Quote:
Originally posted by Only-now
[B]Although many sources would lead you to believe that they have much proof of evolution, the truth is that there really isn't much. There isn't enough to say it happened..and there are certain things against it. Many of the pictures and things learned in school were actually lies and falsifications. There have been many fossils that have been faked to look as if they were a missing link,
Can you give specific examples? As far as I know, there are plenty of actual fossils out there that support the theory.
Quote:
Everyone must also realize that evoltion and adaptation are two different things. Evolution refers to one species changing into a completely new one..NOT that animals adapt to their environments. That is just where it starts and is supposed to continue...but in fact animals will switch back and forth between desirable traits. If evolution did occur, you would expect to find many of the fossils of the species' that existed in between the first life and all the various ones we have today..yet that is NOT the case. There are hardly any, IF any that show this. Finally...geological records show that during the course of the Earth...we went from no life...to every species on earth at once..it wasn't gradual.
Evolution doesn't require a species to change into a new one, by definition. It just predicts that such a thing will happen occasionally.
And I was under the impression that despite the gaps, there are quite a few transitional fossils.
And...the geological record does show a rather gradual change, at least as gradual as is predicted by evolution.
Quote:
I sort of believe both should be taught..as both can be looked at as theories and to a point...religions.
I'm fine with creationism being taught in a religion class, but not a science class, since it is not a science. Neither is intelligent design.
Quote:
Cambrian Explosion: This a period in Earth's history in which ALL of the 26 phyla we now have suddenly appeared at once. During the Precambrian period, there was only single-celled organisms, but when the Cambrian Explosion occuerd we had all the phyla appear simultaneously..and they haven't changed at all in comparison to today.
Are you saying evolution just -stopped- after the Cambrian Explosion? Because that is entirely incorrect. The Cambrian Explosion is not evidence against evolution. The rapid evolution of a variety of organisms can be attributed to quite a number of things including climate change, increased atmospheric oxygen levels, genetic complexity having reached a level that allowed for more varied rapid change, etc.
Quote:
Fossil Record: The fossil record of many animals and plants shows that in the various layers of Earth's surface..the organisms HAVE NOT become more complex over time. Examples are listed in the linked site...but it states that if you take a fossil from (for a number) 10 million years ago..and compare it to a newer layer of 7 million years ago (of the same creature) you won't see a change in complexity with the newer fossil being more complex than the older one.
Evolution does not mandate that organisms become more complex. This is a very common misconception and causes me to question this site's credibility if it is making that claim because it shows a lack of understanding of the subject. Evolution is not about creating "more advanced" lifeforms. All evolution states is that organisms which are well adapted to their environment will survive, while organisms that are not will die out which may result in changes (not necessarily "advancements" by our standards) over time.
Quote:
Transitional Fossils: Darwin himself said that this was the biggest argument against his theory..and to this day still is. There is a MAJOR lack of any fossils that show the change between not only human and whatever our previous form was...but also between other animals. It should also be noted that macro and micro evolution are NOT the same thing..and that small adaptations are not proof of evolution on a macro-scale. Here is a quote written by a paleontologist in a book supporting evolution. He wrote this in reply to a reader's comment on why he hadn't provided any transitional fossils: ?I fully agree with your comments about 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 ?. I will lay it on the line ? there is not one fossil which one could make a watertight argument.?
I believe someone else already commented on the very obvious reasons for lack of transitional fossils. Fossil preservation is not necessarily a common occurence. I mean, look at the art history record. Human art has been around relatively recently in thr grand timeline, yet many pieces are recovered damaged and many pieces written about are never recovered at all (such as most of the Etruscan temples, for example).
And if you're arguing here that "macroevolution" (i.e. speciation) has never occured, you're wrong. It has and it has been observed.
Evolution has quite a lot of substantial proof behind it. Most doubt about it results in reluctancy to accept scientific evidence as valid, or simple lack of information/misunderstandings, as this site seems to suffer from a great deal, considering they don't really seem to understand what evolution even is.
Quote:
There aren't any fossils that show the transition between any one species to another etc.
I'm not even sure how you can make this claim because it is -entirely- false. There are quite a few. Here's a long list of some of them: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html