of those transitions are completely inference, especially ape to man. If you believe that, you are thick..do your own investigation. There isn't any conclusive evidence for ape to man evolution what so ever.

And you don't think they're looking for true transitionals? Why do you think evolutionists trotted out piltdown man and nebraska man as proof of evolution for over 50 years, and why today the desperate search is still on to find the missing link. They thought it was neanderthal man but it turned out to be a guy with arthritus and rickets. The fossil record isn't just incomplete, it is ludicrously so..with hundreds of millions of them uncovered yet no true transitionals. I'll let real palentologists explain it to you:

Our museums now contain hundreds of millions of fossil specimens (40 million alone are contained in the Smithsonian Natural History Museum). If Darwin's theory were true, we should see at least tens of millions of unquestionable transitional forms. We see none. Even the late Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology at Harvard University and the leading spokesman for evolutionary theory prior to his recent death, confessed "the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology."

He continues:

The history of most fossil species includes two features inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Statis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear… 2. Sudden Appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed'. 6 The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. 7

The British Museum of Natural History boasts the largest collection of fossils in the world. Among the five respected museum officials, Sunderland interviewed Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum and editor of a prestigious scientific journal. Patterson is a well known expert having an intimate knowledge of the fossil record. He was unable to give a single example of Macro-Evolutionary transition. In fact, Patterson wrote a book for the British Museum of Natural History entitled, "Evolution". When asked why he had not included a single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book, Patterson responded:

...I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualize such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader? I wrote the text of my book four years ago. If I were to write it now, I think the book would be rather different. Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin's authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a paleontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least "show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived." I will lay it on the line - there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. 2

David B. Kitts. PhD (Zoology) is Head Curator of the Department of Geology at the Stoval Museum. In an evolutionary trade journal, he wrote:

Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of "seeing" evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of "gaps" in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them… 3

N. Heribert Nilsson, a famous botanist, evolutionist and professor at Lund University in Sweden, continues:

My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed… The fossil material is now so complete that it has been possible to construct new classes, and the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled. 4

Even the popular press is catching on. This is from an article in Newsweek magazine:

The missing link between man and apes, whose absence has comforted religious fundamentalists since the days of Darwin, is merely the most glamorous of a whole hierarchy of phantom creatures … The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms that lie between species, the more they have been frustrated. 5

Wake up people..your belief in evolution is purely metaphysical and requires faith. I suppose if you don't think about it too hard it makes sense. It's the same thing with abiogenesis..pure metaphysics.

Now, after over 120 years of the most extensive and painstaking geological exploration of every continent and ocean bottom, the picture is infinitely more vivid and complete than it was in 1859. Formations have been discovered containing hundreds of billions of fossils and our museums are filled with over 100 million fossils of 250,000 different species.

The availability of this profusion of hard scientific data should permit objective investigators to determine if Darwin was on the right track. What is the picture which the fossils have given us?… The gaps between major groups of organisms have been growing even wider and more undeniable. They can no longer be ignored or rationalized away with appeals to imperfection of the fossil record. 2

You've been had..be intellectually honest enough to admit it and seek out the truth. Science does not support evolution.

The people who don't want to hear this are the people who have made up their minds that they are responsible only to themselves. The idea of a higher power offends their selfish ideals. If you think you can stand on your own merits before a Holy God, feel free.

>> ^acidSpine:
Since your video has only 43 views and not a single vote, I'll just assume it's you and I talking here. Nobody can really untangle the mess of religiously-motivated psuedo-scientific conspiracy theories you subscribe to for you, least of all me. When you get all your information from Ray Comfort, Kent Hovind, the Discovery Institute and silly little videos like these it's no wonder you believe so much crap.
If these guys are so confident evolution is a lie and Jesus is the answer why don't they do the research, publish peer reviewed articles and step up to accept their Nobel prizes in Physics, Chemistry and Biology? What's that? Because they have no evidence, can't compete in the scientific arena and must resort to convincing unscientific plebs evolution is an ivory tower conspiracy set against Jesus? Spot on.
For the third time, do you wonder why thinking people don't want to hear this?

Actually, humanity has always understood the Universe was created. It's only since the theory of evolution that science butted in and claimed it wasn't true, yet of course has offered no actual evidence to prove it. Then they turned the argument around and claimed that since science hasn't explained everything, we have a God of the gaps. Yet the truth is, evolution *never* explained *anything*..it hasn't even been observed once! The only exception is the micro-evolution we see in kinds..as in one dog produces many kinds of different dogs..but it always produces according to its kind. A dog never produces a non-dog, which actually disputes the central tenant of the theory.. Now because evolution has been taught in the classrooms as fact people have faith in evolution instead of in God. The theory of evolution is a metaphysical belief. It is a religious claim that has no evidence.

I'll give a quick example. Take stellar evolution, for example. Did you know that no one has actually ever seen a star or planet being formed? According to stellar evolution, it should be common, and we can see literally trillions of stars from here. Does that make any sense to you? According to the bible, however, they were all created at the same time, and the evidence agrees with that. Did you know that according to scientific evidence of the age of the Universe we should see hundreds of millions of dead stars? Yet, funnily enough we only see a few hundred. If you do any actual investigation into the theory, you will see that's all it is..


>> ^acidSpine:
<IMG class=smiley src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/smilecute.gif">
But it's not a theory in a scientific sense, it's really a hypothesis. One that goes like...
A creator (Jesus) made the universe and everything in it by magic.
The evidence for this is that science hasn't explained absolutely everything possible to me in ways I can comprehend.
There are no ways to test this idea, in scientific terms it's unfalsifiable, like me saying my pet cat created the universe last Thursday.
Identical to the pet cat "theory" the god hypothesis helps us to understand the nature of the universe in a scientific sense exactly not at all.
So there's an idea with no evidence that can't make predictions and can't be tested and you say it's a valid Theory?
I ask again are you at all surprised science doesn't want anything to do with intelligent design?

That's what I believe..and intelligent design is a valid theory. I think you would have to pretty arrogant to think that there was no possibility of the Universe being created..and if it was, we will see evidence of design. Why is that a non-idea? If the Universe was created, science should be able to verify it..take for example, the DNA molecule, which is a digital information storage device with redundant error correction overlapping information, specified and complex information, and has syntax grammar and punctuation.. any programmer could tell you the likelyhood of that arising out of random mutation is laughable. its been compared to a print shop exploding into the encyclopedia brittanica. But science seems to think a trillion monkeys at a trillion type writers *will* eventually write shakesphere. but according to them our ancestors are rocks..i think i might buy that if it was a much closer relation.
>> ^acidSpine:
So... Your god did it?
Can I ask if you're at all surprised science doesn't want anything to do with these non-ideas?In reply to this comment by shinyblurry:
The cambrian explosion is a mystery and cannot be explained away by darwinian theory no matter how loudly people shout and stomp their feet.

So... Your god did it?

Can I ask if you're at all surprised science doesn't want anything to do with these non-ideas?In reply to this comment by shinyblurry:
The cambrian explosion is a mystery and cannot be explained away by darwinian theory no matter how loudly people shout and stomp their feet.

Fossils aren't rare, there are billions of them. According to darwins theory, there should be an overwhelming number of transitional fossils, but there aren't any. There is absolutely no evidence showing one kind of animal changing into another kind, period. Which is what the entire theory is based on.

"Given enough time we'll probably find one" Yeah, that's what the theory is hinged on..the faith that they exist. It's been 120 years but don't give up..we've uncovered billions of fossils but i bet thyere in there somewhere! It's a metaphysical belief and you have way more faith than I do.

>> ^MaxWilder:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Actually, you can find all the best ones here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
Brace yourself for the disclaimer:
"Ideally, this list would only recursively include 'true' transitionals, fossils representing ancestral specie from which later groups evolved, but most, if not all, of the fossils shown here represent extinct side branches, more or less closely related to the true ancestor" ie, no real transitions have ever been discovered..meaning evolution is a fraud
You accuse me of being blind to evidence..I just provided a mountain of evidence showing evolution to be a total fabrication..you do one google search and determine you're right..lol..pretty sad maxyboy. Shows the supreme level of ignorance im dealing with here.
>> ^MaxWilder:
I guess when you Google "transitional fossils" and see all those pages with huge lists of transitional fossils, they are all liars. But the religious people, they know science better than the scientists.
Duh, winning.


I'm glad to see that you accept that general transitional fossils exist. That is, we have many examples of fossils which demonstrated the transition from fish to amphibian, for example.
But you, like all creationists, demand more specificity. You need to see a single branch go from species A to B to C.
Here's the thing you don't seem to get, shiny. Fossils are rare. And during the process of evolution, extinct side branches are common. Well, "common" isn't exactly the right word. The branch that survives basically has to win the evolutionary lotto. So if an animal gets fossilized, it is by far more likely to come from an extinct side branch. It's simply statistics. So species A evolves into a zillion different species B, most of which are evolutionary dead ends. So to find fossil records of the exact variant of species B that fell directly between Species A (which we had a fossil) and Species C (which we had a fossil that wasn't close enough to species A to be sure about)... that's kinda like winning the lotto ten times in a row. We have plenty of them that are close. But the exact ones? You don't understand what you are asking for.
Given enough time, we'll probably find some. But they won't be proving evolution true. The Theory of Evolution is just the best explanation for the evidence we have. You can't really prove it true. The theory as it stands has made a ton of predictions that have been shown to be accurate, but none of those are "enough" for skeptics. Perhaps there is a piece of evidence which would be so bizarre that it could prove it false, but it doesn't really work the other way around. Only mathematical theorems can be "proven" true.
No, if we ever find a "true" transitional fossil as you have defined it, it will simply prove creationism false. But then again, you've never let logic or evidence dissuade you from your beliefs, so it probably wouldn't change anything.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Actually, you can find all the best ones here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
Brace yourself for the disclaimer:
"Ideally, this list would only recursively include 'true' transitionals, fossils representing ancestral specie from which later groups evolved, but most, if not all, of the fossils shown here represent extinct side branches, more or less closely related to the true ancestor" ie, no real transitions have ever been discovered..meaning evolution is a fraud
You accuse me of being blind to evidence..I just provided a mountain of evidence showing evolution to be a total fabrication..you do one google search and determine you're right..lol..pretty sad maxyboy. Shows the supreme level of ignorance im dealing with here.
>> ^MaxWilder:
I guess when you Google "transitional fossils" and see all those pages with huge lists of transitional fossils, they are all liars. But the religious people, they know science better than the scientists.
Duh, winning.



I'm glad to see that you accept that general transitional fossils exist. That is, we have many examples of fossils which demonstrated the transition from fish to amphibian, for example.

But you, like all creationists, demand more specificity. You need to see a single branch go from species A to B to C.

Here's the thing you don't seem to get, shiny. Fossils are rare. And during the process of evolution, extinct side branches are common. Well, "common" isn't exactly the right word. The branch that survives basically has to win the evolutionary lotto. So if an animal gets fossilized, it is by far more likely to come from an extinct side branch. It's simply statistics. So species A evolves into a zillion different species B, most of which are evolutionary dead ends. So to find fossil records of the exact variant of species B that fell directly between Species A (which we had a fossil) and Species C (which we had a fossil that wasn't close enough to species A to be sure about)... that's kinda like winning the lotto ten times in a row. We have plenty of them that are close. But the exact ones? You don't understand what you are asking for.

Given enough time, we'll probably find some. But they won't be proving evolution true. The Theory of Evolution is just the best explanation for the evidence we have. You can't really prove it true. The theory as it stands has made a ton of predictions that have been shown to be accurate, but none of those are "enough" for skeptics. Perhaps there is a piece of evidence which would be so bizarre that it could prove it false, but it doesn't really work the other way around. Only mathematical theorems can be "proven" true.

No, if we ever find a "true" transitional fossil as you have defined it, it will simply prove creationism false. But then again, you've never let logic or evidence dissuade you from your beliefs, so it probably wouldn't change anything.

@TheGenk @Skeeve @Boise_Lib @gwiz665 @packo @IronDwarf @MaxWilder @westy @BicycleRepairMan @shuac @KnivesOut

Evolution is pseudo-science. It exists in the realm of imagination, and cannot be scientifically verified. At best, evolution science is forensic science, and what has been found not only does not support it, but entirely rules it out. I don't think any of you realize how weak the case for evolution really is. None of them quotes, as far as I know, are from creation scientists btw

No true transitional forms in the fossil record:

Darwins theory proposed that slow change over a great deal of time could evolve one kind of thing into another. Such as reptiles to birds. The theory proposed that we should see in the fossil records billions of these transitional forms, yet we have found none. When the theory was first proposed, darwinists pleaded poverty in the fossil record, claiming the missing links were yet to be found. It was then claimed that the links were missing because conditions conspired against fossilizing them, or that they had been eroded or destroyed in subsequent fossilization.

120 years have gone by since then. We have uncovered an extremely rich fossil record with billions of fossils, a record which has completely failed to produce the expected transitions. It has become obvious that there was no process that could have miraculously destroyed the transitionals yet left the terminal forms intact.

The next theory proposed was "hopeful monster" theory, which states that evolution occurs in large leaps instead of small ones. Some even suggested that a bird could have hatched from a reptile egg. This is against all genetic evidence, and has never been observed.

The complete lack of transitional forms is not even the worst problem for evolution, considering the big gaps between the higher categories, and the systemic absence of transitional forms between families classes orders and phyla.

"I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader?"

Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History (and a hardcore evolutionist), in a letter to Luther Sunderland, April 10, 1979 admitting no transitional forms exist.

"Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory."

Ronald R. West, PhD (paleoecology and geology) (Assistant Professor of Paleobiology at Kansas State University), "Paleoecology and uniformitarianism". Compass, vol. 45, May 1968, p. 216

"Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed. But, as by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?"

-Charles Darwin

"In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another."

-Evolutionist Stephen M. Stanley, Johns Hopkins University

Fossil record disputes evolutionary theory:

According to evolutionary theory we should see an evolutionary tree of organisms starting from the least complex to the most complex. Instead, what we do see in the fossil record is the very sudden appearance of fully-formed and fully-functional complex life.

If you examine the fossil record, you see all kinds of complex life suddenly jumping into existence during a period that evolutionists refer to as the "Cambrian explosion".

None of the fossilized life forms found in the "Cambrian period" have any predecessors prior to that time. In essence, the "Cambrian period" represents a "sudden explosion of life" in geological terms.

Evolutionists try to disprove this by stretching it over a period of 50 million years, but they have no transitional fossils to prove that theory before or during.

"The earliest and most primitive members of every order already have the basic ordinal characters, and in no case is an approximately continuous series from one order to another known. In most cases the break is so sharp and the gap so large that the origin of the order is speculative and much disputed"

-Paleontologist George Gaylord

What disturbs evolutionists greatly is that complex life just appears in the fossil record out of nowhere, fully functional and formed.

A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth's geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants - instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God.

-Paleontologist Mark Czarnecki (an evolutionist)

"It is as though they [fossils] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. Both schools of thought (Punctuationists and Gradualists) despise so-called scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record. The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and both reject this alternative."

-Richard Dawkins, 'The Blind Watchmaker', W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 1996, pp. 229-230

Evolution can't explain the addition of information that turns one kind into another kind

There is no example recorded of functional information being added to any creature, ever.

"The key issue is the type of change required — to change microbes into men requires changes that increase the genetic information content, from over half a million DNA ‘letters’ of even the ‘simplest’ self-reproducing organism to three billion ‘letters’ (stored in each human cell nucleus)."

Species just don't change. Kind only produces kind:

"Every paleontologist knows that most species don't change. That's bothersome....brings terrible distress. ....They may get a little bigger or bumpier but they remain the same species and that's not due to imperfection and gaps but stasis. And yet this remarkable stasis has generally been ignored as no data. If they don't change, its not evolution so you don't talk about it."

Evolutionist Stephen J. Gould of Harvard University

Not enough bones:

Today the population grows at 2% per year. If we set the population growth rate at just 0.5% per year, then total population reduces to zero at about 4500 years ago. If the first humans lived 1,000,000 years ago, then at this 0.5% growth rate, we would have 10^2100 (ten with 2100 zeroes following it) people right now. If the present population was a result of 1,000,000 years of human history, then several trillion people must have lived and died since the emergence of our species. Where are all the bones? And finally, if the population was sufficiently small until only recently, then how could a correspondingly infinitesimally small number of mutations have evolved the human race?

"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."

-Professor Louis Bounoure, past president of the Biological Society of Strassbourg, Director of the Strassbourg Zoological Museum and Director of Research at the French National Center of Scientific Research.

Try to debunk this if you can
http://www.youtube.com/watchv=tYLHxcqJmoM&feature=PlayList&p=C805D4953D9DEC66&index=0&playnext=1

More fun facts:

There are no records of any human civilization past 4000 BC

"The research in the development of the [radiocarbon] dating technique consisted of two stages—dating of samples from the historic and prehistoric epochs, respectively. Arnold [a co-worker] and I had our first shock when our advisors informed us that history extended back only for 5,000 years . . You read statements to the effect that such and such a society or archeological site is 20,000 years old. We learned rather that these numbers, these ancient ages, are not known accurately; in fact, the earliest historical date that has been established with any degree of certainty is about the time of the First Dynasty of Egypt."—*Willard Libby, Science, March 3, 1961, p. 624.

Prior to a certain point several thousand years ago, there was no trace of man having ever existed. After that point, civilization, writing, language, agriculture, domestication, and all the rest—suddenly exploded into intense activity!

"No more surprising fact has been discovered, by recent excavation, than the suddenness with which civilization appeared in the world. This discovery is the very opposite to that anticipated. It was expected that the more ancient the period, the more primitive would excavators find it to be, until traces of civilization ceased altogether and aboriginal man appeared. Neither in Babylonia nor Egypt, the lands of the oldest known habitations of man, has this been the case."—P.J. Wiseman, New Discoveries, in Babylonia, about Genesis (1949 ), p. 28.

Oldest people/language recorded in c. 3000 B.C., and were located in Mesopotamia.

The various radiodating techniques could be so inaccurate that mankind has only been on earth a few thousand years.

"Dates determined by radioactive decay may be off—not only by a few years, but by orders of magnitude . . Man, instead of having walked the earth for 3.6 million years, may have been around for only a few thousand."—*Robert Gannon, "How Old Is It?" Popular Science, November 1979, p. 81.

Moonwalk disproves age of moon:

The moon is constantly being bombarded by cosmic dust particles. Scientists were able to measure the rate at which these particles would accumulate. Using their estimates according to their understanding that the age of the Earth was billions of years, their most conservative estimate predicted a dust layer 54 feet deep. This is why the lander had those huge balloon tires, to be prepared to land on a sea of dust. Neil Armstrong, after saying those famous words, uttered two more which disproved the age of the moon entirely "its solid!". Far from being 54 feet, they found the dust was 3/4 of an inch.

Evolution is a fairy tale that modern civilization has bought, hook line and sinker. Humorously, atheists accuse creationists of beiieving in myths without any evidence..when they place their entire faith in an unproven theory even evolutionists know is fatally flawed and invalid. Evolution is a meta physical belief that requires faith. Period.

Evolution is false, science affirms a divine Creator
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Books,%20Tracts%20&%20Preaching/Tracts/big_daddy.htm

Though most of this is undisputable, I'm just getting started..

>> ^shinyblurry:

And your participation has been? You've offered no evidence for anything. If you aren't going to offer anything except "ur dum bcuz u dnt believe wut i do!!!", then please stay in the peanut gallery.
>> ^IronDwarf:
>> ^shinyblurry:
What scientific information? I asked for transitional forms, and I got distant cousins..there simply aren't any in the fossil record. You also may not have noticed that I am having a few conversations at once here. I'm happy to discuss transitional forms all day long because it shows how flawed evolution as a theory really is. Darwin stated they should be everywhere..yet in 120 years of excauvation, none have been uncovered. Zero. Pretty damning evidence in my opinion.
>> ^IronDwarf:
How did you manage to switch the argument into the formation of life? I thought the discussion was about the evolution of life.
When people provide you with actual scientific information, you just find a way to push the conversation in a different direction or move the goalposts, so you won't have to claim you are wrong.
You claim to know about science and understand it, but if you really understood science, you would know that these scientific theories wouldn't stand up at all on just faith or a vague scientific conspiracy. Science simply doesn't work that way.


You have been given lots of scientific information throughout this and other discussions. That you continue to choose to ignore it or purposefully misunderstand it tells me you are just a troll. If by some chance you aren't a troll, then you seem like the type of person who will always cling to your religious beliefs and no amount of evidence will convince you. You seem comfortable in your ignorance, so enjoy it. You are a brick wall.



I've been following the discussion from the beginning. I can go back and quote all those who have already provided you with actual evidence, but that doesn't seem to be doing you any good. You don't want to hear it. It is a waste of time.

I'm sorry I got involved in the first place. Just reading this discussion is tiring; trying to argue with you is even more so.

And your participation has been? You've offered no evidence for anything. If you aren't going to offer anything except "ur dum bcuz u dnt believe wut i do!!!", then please stay in the peanut gallery.

>> ^IronDwarf:
>> ^shinyblurry:
What scientific information? I asked for transitional forms, and I got distant cousins..there simply aren't any in the fossil record. You also may not have noticed that I am having a few conversations at once here. I'm happy to discuss transitional forms all day long because it shows how flawed evolution as a theory really is. Darwin stated they should be everywhere..yet in 120 years of excauvation, none have been uncovered. Zero. Pretty damning evidence in my opinion.
>> ^IronDwarf:
How did you manage to switch the argument into the formation of life? I thought the discussion was about the evolution of life.
When people provide you with actual scientific information, you just find a way to push the conversation in a different direction or move the goalposts, so you won't have to claim you are wrong.
You claim to know about science and understand it, but if you really understood science, you would know that these scientific theories wouldn't stand up at all on just faith or a vague scientific conspiracy. Science simply doesn't work that way.


You have been given lots of scientific information throughout this and other discussions. That you continue to choose to ignore it or purposefully misunderstand it tells me you are just a troll. If by some chance you aren't a troll, then you seem like the type of person who will always cling to your religious beliefs and no amount of evidence will convince you. You seem comfortable in your ignorance, so enjoy it. You are a brick wall.

>> ^shinyblurry:

What scientific information? I asked for transitional forms, and I got distant cousins..there simply aren't any in the fossil record. You also may not have noticed that I am having a few conversations at once here. I'm happy to discuss transitional forms all day long because it shows how flawed evolution as a theory really is. Darwin stated they should be everywhere..yet in 120 years of excauvation, none have been uncovered. Zero. Pretty damning evidence in my opinion.
>> ^IronDwarf:
How did you manage to switch the argument into the formation of life? I thought the discussion was about the evolution of life.
When people provide you with actual scientific information, you just find a way to push the conversation in a different direction or move the goalposts, so you won't have to claim you are wrong.
You claim to know about science and understand it, but if you really understood science, you would know that these scientific theories wouldn't stand up at all on just faith or a vague scientific conspiracy. Science simply doesn't work that way.



You have been given lots of scientific information throughout this and other discussions. That you continue to choose to ignore it or purposefully misunderstand it tells me you are just a troll. If by some chance you aren't a troll, then you seem like the type of person who will always cling to your religious beliefs and no amount of evidence will convince you. You seem comfortable in your ignorance, so enjoy it. You are a brick wall.

What scientific information? I asked for transitional forms, and I got distant cousins..there simply aren't any in the fossil record. You also may not have noticed that I am having a few conversations at once here. I'm happy to discuss transitional forms all day long because it shows how flawed evolution as a theory really is. Darwin stated they should be everywhere..yet in 120 years of excauvation, none have been uncovered. Zero. Pretty damning evidence in my opinion.

>> ^IronDwarf:
How did you manage to switch the argument into the formation of life? I thought the discussion was about the evolution of life.
When people provide you with actual scientific information, you just find a way to push the conversation in a different direction or move the goalposts, so you won't have to claim you are wrong.
You claim to know about science and understand it, but if you really understood science, you would know that these scientific theories wouldn't stand up at all on just faith or a vague scientific conspiracy. Science simply doesn't work that way.

I'm not sure how you see yourself as any less dogmatic than I am..and Im sorry for making you sad. I hope that you haven't wasted too many kleenexs on me, but save them for yourself..you'll need them when you figure out evolution is wrong.

Here is the key portion of your wiki article:

"Ideally, this list would only recursively include 'true' transitionals, fossils representing ancestral specie from which later groups evolved, but most, if not all, of the fossils shown here represent extinct side branches, more or less closely related to the true ancestor"

What we see in the fossil record is that when something new shows up its all at once and is fully formed and then never changes. Ie, no true transitionals have ever been discovered. What has never been witnessed in the fossil record is steady progressive change of one kind of thing into something completely different.

You think this is a gap? It's a super massive black hole, and the vacuum may be in your head if you believe it. Here's some info:

John Bonner, a biologist at Princeton, writes that traditional textbook discussions of ancestral descent are "a festering mass of unsupported assertions." In recent years, paleontologists have retreated from simple connect-the-dot scenarios linking earlier and later species. Instead of ladders, they now talk of bushes. What we see in the fossils, according to this view, are only the twigs, the final end-products of evolution, while the key transitional forms which would give a clue about the origin of major animal groups remain completely hidden.

The blank spots on evolutionary "tree" charts occur at just the points where, according to Darwin's theory, the crucial changes had to take place. The direct ancestors of all the major orders: primates, carnivores, and so forth are completely missing. There is no fossil evidence for a "grandparent" of the monkey, for example. "Modern gorillas, orangutans, and chimpanzees spring out of nowhere," writes paleontologist Donald Johansen. "They are here today; they have no yesterday." The same is true of giraffes, elephants, wolves, and all species; they all simply burst upon the scene de novo [anew], as it were.

I think you're the one who needs to re-evaluate your beliefs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6EiN-3uWak




>> ^Skeeve:
>> ^shinyblurry:
the bar is still incredibly low..one of the best transitional forms out there is based on a whales nostril..i would find that embarassing if i believed in evolution. show me something convincing. also, give me an example of mutation that increases information in a genome while you're at it.
You've said that you aren't ignorant of science, yet you ignore the science that proves these things. You, and people like you, are not really interested in the facts, you are interested in finding all the gaps so you can point and say "aha, there is a god!" I am truly saddened by people like you - it breaks my heart that you can be so smart and so blind at the same time.
But you asked for yet more proof so I am at your service.
A (comparatively) short list of transitional forms: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
As for the claim that mutations not increasing information in a genome:
"We have observed the evolution of
increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)
If these do not qualify as information, then nothing about information is relevant to evolution in the first place."
You can look up those scholarly articles if you actually don't want to remain ignorant. They are listed here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

>> ^spoco2:

I was more annoyed that nothing was said of the 'evidence' as to why this is. I mean, what is the reasoning behind thinking that they didn't evolve slowly? If we don't have fossil records, then what has made them believe that it was a mutation?

I believe it's simply that they can't find any 'missing links' and that as far back as they can go the crazy nutters still have giant hammer heads, so therefore they're starting to think there was no intermediate phase.
>> ^Mammaltron:

I wish they'd explain a little more about the 'almost overnight' theory. A individual mutant became a new species, and had to immediately adapt new hunting techniques to live?
That just seems a little... contrary to everything I've ever learned about evolution.

Exactly. It's crazy hence the debate. A baby shark comes out all twisted and has to scurry off elesewhere to try and get by.. and makes it so well its kids are doing gangbusters 40 million years later.
They say that spreading its sensory gear across a wider face helps with triangulating prey. Wikipedia also says they have 360 vision which contradicts this film. Easy enough to test tho..any marine biologists on the sift?

I was more annoyed that nothing was said of the 'evidence' as to why this is. I mean, what is the reasoning behind thinking that they didn't evolve slowly? If we don't have fossil records, then what has made them believe that it was a mutation?