|
|
 |
|
Ok here we go. I’m going to pretend this is actually a discussion of the science.
Actually there a host of transitional fossils, in a very real way almost any fossil can be
considered a transitional fossil but for the sake of this discussion probably the most famous
transitional fossil called Archaeopteryx that has avian feathers and skeletal structure with
dinosaur features is hard to argue. Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus are two separate whale ancestors that
still have four legs from when they used to walk on land. There is always debate among biologists
and paleontologists about where to draw the lines between similar species but the three examples I
have just listed have never ‘been revealed to one or the other, not a transition,’ and there are
a host of other examples as well.
I’m not sure what your point is about the Cambrian period, we have both simple and complex
organisms now and organisms are still evolving now. I think you must be incorrectly paraphrasing
somebody else’s specious species argument.
I fail to see why the hussy genetic transcripts are in anyway proof against macroevolution. While it
is interesting, it is easily explained by the fact that these are tied to basic metabolic and
cellular function in two organisms that live symbiotically. In fact there are similar amino acids
shared to varying degrees with all mammals. Simply put yeast lives throughout our system, so it is
hardly surprising that we share a high coincidence of amino acids. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
You should understand something before you deny it. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
“We all know that macroevolution is organisms evolving into other organisms.”
Actually, macroevolution is a large-scale form of microevolution, which is the occurrence of small
changes within a group of organisms over short periods of time. It doesn’t necessarily mean one
organism evolving into an entirely different one.
“But there is no solid evidence for macroevolution. There are no transitional fossils in the
fossil record.”
I take it that, seeing as how you posted on the “I’m Against It” side of my debate entitled
“Transitional Fossils Do Exist Within The Fossil Record”, you didn’t even look at my post
within that same debate which lists many transitional fossils? I can list even more if needed.
However, if you don’t know anything about evolution in general, me posting a list of transitional
fossils is going to look like a foreign language to you, possibly accomplishing nothing in the end.
“And the Cambrian Explosion reveals thousands of fossils showing both "simple" and complex
organisms existed at the same time as scientists thought organsims were evolving. Various bone
findings have been revealed to either be one or the other, not a transition.”
The Precambrian fossils that have been found are consistent with the branching patterns of
evolution. What they aren’t consistent with is the sudden appearance of complex life on Earth.
Bacteria appear well before multi-cellular organisms, and there are fossils giving evidence of
transitions leading to halkierids and arthropods. There are transitional fossils within the Cambrian
explosion fossils as well. For example, there are lobopods (worms with legs) which are intermediate
between arthropods and worms.
“Also, amino acid sequences in organisms. Humans are the least different from yeast, while the
simplest organism above yeast is most different.”
Assuming, for the sake of the argument, that this quoted statement of yours is true, what’s your
point?
“Much more evidence against macroevolution there is.”
I haven’t seen any evidence against macroevolution in this debate at all yet. If you’ve got some
I’d like to see it. What you’ve typed so far that I’ve seen doesn’t classify as anything
more than wishful thinking.
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
You've taken "evolution" discussions to another level by bringing up macroevolution and honestly I'm
not sure where to go with it. On the one hand I accept the general concept of evolution. However,
I think it would be extremely rare if not nonexistant that one creature would transform and/or give
birth to a dramatically different creature in one generation (if I'm understanding macroevolution
correctly).
I don't think evolution and/or different types of evolution are perfect theories, but I do find them
infinitely preferable to the story of Genesis. The truth may be somewhere in the middle.
So if you're not a believer of macroevolution does that mean you personally don't believe in
evolution either? |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
11 Oct 2008 18:28
Sign In
For and Against Recent Activity
